Written by Frederica

 

Politicians are fond of ‘law’. They constantly quote ‘law’. They have a distinct predilection for making new laws rather than invoking laws already in existence that would probably still be appropriate.  When new laws are made we never hear of the old ones being repealed!

Many politicians are ‘lawyers’ themselves.  This appears to give them the belief that they are so much more ‘clever’ than the rest of their fellow countrymen.  Thus they prate about law and lawmaking as if it confers upon them the status of supreme beings.  Thus, hubris gathers them in and imbues them with the excess of ambition and pride that we see before us in their daily posturing.  Eventually, ‘Hubris’ leads them all down into the arms of Nemesis – the goddess of retribution and vengeance.

Unfortunately, during their time on Fortune’s Wheel, they often contrive to wreak catastrophic levels of damage upon the populace to whom they pledged allegiance at the time of their preferment.

Over the last several decades the electorate appears to have abdicated its responsibilities toward those whom they choose to represent them and their interests in the Mother of Parliaments.  Why has this occurred?  Perhaps partly because of ‘unconcern’ (times have been relatively good for most people in terms of consumer goods and standard of living) and partly due to apathy. But mainly it’s to do with the fact that they have not been encouraged to participate actively in the democratic process and to monitor the activities of the elected.  Education has not encouraged either scrutiny or debate regarding the dealings of the 3rd Estate!

Thus, the elected have taken shameless advantage of the electorate.  They see no reason to moderate their self-absorbed, vaulting ambitions. Today, they appear to consider themselves superior beings, totally above the laws that are supposed to govern everybody regardless of their place in society.

An elected MP caught breaking the ‘rules’ expects their grudging, half-hearted apology to be instantly accepted and for life to go on just as before.  A Minister caught flagrantly breaking the rules that he himself was instrumental in implementing for the masses, had to be ‘persuaded’ to ‘resign’ his post.  No other action has been taken against that person even though they ‘broke the law’. One might expect that that person might also feel that they now should resign their seat in the House (but – lets not hold our breath!).  Retribution is only to be visited upon the proletariat.

Reference to Magna Carta (that fundamental guarantee of rights and privileges) reveals that the Great Charter is the ‘Symbol of Justice, Fairness and Human Rights’. It posits that no-one is above the law – not even the Monarch.  Yet over the last sixteen months we have been witness to the fact that the ‘lawmakers’ consider themselves to be a group apart.  They consider that the laws of the land do not apply to them.  Laws are for the ‘peasants’ to follow slavishly and ‘to the letter’, according to the whims of the day, which politicians have sought to impose upon the ‘cowed and obedient’ electorate.

The ‘lawyers’ (and significantly those of the legal fraternity who specialise in ‘Human Rights’) have been deafeningly silent on the subject of the ‘rights’ of the general populace whose lives have been blighted by the imposition of nw ‘laws’, hastily contrived, poorly constructed and significantly unscrutinised and debated – laws that have been foisted upon the people of Britain by what can only be described as a ‘Government Coup’.

In fact, challenges against what have been described as ‘emergency legislations’ – last seen enacted in time of war – have been ruthlessly and summarily ‘put down’.  One must therefore infer that the law practitioners are complicit in the removal of rights and privileges of the population of Great Britain which have been enacted during the last sixteen months.

The Police, whose role is to uphold the law fairly and without favour, have embraced their new State-given powers as enthusiastically as if they had been transposed in their entirety from the Communist Stasi State that was once East Germany.  They have largely abdicated their traditional role of preventing and solving crime, ensuring that all may live freely and unfettered ‘within the law’.  Instead they have embraced with alacrity the new emphasis on ‘hate crime’ and ‘racism’.  Criticism and ‘law transgressions’ of the new government diktats are of greater moment than dealing with burglaries or violent affray. Rather than protecting the law abiding against the criminally intent, the reverse has become the ‘new normal’.

If anyone breaks the current ‘politically correct’ rules, whether knowingly or in genuine ignorance, the might of the heavy handed Police ‘Force’ (appropriate word, that!) falls upon the unfortunate transgressor like a block of concrete.

Conversely, the actions of the openly criminal fraternity and the anarchically inclined troublemakers are treated as ‘normal’.  They must not be criticised in any way! The Police Force is not concerned with offering the protection of the law to ‘long-standing’ British residents, from the depredations, harassment or hostility (often involving the production of a blade as a show of intent) shown by those newly-come to the United Kingdom.  Any complaint made against these potential ‘brain surgeons and scientists’ is met with disbelief and accusations of ‘hate crime’ and ‘racism’.

Yet Chris Whitty, being accosted by two men in a London Park and made to feel ‘uncomfortable’ brings forth howls of outrage and cries of ‘thuggery’ from the Establishment. They demand ‘protection’ for the man who has done so much to make the lives of many citizens of Britain unbearable over many months of enforced incarceration! Who defines thuggery?

I always understood that, in law, knife crime, given the extreme prevalence of knife crime and death amongst the youths of London (although less reported of late!) merited robust application of the law!

Therefore, the question is – ‘what is law’?  To whom does it apply and in what situation?  Is the law actually impartial in the 21st century?  I would suggest that it is anything but!  When politicians – the lawmakers – are seen to be flouting the laws that they themselves have ‘crafted’ (take the G7 and the UEFA exemptions for VIPs as example) where does that leave the rest of society?  Does Magna Carta still hold good, or has the law, as with so many things in the uncertainty of current life, become more equal for some than for others?

My questions are, of course, rhetorical.  I think we all know the answers!

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email