Vocal Voices

There is a private prosecution being brought be a former Iraqi General, which also calls for Jack Straw and Lord Goldsmith to be indicted.

Well the answer is "No" if the statements from Attorney General Jeremy Wright are anything to go by. He cites the public interest and official secrets as reasons for blocking the case.

I think that what he actually means is that it is not in the interests of the political establishment elite for any truths to come out. I also find it insulting that the Official Secrets Act can be used to hide potentially criminal activities by the government or individuals within it.

If only! The people at the top in society protect their own, and let's not forget the Supreme Court (our highest court) is the creation of Mr Blair!

It is a sad fact that our highest politicians and civil servants must be protected from the public in order to do their jobs effectively.

What is even sadder is when a criminal charlatan winds up with that protection. It doesn't warrant the changing of the laws as they are needed.

The saddest fact, for me, is that the key lesson is never learned. That we, the public, bear the responsibility to vote in honest and responsible administrators. Blair is our failing and we, the people, just want to blame someone else or try to eradicate "our" mistake in the courts.

I'd prefer we take it as a salient lesson and don't do it again.

Suff wrote:It is a sad fact that our highest politicians and civil servants must be protected from the public in order to do their jobs effectively.

I disagree. It is one thing to be effective, it is entirely another to act criminally in order to be, in their terms, effective. I am all for protecting people working within the laws and implacably opposed to those working outside them in order for them to promote their agendas.

Suff wrote:What is even sadder is when a criminal charlatan winds up with that protection. It doesn't warrant the changing of the laws as they are needed.

But it does warrant the changing of the laws. You and I cannot operate outside of the laws, as they are indeed, needed, why should politicians and civil servants be allowed to?

Suff wrote:The saddest fact, for me, is that the key lesson is never learned. That we, the public, bear the responsibility to vote in honest and responsible administrators. Blair is our failing and we, the people, just want to blame someone else or try to eradicate "our" mistake in the courts.

And here we have a problem. The way the system works is that we get very little choice in who our prospective representative will be. The political elites, in central control, decide who we get to vote for - think parachutes. We vote for who is put before us, but we have not one iota of responsibility, none whatsoever, over who they are. The only ways we will ever be responsible are if we get proper PR or the option of none of the above - NOTA. Until then, or Hell freezing over, we have to go with who 'they' choose as our options to vote for.

Suff wrote:I'd prefer we take it as a salient lesson and don't do it again.

I sort of agree, but how is that achieved?

If Blair had only been voted in once I might tend to agree. But the people had enough of a view of him after the first term to know better.