A bunch of arse!

The law is an ass. And it is an ass of its own making. It is an illustration of the adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The law is no longer (if it ever was) an impartial leveller, all men being equal before it. Its judgements are not made by dispassionately neutral disciples of truth but by partisan actors, confident that they themselves are above or at least beyond reproach.

If the rule of law is supposed to be sacred; if the rule of law is said to be a sign of civilisation; if the rule of law is held to be the principal characteristic of a peaceful and prosperous society; why is it so wrong, so often and so obviously antipathetic to the concerns of the millions expected to abide by it? The legal establishment in the west now seems so corrupted by political motives that the pure barbarism of sharia almost looks appealing.

The law exists to keep normally honest people on the straight and narrow – by definition habitual criminals pay it no heed – the threat of penalty is deterrent enough in most cases. And properly applied, the consequences of conviction ought to result in rehabilitation back to acceptable behaviour. But when the law seems to come down more heavily on the habitually compliant and deliver the softest of non-justice on the career criminal, it is little wonder that faith in it is at a low ebb.

The church lost its moral right to lead when it harboured paedophile priests, embezzled money, interfered in politics and embarked on occasional sanctimonious ramblings in the Guardian. The law lost all respect when it championed the rights of the amoral, the misfits and the actually illegal above those of the average citizen. Human Rights has become a laughable attempt to rigorously defend deviants and stamp on the throats of those who speak out for normality. There is a test in law of the ‘reasonable person’, but what of the ‘normal person’?

Normality is easy to establish, it is a mathematical probability of occurrence. And under this probability, most people see that the law has become a joke. When you are likely to go to jail for being a disgusting idiot burning an effigy of a building than to be tackled for knife crime, then the law is rightly derided. And I do understand that there is a great difference between the application of jurisprudence and the reality of policing, but they are as intertwined as are eating and defecating; I’ll leave you to decide which is which in this simile.

Pleas to common sense fall on deaf ears and the uneven hand of justice continues to be reported daily. Violent criminals released to re-offend, pensioners arrested over words, burglars defended against their intended victims, illegal immigrants given leave to remain and the drip-drip-drip of social media thought-policing. To the reasonable person this all looks insane.

It surely can’t continue – week after week brings new confected ‘hate’ offences while old and genuine malice appears increasingly untouchable. There has to come a time, I believe, when the only way to reset our systems will be to take up arms against our own government – what a tragedy that in the very seat of justice and fairness, the only justice for the British people who once trusted the law may necessarily lie in taking the law into their own hands.

Law men

Another day, another worthless gesture. “No income tax, no VAT” Dave? Will you be adding “No money back, no guarantee”? One thing is for sure – in the dying days of the election campaign all parties will be promising “Black or white, rich or broke, we'll cut prices at a stroke…” All I can say in response is “God bless Hooky Street”. But let me get this straight: A politician’s word is no longer of any value so the Conservatives have offered to enact a ‘tax-lock’ law to prevent them from doing what the other side say they’ll do should they get into office?

Leaving aside the confusing idea that this in itself is still only a politicians’ promise, does this now mean that labour will also ‘pledge’ to legally restrain themselves from obeying their driving instincts? A law to stop politicians passing laws, in fact? Because, let’s face it, the sheer burden of prohibitive legislation is a massive part of the problem in power. You get elected, you swap offices with your opposite number and the next thing you know you’re knocking one out for the common good; a law, that is.

As everybody knows, making something illegal absolutely stops it happening, doesn’t it? If that was the case I’m surprised and not a little disappointed that nobody has yet written decrees to prohibit global warming, racism, everyday sexism, homophobia, trans-something-or-othero-phobia and every other horrible thing that humans do to each other. But wait, while laws proscribing such behaviour have done nothing but exacerbate the problems, the laws against talking about it in a naughty way have been fantastically effective; punishable to the full extent of the Lord Justices' powers. So rapists still rape, sexists still sex but, boy are we afraid to discuss either in uncertain company.

If words on expensively procured paper could stop anything we could eliminate smoking, debt, poverty, obesity, cancer and unhappiness with the mere stroke of a pen. But they can’t. If politicians are so convinced of the inviolability of man-made legislation why not use that belief to curb the excesses and stupidities of elected officials? It could become an offence for MPs to consort with ‘slebs’ for instance. Or to air their marital grievances in public (I’m looking at YOU, Huhne and Pryce.) Or better yet, to prevent the Parliamentary knee-jerk response of spontaneous law-making.

Oi, politicians, No!

In one week’s time we will have elected the next coalition of legislators. Given that their instincts have regularly and predictably led us to financial ruin, loss of autonomy, societal breakdown and all-round disappointment, the best thing they can do is nothing at all. They should all be falling over themselves to cross their hearts and hope to die if they don’t make it illegal for a new government to change a damned thing until they have been in office for at least, say, five years…