It’s a bit much to leave the girl bound and gagged after the sex session, isn’t it?
Oh, and quis custodiet ipsos custodies? Perhaps Titter and Shamefacebook should switch to discussing judges’ personal lives and foibles. For example, here is the polygamous judge who seems to have been spared jail; the adulterous judge whose wife took in the washing while he mysteriously burned to death in his shed; the judge with a secret family; the judge who posted bestial porn to the Web; the judge jailed for perjury; the ex-judge who turned out to be a child abuser.
Frailty, thy name is M’Lud (or in some cases, Y’r Honor). All men are sinners. As King Lear said: “A man may see how this world goes with no eyes. Look with thine ears; see how yond justice rails upon yond simple thief. Hark in thine ear: change places, and handy-dandy, which is the justice, which is the thief?”
Well, I might be content to know nothing of judges (among others) disobeying the law – how could I be discontented about what I didn’t know? – if only some judges were more careful in their comments on the law itself. How can Members of Parliament “flout” a law whose writ does not run in the Palace of Westminster? This dictionary says that “flout” means, among other things, a “contemptuous disregard” – but the privilege of Parliament to speak as it chooses in those places, is not merely a disregard but an accepted and vigorously defended total exemption. We had a civil war about it, don’t ye know. Perhaps Judge Judge (Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, to give him his full title) has been misquoted, and really said or meant to say that these embarrassing Parliamentary disclosures are tantamount to an abuse of privilege.
Perhaps all of the judgy cases and incidents cited above should have been hidden from the public, too; after all, these individuals are surely rare exceptions, and some might say we have no business knowing such things and that it harms the reputation of the Law. Maybe in addition to personal peccadilloes, all indictments, court proceedings and rulings should be kept secret, or at least not published in any permanent form. Only the people in the courtroom need to know, surely that is public enough for justice to be seen to be done. And how about the High Court of Parliament itself? Should Hansard be proscribed, or circulated Samizdat-wise among those with the correct clearance? Maybe the entire operation of Government, the Courts and the Law should be conducted in a Stygian cloud of unknowing. Piers may continue his ploughing in blissful ignorance.
Is the tenor, the drift, of these judicial comments that we are indeed heading for a partial repeal (if that’s the right word) of the 1689 Bill of Rights? Who will stand at the Bar of the House of Commons and demand the delivery of Honourable Members to the King’s justice? And will John Bercow prove a Speaker Lenthall when the moment comes?