Sunday, July 02, 2006

Your honor, judge thyself.

A quick update on my last posting, "Privacy or Justice? A small victory for sense". concerning the raising of at least some of the blankett of silence which surrounds the UK family courts, an article in the Times (London) quotes Lord Justice Wall:

"“I find it unacceptable that conscientious magistrates and judges, struggling to make difficult decisions in the best interests of children(*) should be accused of administering ‘secret justice’.”

((*) There's that phrase again.)

It astonishes me that these emminent gentlemen have such a hard time admitting to the clear and obvious fact that a court which conscientiously struggles to make difficult decisions in the best interests of the children and is completely protected from outside scrutiny by routine blanket gag orders is indeed, for absolute literal fact, administering 'secret justice'. If the observation of this obvious and defnitive fact is an "accusation", then these people should know all about what happens when you're accused. You're supposed to get a chance to defend yourself. If you can't, you pay a debt to society and do something about it. At last, it would seem that they are, but it is less than entirely graceful of them to try to wheedle out of the responsibility for a bad policy when a convicted felon would likely have his sentence extended somewhat for failing to face up to proven charges.

They can dish it out, now, can they take it?

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

No comments: