Windmill Huhne, more fallout, judge on judge

Posted: June 12, 2013 by tchannon in government, Incompetence, Legal, Politics

Oh my but as I suspected the inc..t is appearing as news breaks. Think I mentioned this previously so I was watching and waiting.

Daily Mail online has it

Britain’s top black woman judge Constance Briscoe charged with intending to pervert course of justice over Chris Huhne’s points swap case

Article here

As I recall lived close to the Huhne’s and were friends.

Some caution over a live court case is needed here and in comments.

Tim

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    ‘The first count alleges that, between May 2011 and last October, she provided police with two statements that were inaccurate. ‘

    That’s a laugh in its own right.

  2. michael hart says:

    It is cause for dismay, irrespective of the particular case.

  3. Doug Proctor says:

    The Huhne case and the Yeo case (and others that you would know) have similarities to some scandals in Canada with Senators and senior public servants padding their expense accounts – not because of what they were doing, but what they were expecting.

    They were expecting that nobody was watching and if watching, nobody who counted cared.

    Since doofus Gary Hart, an American presidential contender back in the ’80s, said “Follow me if you want” to those who thought he was having an affair, which they did, and he was, and so ended his contendership, you’d think those at the top would understand that others were prepared to watch, follow, check AND REPORT. But you’d have guessed wrong.

    Yeo went into a meeting with journalists pretending to be company representatives and actively worked at a 7 thousand pounds per day offer to use his influence for the financial gain of others. He didn’t check them out, he didn’t get an arms-length intermediary. He was straight and clear, clearly used to doing this stuff and getting away with it. The same with all the others. What they did was just what they were doing that day, nothing particularly special.

    The startling thing for us should be the evidence that in the halls of power there is a solid culture of corruption so well developed that it is not considered corruption. All of us allow a smidge of wrongdoing in our lives, even if it is only snapping up office supplies of pens and paper (or being online at work). Over time, if nobody seems to care, the smidges get bigger: part of my Law of Acceleration that drives human behaviour. For these people, we can see how far the process has gone.

    Yet they all vigourously deny any wrongdoing. The only way they can do this psychologically is if they live in a world in which wrongdoing has been redefined. Those at the top who believe they contribute more and so deserve more, do not abide by rules designed, in their minds, from stopping the non-contributors from taking an unreasonable amount of the pie. Conrad Black, or Lord Black as you Brits have deigned to have him called, was convicted as a felon and spent time in jail for stealing a lot of money from a public company he ran. Still, in a TV interview (on BBC?) Black refused to admit he was an ex-con. The Rule was wrong, not what he did: he was punished for breaking the letter of the law, not the spirit.

    That’s the thing: The rules for Black, like Yeo et al, don’t apply to them because in their culture, not of entitlement but of reward-for-value, they are simply getting what they deserve: the “spirit” is what they follow, and of course the spirit is maleable for the political mind.

    So what is to come out of this? It is not enough for public “disgrace”, for the commoner to know and sneer when we see them in the streets. Transparency is good, but punishment is better, for it undeniably and physically reinforces the group values. For those at the top, as in this discussion, punishment would REDEFINE the values to those closer to the societal norm. Which all these examples demonstrate needs desperately to be done.

    As long as the culture of the powerful says the holders of power are “special”, we can expect these cases to exist. It is the culture that needs to be changed.

  4. Kon Dealer says:

    Love it:-)
    Popcorn all round.

  5. Brian H says:

    Doug Proctor;
    The culture needs to be changed? By whom? It’s what having power is all about for most. I am reminded of Tiger Woods’ comment when caught and disgraced for his serial and parallel affairs with eager camp followers (while married to a gorgeous blonde): “I felt entitled.”

  6. Zeke says:

    “All of us allow a smidge of wrongdoing in our lives, even if it is only snapping up office supplies of pens and paper (or being online at work). Over time, if nobody seems to care, the smidges get bigger: part of my Law of Acceleration that drives human behaviour. For these people, we can see how far the process has gone.” ~Doug Proctor

    This is probably a very good explanation, and is applicable to what is observed.

    However, there may be an even better and more useful principle to apply in these cases: that the political class now seeks to enact inequality before the law in order to preserve their rank.

    The practice of having separate sets of laws for separate classes is very ancient. It is characteristic of the Law Code of Hammurabi, but its most respected apologist is Plato. According to Plato, the purpose of the state is to prevent change. The mobility and change of the democratic, open society was to him the source of all evil and tumult; his ideal was the separation of the classes so that the aristocracy was preserved and the authority of the philosopher king was upheld. The aristocracy is allowed to have weapons, chariots, art, land, and palaces. The rest of the people are bred and managed in order to serve the aristocracy and their palaces.

    I think it is time to look at the political philosophy of Plato and reject it once and for all. If anyone doubts that this is the philosophy held by academics, experts, and scientists, I will provide countless examples of this view expressed in our history books. Countless, countless examples. Even in the last century, the ideal of an opulent and powerful aristocracy that has impunity, privilege, and power has been written into our history books as the source of all great culture, wealth, and architecture. Once more, civilization itself has been misattributed to the aristocracy, and the stratification of society, for a long time now in our history books.

    Yet this view has been totally falsified by the scientific and political advancements in the US, which separates powers, preserves individual rights, and forbids any office ever becoming hereditary. While Plato argued, “Surely, there is no difference, so far as their natural fitness for keeping guard is concerned, between a gallant youth and a well-bred dog?”, history shows that intelligence and inventive and creative genius comes from every quarter of society, and that everyone benefits when there is mobility, literacy, and the ability to create wealth from genuine effort and inventiveness.

  7. Doug Proctor says:

    Zeke –

    Good comments about the original/underlying principles of the State. I hadn’t thought that the inequality of the classes was a design feature; I’d thought of it as a defect due to human nature.

    When I was a kid we were told “Gimme, gimme never gets,” to which I recall saying, “Yes, because grabsie got it first!” Perhaps it should have been “gimme, gimme” never gets because he’s not one of those allowed to get it.

    Changing the culture: if transparency is maintained (somewhat in doubt, despite the internet), the only way the Boys will get their extra stuff is if it is contractually organized that way. We’re seeing that with the huge bonuses CEOs get, bonuses that are in excess of their income. There has been some pushback, but (in Calgary) where big oil has big profits (when commodity prices are high), we are seeing multi-million dollar bonuses and severance/retirement packages that are perceived socially but also legally as part of their regular income. So there is very limited amounts of control on them not getting it – though most is really just because they can’t easily give themselves bizarre salaries without complaint.

    So the culture change for Yeo et al would be to have end-of-term retiring or “transition benefits” (hey, that’s a workable term!) of some adjustable percentage of their regular income. That way they don’t have to work scams to get that big prize at the end, and since it is at the end, there is virtually no way for us to stop them.

    There are enough people at the top these days, though, Zeke, who came from below to say that the system is no longer hereditary class or long-term class based. It is still a power-based system, but the system doesn’t reward those who are in it as a matter of course, which it did for the old aristocrats. The guard keeps changing, so the guard keep having to dig into the trough for themselves. Plato would have hated it, all this churning and pushing and shoving for the good stuff, as opposed to those who had it all set up and just wanted to keep things humming along.

  8. Zeke says:

    Well what any theory needs to explain in our present situation is why politicians are interested in removing the basic necessities, pleasures, and conveniences of modern life from people.

    We are all accustomed to recognizing corruption in politics when we see it. The interests of the citizens are betrayed for the sake of junkets, personal gain, or for the sake of foreign players and ideologies.

    But I believe what we are seeing in politics now goes far beyond that, in the sense that the political class is not solely interested in enriching itself – although that is part of it. This global political cabal is even more interested in impoverishing others and reducing the standard of living of everyone, even if it does not enrich them at all to do so.

    How does one explain that? I have not been able to account for this behavior for a long time. If one is rich, why devote so much resources and effort to reducing water, electricity, transport, and the simple advancements of modern life enjoyed by everyone else? This is why I find Plato’s Republic so interesting. It explains this mania within the political class to impoverish others (which we agree would be the result of these low-carbon policies). It establishes class privileges to most conveniences and wealth, which is only enjoyed by the aristocracy, and cannot be allowed for the lower classes.

    And as one possible test, one would simply need to show that this is the definition of civilization that the academics have been slipping into our history books for a very long time.