Full force of the law

This is the phrase that politicians (or the great and the good, never the twain shall meet - ed), use when some individuals do things that upset, "Da Government" (tm), or arguably when people do things that make the front page of The Daily Mail/Express/Times etc (papers bought by people who are likely to vote at the next election - political ed) and so whose opinions matter.

Now, I don't get this at all (what don't you get? - ed)

Well surely, the law should and must be applied to each and every law breaker in a fair and just manner. It is not up to politicians, and particularly one in such an office as Prime Minister, to try and sway the judiciary in this overt and voter garnering way (How close to the Eastleigh by-election did he say this - political ed).

As a short aside, I live in the UK, not the USA (sorry Ralph the Alaskan, popping up for a visit for some bear hot tubbing is just a tad too far for me. What I still don't understand is why the bear would want to be in a hot tub with us, surely they want to be in a cold river, catching salmon - ed) - and there is nothing like the separation of powers that you would think. After all, if we had a written constitution, rather than an unwritten one, with a large history of precedent, where would that get us!

For me, the idea of making someone a scapegoat, to, "Send a signal", or to, "Make them think twice", smacks of rank (surely smells of rank - literary ed) unfairness.

Now I heard the above phrase, spouted out of the mouth of our beloved leader (Kim Jong-un? - political ed), no, no, not that beloved leader, the one with the mandate, the one that the voters of Witney (Oxfordshire, UK - geography ed) foisted upon us, the one chosen by the Conservative Party to be their leader, the one who managed to fail to clearly defeat, "the man in the bunker" (not Adolph Hitler, but Gordon Brown - political history ed). 

You know, the one that all those voters out there thought they were voting for (rather than their actual constituency MP), as he is, "Such a nice looking you man". The man who said, "Calm down dear", to an honourable member of parliament (MP) just for the laughs it would get him on the back benches (for overseas readers, the back benches are where all the naughty MPs sit when they have upset the Prime Minister so much that he has taken away all their toys - i.e. Cabinet Seats. Those that laugh loudest and longest get put to the top of roster for a seat on the front bench - political ed)

Now, this phrase came out, as part of the ongoing horse meat scandal (which is turning into a European wide hunt for a culprit. The more time goes on, my initial thought that it would be the labelling at fault appears to becoming true - pre-punditing ed). 

People have been arrested, documents have been gathered, (computers have been impounded - ed) meat has been sent to laboratories to be analyzed, men and women in white coats holding pippets have been raking in the overtime. Company after company have been clearing shelves of potentially horsey products. Frozen "beef" products sales have slumped. Fish and vegetarian dishes sales have soared. The national press point fingers at various European countries, the further East (obviously the more foreign - ed) the better. It is worth noting that three and only three people have so far been arrested in the UK.

So who is going to get the blame, who will bear the full force of the law. No idea. But what each and everyone from this country who gets charged with any wrong doing in this saga should get is:

"A fair and just application of the law",

Headlines in papers, outbursts from Prime Ministers, talking heads on TV can protest, lament, gnash their teeth and pull out their hair but in a mature democracy, we should expect the law to  be applied in a fair and consistent manner. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Our Tax Pounds

I like the way that citizens of the USA and their politicians talk about 'your tax dollars', whereas we here in the UK seem to think that the money that the 'Da Government' (tm) takes from all and sundry is their money or 'public spending', as it is more colloquially known,  is theirs to do as they see fit.

However, as annoying as this might seem, we have given 'Da Government' (tm) a mandate for this confiscation. We generously give them mandate by means of a 'General Election'. What do we get in return for this mandate (for state sponsored confiscation), an MP.

This MP, who may or may not be in a party that we support (or dislike the least - ed), and who may or may not represent our views on one or in fact many subjects, will represent us in the House of Commons. Now, given that there are some 650 of the blighters, at least until the next election when it will be reduced, what chance do we have that 'our' MP will be able to affect any kind of spending by 'Da Government', well if the MP is:

• not a member of the ruling party
• not on the front benches
• not on one of the standing committees
• spending all the time fiddling expenses

I would hazard a guess at, none whatsoever.

Wonderful isn't it [cf Winston Churchill quote - ".. democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - ed)  - I reckon someone should take MPs to the Trading Standards saying that we are being 'sold' something that it is fit for purpose.

The other point to note here is we get this vote only around once every 5 years. You would think that given today's technology that there might be a bit of a better way to have a real say in how our money is spent? Really do wonder why there is a none of the above option on the ballot paper (come up with a better system them - ed) and if that wins a majority of seats we should have a rethink on how our democracy works?


Let's start a petition to force politicians to use 'your tax pounds' rather than 'public spending' as it more accurately reflects where the money comes from.



On a more topical note, maybe we think we are ordering steak (beef - ed) and seem to always end up with horse meat!