0105 [0038] [0020] Hrs GMT London Thursday 09 June 2011.
The © Muhammad Haque diagnostic Commentary on the state of “English law trade system”.
Referring to the Daily Mirror’s [online] retailing of the utterance by Ed Miliband during Wednesday’s PMQs [08 June 2011].
The real mess is the fact that the Official Opposition in the House of Commons has NEVER even recognised the need for auditing the system in accordance with what I have diagnostically found to be “the criteria that must be based on and derived from universality of equality of entitlement to fair treatment under the law”. So what “progress” can occur from Miliband’s utterance? Zero, in fact. That was an utterance just as empty of substance as had been the other ones that the “communicators” found to be the basis for their assertion that Miliband lacked substance as “leader”. The dearth of substance is displayed in the House of Commons every single time. It is a cabal. Or a collection of smaller ones. The utterances “in Parliament by Parliament members” and their broadcasting cannot be intended to reinforce e the public’s access to auditing tools. The broadcasting of proceedings in fact is reinforced propaganda. And this is more so whenever the particular ritual is treated by the brodacsting outfits as being more important than the otehrs. Hence the focus, the concentration on the PMQs.
By definition, any Society’s “values” – briefly stated: the ones that are accepted as being essential, commonly shared parts of the way that people recognise one another and the level of rights that is commonly actually expienecd, felt, lived – take a long time to be realisable, referrable, and citable by their contents and by their implications.
It follows therefore that whatever values predominate in the behaviour of the “legal system” cannot be altered just by one term of a Government, whether it is a Collation or not. So nothing that the CONDEM Collusion is doing can change the values. What can happen is that c certain other vales or differences may be brought into the arena for ongoing [and spontaneous] debates and discussions that may lead to later changes.
From this standpoint therefore, Ed Miliband’s utterance was more flippant than most people may have realised. Miliband was indulging in trickery that could be seen from his visible attention to something on a piece of paper. A script. He must have been rehearsing for a long time and yet was unsure of what he would end up at performance time. It was plain point scoring. And thereby it was a debasing of the debate! A real, truthful debate is long overdue. But one is hardly likely to take place at PMQs.
And that debate is not, ought not to be about the length of a sentence but about the very idea of justice itself. Including the question: what is a sentence intended to achieve? And how is a custodial sentence different from the criminalisation that goes on in “open” society before the given crime actually takes place?
[To be continued]