Road to ruin 2?

 Prince Harry is set to sue the UK government and therefore the British taxpayers after his expensive security detail was withdrawn following his decision to live in the United States and withdraw from Royal duties.

To my mind it is inconceivable that the Prince, aware of the importance of the institution of Monarchy and the part he plays would begin such proceedings, knowing the hurt he would cause to his grandmother, the Queen. It follows that the move stems from his American (and therefore litiginous minded) wife, the Duchess of Sussex. Indeed, one can trace the decline in affection for the once much loved Prince to his marriage to the American actress.

Road to ruin?

 The UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson is facing calls to resign. At the time of his landslide election two years ago this would have been unthinkable so what has gone wrong.

I'll tell you what has gone wrong; he has dismissed his adviser Dominic Cummins and married Caroline Symonds. All his woes seem to stem from this time about two years ago. 

Road to Anarchy

 A jury has cleared four defendants of criminal damage despite clear video evidence that they were involved in the destuction of the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol. Rather than be judged in a Magistrates Court, the four, no doubt advised by lawyers, opted for trial by jury. A magistrate looking at the evidence would have no doubt of the guilt but a jury of townspeople might see things differently, conflating one sort of justice with another. In the event, the jurors chose to make the case one of the people versus Colston, an acknowledged trader in slaves. That they found the four not guilty of criminal damage suggests that they sympathised with the defendants position and found Colston guilty as not charged.

Doesn't this demonstrate the stupidity of the British Justice system. As long ago as 2012 this blog has railed against the 'presumption of innocence' rules. see:

https://www.kevilldavies.com/2012/10/assumption-of-innocence.html

With such overwhelming evidence, I suggest that, in the interests of the people, the defendants should not be allowed to register a 'not guilty' plea without good reason.

Since the result the Attorney General is contemplating referring the case to the Supreme Court for clarification as clearly it could set a precedent for future trials where people damage images they, personally, don't approve of. A Muslim, for example, could plead 'not guilty', for smashing Christian images and icons on the grounds that they were an affront to Islam and therefore to him. This case demonstrates that the Justice system is leading the Country down the road to anarchy.

A terrible thought

 I've just had a terrible thought following on from my last article. Under what circumstances, if any, would Her Majesty the Queen award an honour to a person deemed unsuitable by  a huge number of the general public, a person widely considered to have lied in public office and sent dozens of men to their deaths in an illegal war with Iraq?

What if this person, a member of the Privy Council, could suggest that he or she might be able to make Her Majesty's greatest worries, her beleaguered son, say, disappear? In such cicumstances, might there be an expectation of a show of appreciation?

No! It couldn't happen as Her Majesty views her duty to the people of the United Kingdom as sacrosanct. Duty before family, but in another world, another ruler, this might not be the case. Or am I just a cynic?

Sir Tony Blair and Dr Kelly

 Have you noticed, during the furore over the appointment, fourteen years after he left office, as a Knight Commander of the Noble Order of the Garter, that not one mention can be found of his involvement in the Dr. David Kelly affair.

whilst to many, including families who lost loved ones during the Iraq war, it is astonishing that Her Majesty sees fit to make the award, it must be remembered that Blair has never been charged with any offence. 

Yet, new revelations from Blair's former Defence Secretary shed new light on the UK's thinking about the legality of the Iraq war which added to the scathing conclusions of the Chilcott enquiry suggest that the truth is hidden in files archived for eighty or more years. That the press have made no mention of Dr. Kelly tells me they have been silenced to protect this man. Why?