While I do not now go to Court, I have been known to see a rounder off to jail, joined a judge in a chambers chat, plea bargained. But don't know if I could do it all with a straight face before a very serious man in a very silly hat.
Not quite as funny are the ideas that go on beneath the silly hat. I am never so thankful that the common law in Canada has to occassionally deal with the French habit of codifying things - like the criminal law, like our constitutional rights - as when I read things like this:
"The provisions are bespattered with requirements as to what a judge must do," he said, during the second reading debate in the House of Lords.
Imagine! Pwactically bespwattered!!
One of the shocking things about this outburst is its location. You see the top judge in Engwand also sits in the House of Lords surrounded by the Law Lords, surrounded by the peers and then surrounded by the more ordinary political hacks of yesteryear. Well insulated and telling the people not to make rules for the people's justice. It is sad to report that friends of mine have to pay taxes to put money in the pockets of folk like this.
Comments
Alan - June 18, 2003 12:48 pm
It appears that folk in silly hats with 3 jobs - chief judge, speaker of the upper house and a member of cabinet - is not the only irritated people dealing with heavy handed centralization or long needed modernization.
Wayne - June 19, 2003 8:59 pm
During these times when cultural rivalries are vilifying time honored traditions in western society, it is nice to see somewhere, someone is continuing to hold on to parts of their heritage instead of lying down to the demands of todays political correctness and multicultural demands that are so intolerant of the "old ways".
Alan - June 19, 2003 9:10 pm
Funny how that heritage thing always alligns with authority and individual wealth when its retention is most fought. The old ways of trains, the common lands, reasonably paid executives, shareholder say, local music, local food, local ales...let's worry about those first.
Wayne - June 20, 2003 6:41 am
I would add to that list reasonably paid athletes as well. (Shame on Barcelona!)
Alan - June 20, 2003 8:03 am
Yes, why can't an athlete earn just 10 to 20 times the average wage? The CFL and the English lower leagues of football would be examples of where that occurs.
I suppose the other thing would be it should only be as long as the team owners earn only that much. I don't know why players do not organize co-operatives and ditch the owners.
Wayne - June 20, 2003 3:53 pm
Say what you will about the PGA, they have the pay structure right. Your pay depends on your play. Nobody else but self earns the paycheck...no riding on teammates back here. No long term contracts for athletes who end up bums.
Players don't ditch the owners because there would suddenly be accountability.Poor performance would result in a lower gate, and thus less in their pocketbooks. The status quo can force owners to speculate and risk, while the star athlete can concentrate more on endorsements and a signing bonus. And, the whole time, while assuming all the risk, the owner gets all the blame for failing franchises.
Players unions had their value at some time in the past, but now are just milking the industry for all they can get.
Alan - June 20, 2003 4:28 pm
Ah, the union just makes sure the pie gets cut evenly. Especially in sports where the owners are running a racket themselves.