A Pin to See The Peepshow

I’ve been meaning to comment on the latest utterings by the egregious Blair and Clarke. I have, however, been tardy as a result of being in France and tiling a bathroom…

Still, no time like the present.

I recall about thirty years ago watching a television programme based upon the novel by Jesse Fryniwyd Tennyson called “A Pin to See the Peepshow.” It was a fictionalised retelling of Edith Thompson’s tragic story. Although apparently amicably married, Edith took a lover; Frederick Bywaters. Bywaters decided at some point to rid himself (and Edith) of her husband, Percy Thompson. Frederick Bywaters stabbed Percy Thompson when the couple were returning from a visit to the theatre. While there was never any doubt about Bywatrers’ guilt – indeed, he confessed not only to having carried out the killing, but to acting alone in the commission of his crime. Yet, despite this and inconclusive evidence of Edith’s complicity, she too was charged, tried and hanged.

This programme struck a chord in me – this was my first introduction to the principle of miscarriage of justice. There have been others; Derek Bentley, Timothy Evans and, since the abolition of the death penalty, the Guildford Four, and more recently the infanticide cases found guilty on the feeble “evidence” of an expert witness. Miscarriage of justice sends a shiver along my spine. I guess it’s the “there but for the grace of God” moment.

That shiver that ran a bit colder when I read the calm dismissal of it by Charles Clarke as just justice taking its course. If justice were to take the correct course, there would be no miscarriage of justice. However, evidence can be flawed, misinterpreted or a good (bad) barrister can swing a jury. These things happen and every once in a while, someone gets the rough end of it. A moral society recognises this and makes the appeal process expedient, efficient and subsequently seeks to make amends for the wrong done by compensating the victim. Yes; “victim”.

I can’t add much more to what has already been said about the appalling Clarke’s comments about cutting compensation to the victims of such miscarriages, except to add my voice to those condemning him for the noxious man that he is. Only someone completely devoid of any moral compass could even think of making such a suggestion.

Then this dreadful announcement is followed by his glorious leader demolishing what little is left of our freedoms during an email exchange with Henry Porter. In it, Blair points out that he will demolish our freedoms for the common good, of course:

And yes, I would go further. I would widen the police powers to seize the cash of suspected drug dealers, the cars they drive round in, and require them to prove they came by them, lawfully.

Abolition of the presumption of innocence, punishment before conviction.

I would impose restrictions on those suspected of being involved in organised crime. In fact, I would generally harry, hassle and hound them until they give up or leave the country.

Persecution of the innocent.

But again, the reason we are acting is not a desire to be dictatorial but a genuine desire to protect our way of life from those who would destroy it.

As are we. It’s you, Dear Leader, doing the destroying.

I agree with you on one other thing. The politics of this cross left/right lines. Interestingly, in British politics today many Tories, the Lib Dems and a part of Labour (but really only a small part) would agree with you.

Blair acknowledges that others disagree. Well, hooray for that. Unfortunately in typical ZANU Labour double-think (if think is the right word) he assumes that everyone else is wrong. Oh, I don’t doubt he is right; the Sun readers will love it. But, then, do they have the imagination to stop for a moment while browsing the tittilation to consider that it might one day be them on the receiving end? Ah, there’s the rub; those who want draconian measures, want them for other people. Blair and Clarke are riding the wave of populism while ignoring the reality that they enjoy power as a result of our flawed electoral system. Populism is a dangerous wave to surf. Listening to Blair I am beginning to wonder about the effect of power and how deeply it corrupts the soul.

A rational man would not seek to sweep away those measures in our system that are there to protect the innocent. It is not reasonable, it is not rational, it is not logical, and it is not sound. Consequently, when considering the judgement of the man making the remarks, I have to conclude that he is not reasonable, rational, logical and that he is definitely unsound. Time to go, methinks. But, as Nosemonkey points out, the cancer has to go too.

If there was something rotten in Shakespeare’s Denmark, then it is positively putrifying in Blair’s Westminster .