Now then, after what seems like an eternity the Home Secretary has thrown the towel in. It would have been nice to use the term " done the decent thing" but in this case that is not really applicable. What Mz Rudd has actually done is linger whilst obviously utterly guilty, waited for the evidence to pile up, and gone after likely leaving herself with no possible option. There is absolutely no honour in her leaving, which is a pity given the huge status of her former position. The straw which actually broke the back of the camel being a letter she signed to the PM , which leaked onto The Guardian front page. Had that not happened she would likely still be clinging on. We will return to that letter later on. It does raise an interesting point, or two. Click here
So, a high ranking resignation. Again, within the current Government that is now four in six months. You could be forgiven for thinking that maybe when Mrs May and Mr President held hands, maybe they whispered in each others ears and agreed to see who could achieve the highest number of resignations whilst in office! I jest.
Basically common decency did not play much of a role in the above. It came down to the Ministerial Code. within which 1.3c states that if you mislead Parliament you are expected to tender your resignation. Seems clear enough to me. The long delay with AR suggests it did not seem clear enough to our current administration. That is a key point. Codes, Convention and even the Law depend on interpretation. More importantly, they depend on a fair and just interpretation or their existence is pointless. I have sat opposite hearing officers in hearings, my role being preventing members losing their jobs, me being the last line of defence for the member. A huge responsibility. A long evolution on a personal level got me to the point where I would accept the integrity of the Hearing Officer totally, and like to think those opposite me held the same view of me. Sometimes I prevailed, sometimes I did not. However, I had an implicit belief that everything was done correctly, and fair and just results were reached.
I accepted the Law in such instances.
Let us hop across to Kay Burley. Long serving Sky news anchor. A well known "celebrity", Somebody who haunts our screens most days. Wields great power in the eyes of the casual viewer. But, when all said and done, is another person to whom the Law of the land applies, just as it would to you or me. Or does it? Thing is, I believe it does not. As with Mz Rudd, it seems some people can commit certain things and, at least for a while, carry on regardless. This suggests a few dark things about the Law and fairness in our beleaguered land. click here
Mz Rudd actively drove a policy which greatly harmed many people, she was not alone in that, others need to be taken to account. That letter I touched upon earlier, was signed and sent to Mrs May. Therefore is Mrs May not at least equally culpable? Has she not carried on regardless whilst knowing Parliament was being mislead on a grand scale? If consistency (a huge thing regarding application of Laws) is to be adhered to should Mrs T. May not also be in the same position as Mz Rudd?
Back to KB, who assaulted a woman quite viciously. Why has nothing happened regarding this clear and obvious serious matter? If we are all expected to hold the Law in the appropriate esteem that consistency I hinted at earlier needs to be seen to be in operation at all times. I believe that is not happening. Sky correctly suspended Jamie Carragher for a much lesser, though disgusting, incident. What is the difference here?
Maybe I have a rather simplistic view of all this. I prefer to see our MPs as people in high places who therefore carry with them great responsibility, and as such we should see their masters act with the greatest regard for the institution of Law. I have looked people in the eye and told them that the end is nigh for them. That they need to go home and tell the other half that they are about to become unemployed. That defending their case is not on. That they will not be able to pay the mortgage, or the car loan, or in fact be able to feed the kids. This I did because, again, the major concern to me was that fairness and regard for Law were upmost in my mind. Not at all a pleasant thing to have to do. Some of those people were good people. Some are still unemployed, have lost houses, and marriages.
KB, remains on our screens. Amber Rudd will no doubt spend some time in the shadows, waiting for an opening to resume her career. Cameron is starting to pop up again, Green will slither back into some position or other. Me, and those Hearing Officers in a warehouse in Runcorn had far more regard for Law and common decency than our current Government. As for Sky, well, reverse the roles of the offenders. Imagine if Burley had spat, and Carragher had assaulted that woman. Just how much longer would Carragher have been on our screens? I rather think he would be behind bars now, and any hope of a career gone.
Many thanks to those who have sent me positive messages via this site.