Prime Minister,
No links today, just a personal observation on the back of some reading I’ve been doing. You may find it worthy of consideration.
Consider, if you please, the head of a terrorist organisation. S/he (I’ll stick with “he”) may well be the mastermind behind attacks that are carried out by members of his organisation. He never personally gets his hands dirty in the “wet work” aspect, yet the plans that he comes up with end up causing the deaths and maiming of – say – 3,600 innocent people in a single campaign. This individual would be hunted down by the police, hopefully caught, charged, tried and convicted of at least conspiracy to cause explosions, conspiracy to murder, possibly treasonous activity if it was on the Statute of the nation concerned, and anything else that the police could find in The Book that they would throw at him. In a civilised society he would be sent down for fifteen to twenty years; in a more barbaric one he would be executed following a public trial; under the most barbaric circumstances he would be terminated without the benefit of such a trial. It would depend on which legally mandated law enforcement body caught him, where, and under what circumstances, of course.
Consider now, please, a single government Minister whose policies, even in spite of numerous examples of evidence that they were responsible for the deaths of AT LEAST 10,600 innocent people during the course of his campaign, were not rescinded and continued to cause further deaths, the total numbers of which he went to great and often dishonest lengths to conceal. This, unlike the hypothetical terrorist leader above, has actually happened, and continues to happen, here in the United Kingdom. Just like the terrorist, above, he does not actually sully his hands with the blood of his victims, merely relies upon his plans to cause the damage to society.
The question must arise: If the terrorist can be arrested, charged, etc., for causing 3,600 untimely deaths because of his planning (his policies, if you will) why has the government Minister not been treated in the same fashion?
Let me take that question one stage further:
If your kitchen was suddenly invaded by ants, would you be content to keep squashing individual foraging units and mourning the gradual loss of your sugar? Or would you be out in the garden at the earliest opportunity, with a kettle of boiling water that you would be applying with as much accuracy as possible to the entrance of the ants’ nest? Alternatively, if you or one of yours developed a cancer, would you be content for the surgeons to continue snipping away the tumours as they manifested, or would you be insisting that a rigorous term of chemotherapy was applied in order to destroy the cancer at its source?
I think the answers are as I would expect them to be – you would seek to remove the core of the problem rather than deal with the fallout. It would be the sensible way forward. So, with that in mind, if the core of the ongoing deaths of innocent people was removed, would that be a crime or would it be a good deed done for society as a whole? I ask this while bearing in mind that anyone can lose their job for any reason and end up being subject to the harsh, death-causing regime of sanctions and sheer buggeration factor that is increasingly employed by the Minister’s Department under the terms of his policies.
Obviously, as was the case with a certain terrorist mastermind last year, removing the core of the problem permanently is a good solution, as it prevents repetitive atrocities. It may well be that someone will be thinking along the same lines with regard to the Minister whose policies would likely change as a result of his “removal.” The means to achieve such an aim, in a surgical fashion, do still exist in spite of the government’s determination to disarm the population that is bearing the brunt of the tumorous attacks upon it.
I fear we are reaching the stage where a spot of judiciously arranged social surgery might not be as out of the question as the normal British psyche might wish to dwell upon. This conclusion has to be drawn in view of the fact that the “antibodies” which are society’s police services have apparently been subverted, as they have made no effort to react to the deliberate breaches of at least three laws by the cancer in our midst, which is personified by said government Minister. It seems to me that if they were to do their job properly, in line with what society pays them to do, and treat the Minister in the same way as the terrorist mastermind would be treated in the most civilised way, then said Minister’s life would automatically become considerably safer even if it meant his liberty was severely curtailed for the next fifteen to twenty years. If it doesn’t happen soon then the only question we will need to answer will be that which asks: “Who finally pulled the trigger?”
Worth a thought or three, methinks.
Sincerely,
Darren Lynch
