Primus inter pares: a first among equals. For many that phrase was introduced to their lexicon by author Jeffrey Archer. It is commonly used as a description of the prime minister. In reality it is an oxymoron coddled in a euphemism as we all shall have an opportunity to see in the days ahead. It`s not impossible to adapt the functionality of the phrase to our [and other nation`s] courts system. Once we go above the crown court is there really so much difference in the intellectual capacity of high court judges, appeal court judges and those at the top of the judicial tree on the supreme court? I put the spotlight on the upper two courts; appeal and supreme. We, the great British public, have no way of knowing how the occupants of these positions were chosen. For centuries governments of all shades have jealously guarded so many facets of public life that it`s been a British trademark just as cricket is supposed to have epitomised the fairness and fair play of "The British" per se. Such illusions have long since lost their glimmer of truth. What is to separate the intellectual capacity, suitability and capability of an appeal court judge and one of the supreme court? Does the identity of an appeal court judge who fails in her/his application to the top job remain hidden beyond the grave, the 30 year rule or some arbitrary future date. Should it remain known only to a few insiders? Should it prevent the applicant from repeating the process? Surgeons` performances e.g. can be audited especially nowadays with algorithms designed to include degrees of difficulty and countless variables so that hospitals can know the expertise of those they seek to employ if the employment panel does its job effectively. But only a select few know the identities of these panels not just in hospitals but in many various professions. When such professionals transgress or appear to fall foul of professional or legal guidelines other panels are available to supervise the integrity of the disciplinary processes involved. Those panels are appointed usually by members of what are commonly termed "the great and the good". Nepotism and mutual back scratching cannot be ignored. They are often senior civil servants or senior members of unconnected professions. It must now be apparent that such a system has reached the end of its long and winding road. There have been so many failures this century alone that consideration must be given to alternative ways of selection of all supervisory bodies.
The major cover ups by supervisory bodies, committees which are supposed to investigate malfeasance in all manner of public offices and professional, trade or business organisations have reached what could be termed epidemic proportions.
There cannot be anyone who doesn`t know of the Hillsborough disaster of 15th April 1989 nor of the successive cover ups by police and government that followed. After numerous inquiries and legal actions it wasn`t until 6 December 2023 when the government issued its response and signed the Hillsborough Charter giving a commitment to transparency following a public tragedy. Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg called the lack of accountability over Hillsborough "the greatest scandal of British policing of our lifetimes".
The Chinook helicopter disaster on June 2 1994 killed 29 people – 10 RUC, nine army, five MI5, one civil servant and four crew. What happened, its circumstances and effects have been much debated. In 1995 an RAF board of inquiry ruled that it was impossible to establish the exact cause of the accident. This ruling was subsequently overturned by two senior reviewing officers who stated that the pilots were guilty of gross negligence for flying too fast and too low in thick fog. This finding proved to be controversial especially in light of irregularities and technical issues surrounding the then new Chinook HC.2 variant which were uncovered and in light of technical problems with the specific airframe involved in the weeks leading up to the crash. A new inquiry took place in the House of Lords from September to November 2001. The findings were published on 31 January 2002 and found that the verdicts of gross negligence on the two pilots were unjustified. In 2011 it was disclosed that at the highest level the RAF knew that the helicopter should have been grounded and official authorising forms contained false information re its airworthiness for the proposed mission. In December 2012 the Minister for the Armed Forces Andrew Robathan confirmed such a false declaration did not constitute "wrongdoing", despite its leading directly to deaths of servicemen. A Guardian article from May 2000 tells of the disgrace of the two officers directly involved in the cover up who presumably retired on very substantial pensions hoping that their disgusting and prolonged lying would be camouflaged by government.
The contaminated blood scandal reaches back 50 years. Products were imported from the US and distributed to patients by the National Health Service throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Most recipients had haemophilia or had received a blood transfusion following childbirth or surgery. As is the common factor in Great British Scandals, atrocious errors were made by those assigned to protect us; a failure of competence, but the true scandal was the cover up by those involved in supervising those who made such tragic decisions and protecting the organisation`s "good name". The government report is available here.
Numerous tragedies have befallen NHS patients from newborn children to centenarians owing directly to incompetence of professional employees. However overlooking the loss of lives and personal family tragedies, once again cover ups to protect those in front of and apparently also behind the firing line were and are commonplace. There are thousands of individuals salaried by government or proxies whose job is supposed to provide a legal, professional and moral umbrella for those at the receiving end of a trade or service.
There cannot be any in these isles for whom the word Grenfell doesn`t conjure up a scene from hell; of terror so profound that it is primeval. 14th June 2017: a day that will live in infamy in the minds of anyone who lives in a high rise flat [with apologies to Franklin Roosevelt and 7th December 1941]. Four years later a public inquiry found that government received an estimate in the 1990s that the cost of fixing dangerous cladding was £500 million, that reports were marked for ‘limited circulation’ preventing people from learning the truth and that key information was removed or ‘entirely neutered’. In addition the government suppressed information about the combustibility of cladding used on Lakanal House and promises to act on the Lakanal recommendations were not kept. In an understatement on the day of the Grenfell fire, emails from a civil servant said, ‘Some of the stuff about disproportionate burdens feels uncomfortable today’. Government inadequacy in dealing with this avoidable tragedy follows a similar pattern to every other mentioned in this post. A full account before and after is available here .
There cannot be many who are unaware of the current inquiry into the Post Office scandal; perhaps vying for the iniquitous top place with the previously mentioned blood scandal above in its depravity. Each witness is providing a cocktail of lies, half truths, innuendo and forgetfulness to justify his/her statements, behaviour, actions or inactions.
Whilst there will be myriad subjects for the incoming government`s attention there must be a place or a ministry or a department to consider why such as all the above and many others seem to be a part of the British way of doing things. Is it not about time that the "appointments" system by "appointment or advisory committees" be scrutinised? Surely if 12 ordinary people from the voters rolls can sit in judgement in the crown court that source of citizens could be the basis of panels to at least oversee the selection of those aforementioned supervisory bodies. Indeed why should there be any selection at all. Is it not time to consider that at some if not all levels British citizens vote for membership of these committees or organisations and be trusted to apply their knowledge and common sense?
No comments:
Post a Comment