"So sick of this. Also we aren’t allowed to call them “junior doctors” anymore. They are meant to be “resident doctors “
But they are never there."
Recently I asked a family member who is an NHS consultant what she thought of the then impending doctors` strike. Her reply is above. I then researched the oath taken by new doctors which essentially has discarded the classical Hippocratic Oath by making a public statement that they will do no harm. They do not take a single, mandatory oath but they must pledge their commitment to professional standards upon registration with the GMC. Many medical schools use versions of the Declaration of Geneva or a modified Hippocratic Oath during graduation ceremonies which are considered important statements of ethical commitment to the principles of medicine. Whatever the soothing words of their leaders it appears that those on strike are in breach of their undertaking and yet are allowed to continue.
On the other hand judicial office holders take the following oath and woe betide them if they are suspected of breaking that oath. “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” Witnesses in court take the following oath or affirmation:-
"I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
In light of the above it is apparent in many trials with evidence presented and sworn that there have been statements made which have been knowingly false. Perjury:- the offence of wilfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath.
The current case of the alleged spies for China is a case in point. Judging by the many published comments from behind the scenes some diametrically opposing statements have been made by or on behalf of the two formerly accused parties. Of course outwith court proceedings lying is a natural human trait distasteful, distressing, necessary, convenient or even stimulating for us all at various times, occasions or events. But in court it`s a criminal offence. Perjury or perverting the course of justice is triable only on indictment with a maximum of life imprisonment and an offence range of community order – 7 years’ custody.(seems a contradiction but copied from sentencing guideline)
With such a serious offence it would be logical to think that it occurs only in such cases where there are very serious outcomes or matters at stake. It might be logical but we do not know. None of the organisations involved publishes appropriate statistics. The question is why is there secrecy on such an important feature of the justice system. One can only speculate. There is of course the standard conspiracy theory to be applied: there would be government discomfort if the offence seems widespread and doubt of the courts` efficiency if the offence were considered so rare as to be not worth recording. In other words you`re hanged if you do and hanged if you don`t.
The bottom line for a bench of magistrates or a panel of jurors is to use their common sense and natural abilities to ascertain whether a witness`s testimony is credible. And the obvious follow up is to inquire whether those involved have these abilities. The recent Channel 4 programme The Jury demonstrated only too clearly the vagaries in the system.
The justice system boat is holed in many places. It is society`s ark to harmonious living on this overcrowded island [England only]. With politicians of the centre being pressured from right and left, west to east and north and south and "diversity" becoming somewhat less than harmonious it seems that one day all that will remain for us to cling on to will be faith in the above oaths still being able to carry with confidence the burden of a free people that their governors are capable of keeping their oath of office. Without a written constitution it is arguable that the safeguards to society of the UK being a republic are open to some doubt.
The oath of allegiance taken by MPs and members of the House of Lords to sit in Parliament.
Wording: "I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."
Taking the oath: MPs can swear on a religious text of their choice. The oath can also be taken with an "uplifted hand," which is the standard manner in Scotland.
Affirmation: A solemn affirmation is available for those who do not wish to swear a religious oath. Its wording is: "I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law."
Other languages: While the oath must legally be in English, MPs can request oath and affirmation cards in other languages, such as Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, and Cornish.
With such a serious offence it would be logical to think that it occurs only in such cases where there are very serious outcomes or matters at stake. It might be logical but we do not know. None of the organisations involved publishes appropriate statistics. The question is why is there secrecy on such an important feature of the justice system. One can only speculate. There is of course the standard conspiracy theory to be applied: there would be government discomfort if the offence seems widespread and doubt of the courts` efficiency if the offence were considered so rare as to be not worth recording. In other words you`re hanged if you do and hanged if you don`t.
The bottom line for a bench of magistrates or a panel of jurors is to use their common sense and natural abilities to ascertain whether a witness`s testimony is credible. And the obvious follow up is to inquire whether those involved have these abilities. The recent Channel 4 programme The Jury demonstrated only too clearly the vagaries in the system.
The justice system boat is holed in many places. It is society`s ark to harmonious living on this overcrowded island [England only]. With politicians of the centre being pressured from right and left, west to east and north and south and "diversity" becoming somewhat less than harmonious it seems that one day all that will remain for us to cling on to will be faith in the above oaths still being able to carry with confidence the burden of a free people that their governors are capable of keeping their oath of office. Without a written constitution it is arguable that the safeguards to society of the UK being a republic are open to some doubt.
The oath of allegiance taken by MPs and members of the House of Lords to sit in Parliament.
Wording: "I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."
Taking the oath: MPs can swear on a religious text of their choice. The oath can also be taken with an "uplifted hand," which is the standard manner in Scotland.
Affirmation: A solemn affirmation is available for those who do not wish to swear a religious oath. Its wording is: "I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law."
Other languages: While the oath must legally be in English, MPs can request oath and affirmation cards in other languages, such as Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, and Cornish.
No comments:
Post a Comment