The outgoing "President" of the UK supreme court makes a parting shot today at the government, saying that his judges, responsible for ruling against the government's approach to #Brexit, & thus branded by UK #MSM as "enemies of the people" (Daily Mail) were not defended quickly enough, thus challenging the rule of law as a bedrock of British society.
It's a bizarre feature of the UK social system that the elite, who've assumed they rule us, whilst we fund their capitalist regime, gain our acquiescence to our own financial & even physical destruction via these sorts of hypocritical deceits.
America, also under the law & therefore a country of law & legal enforcement, affords its citizens amendments to its constitution as legal rights. The first of such amendments entitles all US inhabitants the right to freedom of speech, regardless of how odious that speech might be.
Britain, technically doesn't have a constitution at all, although I'm assured by legal specialists in my office that there is a constitution "somewhere" embodied in British law, if you splice bits of it together.
What is bullshit, is the Great British middle class's insistence of the objectivity of public officials in their ability to somehow put aside their personal feelings about everything whilst considering such cases only on the basis of the "facts" of each case.
At the same time, there are calls for better diversity to be demonstrated in the appointees to this highest court in the land. Currently there's only one, white woman & the rest are all white men. One spokesman on that vile tool of British social conditioning, the #BBC #bbcnews #l @BBCr4today programme suggested this narrowness meant that such white, middle class, predominantly male judges were incapable of understanding the social backgrounds and situations of their much more diverse subjects in the cases they presided over. Clearly, there's no need for me to also explain the much higher ratio of UK black to white "criminals" that have their cases considered by the UK supreme court.
The reasons for this contradiction are beyond you and me, the "normal" people of the country, who go about our business, working our arses off in shitty jobs, to buy crap we don't need, if we're lucky not to just be trying to keep our stupid, undereducated heads above the rising tide of debt, on which our wonderful society is built.
In answer to the question by the @BBCr4today journotard, the judgetard strongly protested at the suggestion that the UK supreme court appointees should be subjected to the same kind of governmental, public scrutiny they do in the US circus. The white man judgetard simply said he was happy that legal deliberations were made by his judge colleagues without any knowledge on his part of their personal political affiliations.
Of course, many social scientists have declared, for over a century, that there's no such thing as pure objectivity in any human decision making - that, as those calling for more diversity on our courts' benches exclaim, human beings' judgements will always be coloured by subjectivity. That's the main reason research students are always told that it's never objectivity, but validity that must be fought for.

