You
need someone who knows how to run things and if you get someone from
an obscure background, with no background of establishment, they'll
find it very difficult and may not be able actually to produce the
goods.
So
there you have it. In a nutshell. The baldest possible statement by
an establishment figure that there is no need for any of us to worry
about anything, the establishment will look after everything.
There
is no reliance on justice. No expectation that citizen and subject
are all equal before the law. No founding of justice on principles
rather than on persons. No impediment to the abuse of power arising
from privilege and position.
In
fact there is no point in anyone from an obscure background doing
anything.
Check
your own background immediately and, if found to be obscure, stay
under the duvet and don't mention anything about the abuse you and
your family and friends suffered. The sexual and physical abuse, the
deprivation and discrimination abuse, the justice and policing abuse.
And the fiercest abuse of all: you have no power 'to produce the
goods'.
Of
course you can slave away in factories, farms, shops, call centres,
building sites and offices. You can mass-produce gizmos and
mass-consume them as soon as you get money in your hands. Absolutely
spot on if you anaesthetise yourself with alcohol, dope, console
games and on-line gambling, just as long as you don't upset the
neighbours, gated and secure behind high walls.
All
these abuses have been covered up in the past because
people
did not really recognise the seriousness of child abuse and they did
not think it was so important, and it was important to protect
members of the establishment.
Again
such brazen affirmation of wrong in the context of an established
order is dumb-founding. The speaker, Baroness Butler-Sloss, a retired
English judge, was almost appointed as chair of an inquiry set to
investigate whether
public
bodies and other non-state institutions have taken seriously their
duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse in England and
Wales.
She
is a religious person, thus presumed to have a strong moral compass.
It appears to be pointing her well off course.
Her
instincts are conservative and trimmed to stick up for her mates and
colleagues, her equals in the realm. She bristles at criticism of a
former Lord Mayor of London.
The
very least that the honours system could do would be to honour a
woman who has got such a distinguished post.
Again,
there are posts and distinctions which fit people for honours and
positions to which others may not have access. Or if they are so
honoured by the aristocrats – see the recent fancy for boxers,
soccer players and pop-stars – it is with a grudging sense of
patronage, self-serving it its efforts at appeasing us who become
increasingly restive in the midst of low-paid travail and in the face
of opulence.
And
while these startling remarks are made by an English woman, versions
of them apply in all societies, notably those self-designated as the
West.
The
evidence suggests that Anglo-Saxon democracies in our time have
influenced each other chiefly in the cause of social control and
illegal violence.
Any
one for democracy and the rule of law, equally applied by and for
all?
Happy
New Year!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Butler-Sloss,_Baroness_Butler-Sloss
Working
the Dark Side: David Bromwich;
essay; London Review of Books; London; Number 37, Volume 1; January
2015
www.facebook.com/DaveDuggan/Writer
