A short post this afternoon; it could’ve been a tweet, even.
A man called Leon Brittan died last night. He had been suffering from cancer for quite a while, it is reported.
No one’s death should ever bring joy to anyone.
It doesn’t to me.
This is how the Guardian has reported the situation today.
A complex situation, and a lot of loose ends he could have helped to tie up, given time.
But he didn’t have the time. Life is like that, sometimes.
In part, of course, because the current Coalition government has made such a meal of the child sex abuse inquiry. Not his fault; it is, however, clearly theirs.
I do wonder one thing though, tangentially and entirely off the pitch: if the principle of “no meaning no” is clear in crimes of sexual abuse, why isn’t the same principle properly established in our wider relationships with politicians?
Why do they reserve the right to let us believe they’re listening to our “no” – only to turn round several months later with a cool and collected “Ah but …”?
There’s an element of this going on here right now. In many parts of the world, but in particular in the United Kingdom where I live.
If it’s wrong, quite rightly, in the context of crimes of rape – no more nor less than abuses of power in sexual contexts – why is it OK for crimes where power is latently, where not blatantly, imposed by professional representatives over those they supposedly represent?
Why are gross examples of bullying and abuse seen to be so OK in the relationship between state and people?
Why the difference? And why do we tolerate the difference’s existence?