Tag Archives: sacking

Destruction of two millennia of core justice by Truss

The portrait to the left is of Roman emperor Justinian I (AD 482 to 565), and his key contribution to Roman life was the radical revision of the then core principles of law. {It’s worth mentioning that there was a significant element for the protection of women, should the following discourse lead to the accusation of his being a misogynist.)

A central edict was “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” governing evidence in trials. In English, it is “Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies” – in other words, an accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Liz Truss has shown her disdain for this principle – and indeed for basic justice – by subscribing to an approach hitherto adopted by certain vocal social pressure groups (and it has to be said by opposition MP’s and the Guardian newspaper), namely that some nameless accuser is all that is required to sentence the accused.

She sacked her Trade Minister, Connor Burns, on being informed of an allegation against him. Mr Burns was not given any information about the complaint, nor the identity of his accuser, and he was not asked to provide any information. The length of time between allegation and the sacking clearly did not apparently allow any investigation. A Number 10 statement said “Following a complaint of serious misconduct, the prime minister has asked Conor Burns MP to leave the government with immediate effect. The prime minister took direct action on being informed of this allegation”

This speaks volumes to the illiberal nature of Truss’s character and approach to governing. Previously largely restricted to the “meToo” harridans and the ‘Trans’ lobby, she has formalised the approach of abandoning “due process”. Evidence, the opportunity to cross examine, a fair trial by an independent judiciary and by one’s fellow men/women, do not now appear to be required components of a just structure. At least in Russia the accused got a show trial before they were shot.

{There is a clear ‘moral hazard’ here. Ms Truss could just slip a waitress in the Portcullis House cafeteria a few twenties to claim she was slapped on the bottom by Gove, and she could dispose of his Machiavellian subversions. The reversal of Justinian’s codex is an essential building block for totalitarianism.}

A turning point in this development was surely the act of using Parliamentary privilege by Peter Hain to name Philip Green as having been accused of some form of ‘inappropriate behaviour, when there was at that time an injunction in place by the court to prevent such disclosure. Hain (a convicted criminal) claimed it was in the public interest so to do, in spite of having a pecuniary interest in the outcome, and in spite of the plaintiffs having received substantial sums in settlement and signed legally binding agreements not to discuss it.

This preening, hypocritical individual emboldened the accusation = guilty approach to justice firstly for the feminist and trans brigades, but now it seems it has been adopted as policy by the Goverment.

Come back, Boris (and himself a victim the this trend) all is forgiven.