Tag Archives: Truss

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.



Truss guns for Putin

Liz Truss, in her pretend role as all an powerful foreign secretary of a global power, has been proposing that the Putin should  be in irons in the dock in The Haig, being tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC)  for war crimes. Like most of the external initiatives of the UK, it produces good domestic headlines, often aids the USA’s excesses by playing the useful village idiot, but in reality (like ‘net zero’) has no meaningful impact whatsoever on the outcomes in the real world. Setting aside the patently obvious attempts by Truss to play to the gallery for her (no doubt) forthcoming bid to succeed Bojo, her proclamations require more robust analysis.

Firstly, it’s worth noting that the ICC does not have universal support. The country leading the sanctions against Putin, the USA,  has not ratified the ‘Rome Statute’ which governs the activities of the court. Not just that, but it has pro-actively impeded any investigation involving the USA or its citizens. Donald Trump addressed the UN General Assembly and stated that the  “United States will provide no support or recognition to the International Criminal Court. As far as America is concerned the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority.” That’s pretty clear, and appears to have been overlooked by Ms Truss.  Putin’s lawyers might just bring that out against any attempt to arraign him.

It might also be noted that the UK shrugs its shoulders at international justice by ignoring rulings by the International Court of Justice (the UN’s highest court) with regard to the Chagos islands. whose inhabitants were banished to allow the US to build a bomber base there. Mauritius is considering referring the UK for crimes against humanity to the ICC, the very self same body Truss  wishes Putin to be tried at for similar crimes. As the Keir Starmer might say, “it’s one rule for us, and another rule for them”   

Secondly, accusations of war crimes – as with most other humanitarian transgressions -always tend to be suffocatingly hypocritical; “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” springs to mind. Especially in this woke age, when the world starts examining historical perspectives, the callous realpolitik of the US exercising its position of the world’s dominant power is hardly the voice of pious judgement.

One act cited as evidencing war crimes was the use of cluster munitions, which are subject of an international treaty, the “Convention on Cluster Munitions”. One non signatory to this is Saudi Arabia – a key US ally, where there is evidence that they have been used by them in the Yemen, including weapons sold to them by the British and the USA. Moreover, the USA has not ratified the cluster convention, and indeed has taken steps under Trump to continue their use, along with land mines

. A Martian reading this would be taken aback by this sanctimonious cant. It’s as though a judge trying a drugs case took a break to take a snort of the white stuff. Grumpy carries no banners for Putin, but the reality is that military conflict  is messy  and In the ‘fog of war’, Stuff Happens, as Donald Rumsfeld once observed about bad things happening in Iraq.  Surely the focus should be longer term steps to create a framework for European stability in particular and the world in general, rather than grandstanding in Parliament. One reason for a more strategic perspective is that  these events are just a rehearsal  for the inevitable China / USA showdown.