On the subject of the legal profession this becomes more the Blog of Disgust.

Thinking about the relationships between Members of Parliament, the Judiciary and the Public it strikes me as disgusting that a person elected to office by several thousands – or millions – of people can be dismissed from that office by a single judge, or even group of judges, regardless of the wishes of those electors. Surely this should only be possible if the elected person has been proved to have committed a serious, criminal act. The longer I live the more I am astounded at the way a handful of members of the legal profession have managed to insinuate themselves into positions of overwhelming power over the rest of us.

We see the same arrogant disregard for the wishes of the electorate in the USA. First the absurd attempts to declare a Russian plot to ensure Donald Trump’s election as President, when as the only credible alternative to Hillary Clinton his election was inevitable. And now more legal skulduggery about trivial events that may or may not have taken place in his private life.

I don’t claim to know whether Donald Trump is a good president; what I do know is that a bunch of lawyers and other individuals in privileged positions are trying to overturn the decision of millions of American citizens on flimsy and insubstantial grounds.

How many people in the USA have said ‘I wouldn’t have voted for him if I’d known that’? About the same number as would have said ‘Oo I wouldn’t have voted for Barnaby Joyce if I’d known that he could have qualified for New Zealand citizenship had he ever wanted to’. I strongly suspect that the answer in both cases would be ‘None’. Even if I’m wrong, I’m certain the the number would be too negligible to have affected the result of either election.

The legal profession should focus its attention on those who seek to rob or swindle citizens, or cause them harm. And the degree to which it does so should be proportional to the magnitude and frequency of the offences. Playing about with bits of the constitution that have no real, practical significance, whilst acquiring handsome remuneration from the public purse, might in itself be regarded as dishonesty, particularly when we are told that the courts in general are incapable of trying cases promptly and expediently.

Of course if an elected person is found or suspected to have acted in a criminal manner they should be treated in exactly the same way as any other citizen in similar circumstances. But they aren’t. Unless they are an Independent or too low in the party hierarchy to matter. We know for a fact that in Australia you can break someone’s arm and go unpunished if you have enough political clout. You can even be touted as Prime Minister.

I do find it distressing that any elector – or indeed anyone at all – should consider such a person suitable to gain or retain any public office. But for the purposes of this blog we will continue to suppose that the will of the public – even as distorted through a Byzantine electoral system such as ours – is the best hope of achieving some semblance of fair and responsible government.

I conclude that the legal profession is on the whole of no better value to the public than are professional politicians. Both are masters of obfuscation and misdirection, bleeding the public dry to provide excessive remuneration for little value in return – instead, acting out a complicated charade to shore up their own pretended importance.

If you are trying to be an honest politician, or lawyer, I thank you for your efforts and have no wish to denigrate you. But you will also know that you have no chance of penetrating the citadels of the people I am talking about.

I think I mentioned tumbrels before somewhere.