The trials of Tyrion Lannister, and others.
Warning! Spoiler alert for Game of Thrones Series 4, Episodes 4, 5 and 6!
Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister turns on his tormentors as his father Tywin (Charles Dance) looks on from the Iron Throne
I have just finished watching the fourth series of the splendid “Game of Thrones”. The series began on Sky a couple of months ago, but for various reasons I didn’t have the chance to catch or record the first episodes, so I put myself into self imposed “GoT” isolation, and waited until I could acquire the full series on DVD, which I have now done.
For those who haven’t watched it (and there can’t be many), Game of Thrones is a complex story of rival noble families, some battling for control of the Seven Kingdoms and the Crown of Wester-Ross with its ghastly Iron Throne, others just seeking to escape the carnage and be free. Sadly, life isn’t always like that. The show has become a world wide phenomenon. It now adds many tens of millions pounds to the economy of Northern Ireland, where much of the show is shot in what I believe was formerly the dock where the Titanic was built, and is now one of the world’s largest sets. Even Her Majesty visited the set this week to meet the cast and eye up the Iron Throne for herself.
What is the secret of the show’s success? There are many reasons; a fabulously complex story line involving lust for power, just lust (plenty of that and in some quite explicit and highly improper ways), war, extreme violence, triumph, revenge, murder, love, bereavement, beautiful acting, sets and costumes; all of that and more. Importantly there are characters in whom you can believe, who are not always wholly good or wholly evil, who have real motivations and actually believable psychologies which develop in sometimes unexpected ways.
But I would suggest that the ultimate reason is that it is actually true to life. People vie for power, especially the least appropriate, who often display a singular lust for it. Innocent people sometimes get torn apart. People lie and betray and fail. Sometimes justice is done, but sometimes great injustice prevails. In this sense, it is as good a primer for life as anything I have ever seen.
Now I have been careful to avoid any “plot spoilers” in case anyone is about to embark on the series, but there is one spoiler I will give: in this series, Tyrion Lannister is put on trial for murder.
Tyrion Lannister is many people’s favourite character. Born to the richest and perhaps the most ruthless of the noble families, he is a dwarf. Brilliantly played by Emmy award winner Peter Dinklage, he begins the story as a reprobate drunk with a penchant for whores, constantly derided as “the Imp”. He gradually develops as one of the most complex and likeable characters, both moral and brave, hugely intelligent and living off his quick wits in a world which respects only physical power and strength. He is hated by his father the ruthless and astute Tywin Lannister (played with sinister Aryan zeal by Charles Dance). His father blames him for the death of his mother in childbirth, and for demeaning the family line by his small stature. We learn quite early on of the appalling event to which his father subjected him when as a very young man he fell in love. His sister, the Queen, hates him too, and fears him. However his brother Jaime, tall, handsome and a natural born killer has a special bond with him. Tyrion’s adventures have been many and his fortunes mixed. At one point he is the unexpected saviour of the capital city of King’s Landing from the attack of the remorseless rival Stannis Baratheon, but gets no credit for it.
And here is the plot spoiler. In Series 4 he gets put on trial for murder; the murder of someone rather important. He’s been on trial for murder before and got out of it. This time things look black, not least because his father Tywin is chief judge and has already determined his guilt.
I found the conduct of Tyrion’s trial quite instructive for these times, in which one can barely open the papers but for some trial or other. In one way the trial is different from the procedure which is used in the present “real” world, in that there was no proper cross examination. But then, just because these days a defendant is allowed to cross examine it does not necessarily mean that a proper cross examination takes place anyway. That often depends on the information available to the person asking the questions…
But more important than this was the fact that whilst there were some lies in the evidence against him, a great deal of it was actually literally true. He did do and say the things levelled at him. But the context in which he said or did them is not properly revealed.
It just struck me that with all that has been going on over recent months and weeks, allegations have to be treated with great care, not credulously, and even trials are an imperfect process, and injustices do happen. I have pondered greatly whether some more inquisitorial version of trial might be better than the adversarial system we now have. I am not sure. Both have their plusses and minuses. But in the end, I suppose what I am trying to say is that the “justice” system is not perfect, and never will be, and there should be a great caution in rushing to judgment.
Speaking of which, readers will be aware that there are one or two trials still going on at the moment. No comments in respect of these please. We don’t want to do a Cameron and get in hot water with the judge…
Meanwhile, for a slice of drama in which the Tyrion’s trial reaches a conclusion which nobody, not least his father, expected – and in which he gives vent to years of prejudice and humiliation, here is a bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Uq8O5ZhUA
Gildas the Monk
-
June 30, 2014 at 11:36 am -
Thank you Gildas. I am one of the ‘not many’ and am pleased to read a rational description of the phenomenon. I’m even more pleased that NI’s economy and no doubt a future mecca of international tourist pilgrimage has been given a boost. The thing is about these allegorical sagas is that everyone can slot in their own version of the real world view it represents so mirror opposites can claim it as the ‘truth’. I was amused to see on the Victoria Lucas You Tube commentary (where of course one of the best and most enduring of the Exposure spoofs is ‘The Game of Clones’) a comment by someone who though one of the dissemblers parodied was in fact Gerry McCann! Since the Exposure spoofs are more or less a straight satire on real contemporary events through the the brilliant conceit of persecuted 70s TV puppets I wondered quite what this viewer thought he was watching – or rather where he was at! Game of Thrones on the other hand appears to be more of a Lord of the Rings type allegory – another book/film I haven’t read or seen (nor the Star Wars,nor …is this a gender thing I wonder?)
-
June 30, 2014 at 5:33 pm -
I am one of the “not many” too, but it does sound like an interesting show, and if I ever have time, I will catch up on the video.
-
June 30, 2014 at 6:01 pm -
The original Stars Wars was OK. Game of Thrones is less “Lord of the Rings light” (a superb book by the way, which I have loved since childhood) and more as others have said “The Sopranos” with fur and armour
-
June 30, 2014 at 6:24 pm -
Well I’ll believe you – I haven’t watched the Sopranos either – and please don’t mention the Skandis – I have seen some of these but I have an aversion to grey depictions of psychopathic neurosis. Fraid its Inspector Montalbano or nothing for me (I learnt restaurant Italian convincingly from this – what more can one ask for?)
-
July 1, 2014 at 6:12 am -
Yup, the BBC lucked out with it’s foreign detective purchases. Sky Atlantic is the clear winner so far.
-
-
-
-
June 30, 2014 at 1:02 pm -
A very interesting piece.
Edmund Burke rightly pointed out that:
“It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.”
One of the greatest contributions that the English speaking people have made to the world is the principle of Common Law. It was recognised quite early on, that no one person had enough combined wisdom to apply ‘justice’. Human nature is flawed and fixed, therefore it cannot be expected that one individual knows what’s best for the rest of us.
By applying a body of knowledge, passed down and altered by generation after generation, the combined wisdom and virtue of the ages, injustice can be avoided as much as humanly possible. One would know beforehand what a probably outcome would be based on precedent which binds future decisions, in addition to being a constraint on the state and citizen.
The side effect of this principle is that power, always dangerous, would be defuse and decentralized. No individual would hold sway over another, while avoiding the process of ‘discovering’ an outcome based on the ‘moral’ imperative of the day.
The law therefore seeks to be a consistent interpretation of values and traditions. It is not concerned with ‘social justice’, nor can its advocates become ‘philosopher kings’. The American’s took it a stage further, through its adoption of a written constitution, setting out a series of simple negative rights which further constrain the individual.
However since the end of the Second World War, and has accelerated since we have joined the EU, is the concept of codified law or directives, governed and created from a centralized, lawmaking body, which seeks to address the concepts of ‘social justice’ to tackle things like ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ for all its citizens. The places judges and lawyers in the position of being ‘philosopher kings’ who act out of these set of guiding principles.
Of course, any conservative can see the immediate dangers in this structure. It places too much power into the hands of its advocates, laws can be amended and changes based on the whim of the political imperative of the day. People ‘discover’ its outcome through the judicial process, which becomes an arbitrary process in and of itself.
Of course, it cannot be stressed enough, that as a consequence of making something ‘better’, often is that as an unforeseen outcome is to make something worse.
The trials of Tyrion Lannister, is probably a reflection of a very real debate taking place in America. Question regarding the role of the Supreme Court, The Constitution, State Rights and the role of the Federal Government have very real world impacts. From the implementation of Obamacare, balanced budgets through to authorization for military action, this is being played out across America today.
It’s a shame we don’t have the same level of debate. Yes we should move away of the EU’s form of justice, but more power to Westminster? Is the law meant to be a tool of social policy? I would argue that it isn’t the way we conduct justice in our courts, but what law actually means that is the central issue.
-
June 30, 2014 at 3:04 pm -
And an equally interesting comment, revealing that there is more to this topic than might meet the eye…
-
June 30, 2014 at 5:11 pm -
Yes, indeed, but which is preferable the US system where legislators are constantly tinkering with the laws without thinking things through, for example the Terry Schiavo law in Florida which was created to by-pass the existing laws regarding who had the power of attorney to act for a married woman who was incapacitated–the husband or the parents–or the UK system in which you have legislation from the bench with unelected judges effectively changing the law as they go along–for example doubling Stuart Hall’s sentence on appeal on the grounds that he had made an emphatic public denial that went beyond a simple “not guilty” and then reversed his plea, thus causing harm to the hostile witnesses, or the judge compounding offenses for Max Clifford, so that is two years for a kiss, two more years for a tittie grope, another 2 years for a pantie fumble, all to be served consecutively. (I might be exaggerating a bit, but not much.)
-
June 30, 2014 at 6:28 pm -
You’re not exaggerating. You are entirely mistaken. The US (apart from Lousiana) is a Common Law jurisdiction (or series of jurisdictions with a Common Law federal system too). We don’t have any more “judge made law” than you do (in fact given the improper “judicial activism” of the leftists in your Supreme Court you probably have more now) and our legislators are just as dumb, wayward and prone to react stupidly and sharply to a story in the news. As for the comments in the post about an inquisitorial system I am one of few Common Lawyers in history who spent more of his career across the great philosophical divide in the Civil Law world. The only remaining British institution I believe in and trust is the jury. The last change I would want to make is to have trials driven by judges in the continental fashion. Even when a client wins in such a court, he often feels he was not properly heard. Justice is far better served and confidence in the system better built by the admittedly sometimes theatrical adversarial trial. Having said that, some parts of the court service in England (notably the Family Courts) are in such appalling disarray now that a “magic eight ball” would do a better job!
-
June 30, 2014 at 8:48 pm -
Some interesting observations.
To address the problem of the Supreme Court in the United States requires a reverse of the culture which has invested the political class with an ever increasing role in the private sphere. The Founding Fathers knew the danger of power, so they designed a system that actual applied constraint. The American Constitution is the written application of those constraints, with the ultimate power expressed in the very simple opening passage ‘We the people’.
However this has been increasingly eroded since Wilson took office, to the point where now, the current POTUS can simply pick and choose which laws apply to which group, which is often based on political calculation. Because the POTUS can pick judges, the tendency today is to pick a judge based on upholding social ‘justice’, rather than upholding the Constitution.
Its telling that Obama said in the last election that he would pick a judge if that judge would ‘stand up’ for the ‘victim’, and not on the basis of upholding the law. To his mind, the Constitution is too much of a break to his ambitions, and because of his background, he is far smarter than the average American, and knows whats ‘good for us’.
The same is true regarding the EU, and to a lesser extent, Westminster, as proven by the stack of badly written law on the books today.
To my mind, the law should not be used as a tool to address social issues. ‘Rights’ as we understand today are actually ‘entitlements’, the ‘right’ to an education, ‘free’ healthcare, minority rights, even human rights are nothing more than ‘promises’ by the state, which are just as easily removed, depending on the whim of any given set of political situations. The same is true with having judges armed the power to investigate. You only have to look at Italy or Belgium (The Marc Dutroux case is a very interesting example) to see how easy politics manipulates the outcome.
Negative rights on the other hand, the right to free speech, free press, own property all act as a constraint on everybody else, and in my opinion, is the only safeguard to liberty. The law is not their to be ‘fair’, but to address a wrongdoing as set out under precedent, the combined wisdom of the ages, and the outcome to be judged by a person’s peers, not by a smart lawyer who has time to read 2000 pages of codified law.
-
-
-
-
June 30, 2014 at 3:02 pm -
And so now Rolf Harris has been “potted” by the Behometh that is Operation Yewtree, I believe…
It is odd and interesting that quite a few ShowBiz insiders have come forward and said – not, this is not the man they knew at all, and knew for a long time. One such being Dougie Squires, choreographer of the “Young Generation” dance troupe who regularly appeared on Rolf’s shows back in the day. One might expect the young ladies to have attracted the attention of a serial groper, but no, not a bit of it said Dougie (who also said he had a good working relationship with RH, but was not in any way a close friend). He said he had never heard or seen anything of the sort, and they worked together for many years.
Others have been brave enough to say no, he was a jolly decent cove. But there we go. I suppose my main point is that one doesn’t necessarily get “the truth” in any system.-
June 30, 2014 at 3:15 pm -
It will be open season on Rolf in the tabloids tomorrow!
-
June 30, 2014 at 5:31 pm -
The presumption of innocence – the burden and standard of proof – this are the fundamental principles which recognise that convictions the fallibility of any system of criminal just ‘it is better that etc etc – can’t remember the exact quote. But this was challenged in relation to sexual abuse back in 1988 with the Pigot report – this seems a rather quaint document now since it was intended to meet the problem of young children’s evidence – but it became a blueprint for campaigners in subsequent reforms across the spectrum of sexual offences all of which have now been enacted together with other prejudicial rules of evidence with persistent endemic flaws in investigation. Here’s a photostat copy link http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/faculty-resources/summary/pigot-report/8979
-
June 30, 2014 at 11:24 pm -
‘…Others have been brave enough to say no, he (Rolf Harris) was a jolly decent cove’.
No. I don’t think he was.
Sad to say (and I grew up watching him on TV and was, I would say a ‘fan’ and was horrified to hear that he was in the frame) that he is a convicted serial sex offender. Nothing more. The lowest form of existence in God’s creation. ‘Two Little Boys’ doesn’t seem to have been Rolf’s particular ‘bag’, but I wouldn’t put anything past him, the dirty old sod…
Perhaps he has been judged for what he did in the 60’s and 70’s by 2o14 moralities, but he clearly lied to the jury – a fatal error. I also think the much mocked (on this blog) ‘Behemoth’ that is Operation Yewtree is slowly ‘getting its ducks in a row’. There have been a few that have escaped the net but I think there will be a few more surprises yet.
Rolf Harris even had the unmitigated cheek and nerve to host a ‘stranger danger’ type programme in the 1980’s entitled ‘Kids can say No’.
What a cynical manipulator.
-
June 30, 2014 at 11:46 pm -
“There have been a few that have escaped the net”
Brilliant. Quite brilliant….
-
July 1, 2014 at 12:20 am -
Frankie: Rubbish.
Yewtree now has the best legal talent in the CPS on the job–the best liars and bullshitters . They are also throttling down the colourful tales abuse stories (altho’ there were several in Rolf’s case) in favour of near impossible to disprove he-said/she-saids. Not to mention the whole “new evidence” caper–increasingly it seems that the fix is in–it would have to be–any more failures and it would have finished Yewtree.
-
July 1, 2014 at 9:29 pm -
Hmmm. Mr Ecks.
You say ‘…the fix is in – it would have to be’,
but how do you (and any who doubt the fact that Yewtree are (finally) getting to grips with the real historical paedophiles) explain the fact that a jury – comprised of randomly picked members citizenry (men and women like you and me) listened to all the evidence and found him guilty.The fact that he has been is uncomfortably at odds with the ‘Jimmy Savile is innocent of everything’ theme that pervades this particular blog. He may well have been – we will never know the truth of it and he has been demonised quite unfairly in death, and that, in and of itself is reprehensible – he was a weirdo yes, but a weirdo who did a great deal of good with his charity work, at least in the early days, but Rolf Harris has, by consequence, been tried by a jury of his peers, is guilty as charged and must now pay the price.
I daresay there will now be a whole slew of people rushing to claim that Rolf Harris ‘had at’ them as well, as happened to Stewart Hall, but you should remember that he was, largely, found not guilty of those additional crimes, at his second trial. Have faith.
I don’t doubt that the crimes he committed in the 60’s and 70’s are being judged by current moralities, but these are the chances you take – when you serially grope young kids and, in the next breath, front up a film standing against child abuse. Breathtaking arrogance, that he was beyond prosecution…
The boys in blue are not popular by any stretch of the imagination, but, they will get there in the end.
-
July 2, 2014 at 12:16 am -
” ‘Jimmy Savile is innocent of everything’ theme that pervades this particular blog.”
Cobblers Frankie! Balderdash.
What pervades this blog is a theme that claims should be investigated, and not taken at face value on the grounds that ‘Jimmy Savile is guilty of everything’.
I have no more idea than you do whether he was or wasn’t a paedophile – neither do the NSPCC or any of the other people who have been so quick to accept the media verdict. I only know that the ‘thousands’ he was said to have abused all emerged after the Exposure programme. Since one of the group of Duncroft girls involved in that ‘exposure’ was actually in Duncroft at the same time as me, nine years before Savile ever set foot in the place, I think I’m entitled to display a healthy scepticism towards the other ‘Duncroft’ stories.
I’m really surprised at you, Frankie.
-
July 2, 2014 at 12:38 pm -
And…
I am as skeptical as you Anna, and you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I have no idea whether JS was guilty or innocent (as I think I have made clear, both here and previously) but… there is an all pervading theme that the coppers of Yewtree have no idea what they are doing; that the CPS are fools, which is the point of view taken by the execrable Mr. Ecks – who even went so far as to suggest that the verdict was fixed.
Rolf Harris, in contrast to JS WAS tried by a jury of his peers (in contrast to having his name blasted without any evidence being presented), so he may, or may not have been guilty, the facts don’t seem to support the assertions, so he has been demonised without evidence.
Rolf Harris (a boyhood hero) has, by contrast, had the benefit of a jury trial. I would regard the fact that a boatload of people who have now come forward to claim ‘me too’ should be treated with equal suspicion, and, perhaps like those in the second trial of Stuart Hall, will largely come to naught.
I am equally surprised that you missed this essential detail in my dissertation. I would not dream of crossing La Raccoon on this essential subject – it would be far too dangerous…
-
-
-
-
July 1, 2014 at 1:28 am -
Oh, Yewtree is certainly getting its act together. But then, so did Stalin’s show trials in the 1930s. And so, come to that, did the Satanic Abuse trials in the USA. It’s hardly proof of worthiness.
The only actual “abuse” we seem to have is a very long running affair with a younger woman, which she claims started when she was under age. Other than that, some groping, and the usual one or two bizarre claims for added spice.
“The lowest form of existence in God’s creation”
Here’s the interesting modern distortion of the value system. Lower than serial killers? Lower than a person who murders their spouse for the insurance money? Lower than a serial rapist? Lower than muggers? Lower than every other criminal? Touching a girl’s bum? You sure about this?
-
July 1, 2014 at 6:13 am -
Lower than animal abusers?
-
July 1, 2014 at 6:29 am -
How do they ever get a conviction for animal abuse? Giving the victim a whimper perhaps.
-
-
July 1, 2014 at 6:17 am -
It struck me that Yewtree seems to have a more impressive vindictive streak than a winning one. I daresay you nobody will need to turn on a sixpence and hate Gary Glitter when the Southwark jury get going though. Clanton, Misssippippi and Judge Omar Noose would have felt very at home in Sarf Landon I sense. In the movies of course there’s always a Carl Brigance handy, but this aint the movies.
-
July 1, 2014 at 3:15 pm -
Well I think now they’ve perfected the recipe. For your Yewtree conviction you will need-
1) Long term relationship with a vulnerable teenager that destroyed her mind.
2) A variety of random touchings and gropings to confirm the persistent and indiscriminate nature of the man’s perving.
3) One really young fondling so indefensible that it confirms the utter repulsiveness of the defendant, even if all the others could be explained away or defended.
4) (Optional) More in the pipeline.
-
July 1, 2014 at 3:24 pm -
5) Hold your trial in London rather than Preston.
-
July 1, 2014 at 3:32 pm -
6) Keep Gary Glitter on the back-burner for maximum effect when needed
-
-
-
-
July 1, 2014 at 9:33 pm -
If you were the father of a very young girl, the answer to the question on whether a man who touches her up is the lowest form of existence in God’s creation is… YES!!
The other scuzz you and others mention are all equally worthless… in my opinion.
-
July 2, 2014 at 4:56 am -
Frankie, like I said- lower than serial killers, lower than murderers? Lower than death camp gas chamber operators?
Weird value system you have there.
THis is the strange thing really. We see a situation in which actual harm against individuals, even of a grotesque kind, is considered less serious than outrages against moral sentiment. Humans have a natural tendency to act this way; taboo systems and the prosecution of them seems to have developed (or even, evolved) as a kind of means of community bonding. Everyone getting together to stone the adulteress provides a means of social lubrication.
But one of the features that made the West so successful over the past few centuries was an effort to adhere to a set of enlightenment principles in which we exercise a kind of cautious, reasoned judgement rather than rushing to extremity. And it’s that which appears to be collapsing at the moment. If people don’t want to adhere to those principles, it’s effectively impossible to persuade them to. It’s enormously pleasurable to be a part of the howling mob. But we should at least try. If for no other reason than because societies that don’t don’t seem to end up as very happy and stable places to live.
-
July 2, 2014 at 5:14 am -
I am the father of two very young daughters aged 5 and almost 2. Last week the older girl did have a middle-aged man groping her genital area, but since he was her paediatrician and she had complained of some irritation in the area, it was necessary for her to be examined. I doubt that the examination was traumatic for her. You see, context is everything.
If some man grabbed her in public and groped her in this way, I would probably suspect that he was mentally ill or mentally retarded in some way, so I would not necessarily think EVIL, EVIL, EVIL. In any case, I would not make a huge deal about it and tell her that now she was ruined for life because this man had touched her. I would tell her that this man was a bad man and did a naughty thing, but I would not display too much emotion or anger or concern, not wanting her to dwell on it unnecessarily.
Of course, if the offender was someone in a position of responsibility, like a teacher or swimming instructor, who planned and schemed to get his hands on young children, then yes I would want steps taken to make sure that he could not do it again to another child, and that very likely might include prison.
I am not sure, though, that Harris really fits the mould of a predatory paedophile, or Savile for that matter. Although they aren’t telling you this, these judges and lawyers are dealing day in and day out with fellows who commit the most unpleasant and gross crimes such as performing oral sex on young children, or vice versa, and they know perfectly well that pat on the bum thirty five years ago, even if embarrassing for the recipient, would not have merited an indecent assault trial at the assizes.
-
July 2, 2014 at 10:36 am -
It’s odd, but it’s only recently that I have recovered the memory of my inner angst about what I would have done if either of my children were sexually assaulted when they were little. I couldn’t think where I got that angst from since it was back in the mid-80’s and I never read any of the Murdoch press and growing up as child of the 60’s & 70’s I had never met anyone who had been sexually abused or had the slightest suspicion that anyone I knew had been, although I knew more than one who underwent corporal punishment. Wherever the angst came from, I nevertheless overcame it enough to allow my children to go out to play with their pals in the park and streets. I distinctly recall that I felt feelings of stronger vengeance that my son might be “interfered with” than that something unfortunate might happen to my daughter. I suspect that this was because I always assumed in my mind that it would be a male doing the “assaulting”.
I would completely concur that whatever had happened I was determined to minimise my reactions to the child and try to ensure they felt that whatever this nasty thing was that had happened, it was no worse than a broken leg might be, and it would soon heal and that I felt the same love for them as before – just the same. Nothing was changed for them as a person.
I had vague daydreams of hunting down and killing or disabling the person who had done it, since I had no anticipation that they would suffer much in the legal system. Then I thought that going to prison for murder myself would not help my kids much. Then I thought that if my child was murdered I would certainly murder the murderer. That worked until I had the second child, but then I was stuck again with the same dilemma.
I never thought of the notion of waiting thirty years to get them though; that might have been the solution.
-
-
-
-
-
-
June 30, 2014 at 3:26 pm -
It has already started.
-
June 30, 2014 at 5:28 pm -
I was shocked at the Harris verdict of guilty on all counts.
On the subsidiary counts, it seemed to me that there was really no evidence, and that even if guilty, the offenses were so trivial as to be hardly worth bringing to court at all. Patting a young waitress on the bum in 1975, no wait a minute it was 1978, probably after a few drinks had gone down–oh, come on.
On the other hand the main counts seemed to be of a completely different nature and simply revolved around one question, did Harris pork the friend of Bindi before she turned 16? Obviously the jury thought so, but the evidence as reported in the newspapers and Web sites was pretty vague and I don’t remember hearing anything about him taking her virginity.
On the negative side, I cannot for the life of me see why the defense used the obvious lie of never having been to Cambridge. It seems very odd that none of his family remembered the occasion at all. I myself vaguely remember that TV show in which between-gigs actors took part in a kind of school sports day competition. Robert Lindsay of “Me and My Girl”–you were in it– and so was a sexy actress of the time called Suzanne Danielle, so I am sure that millions would have remembered Harris as a participant too.
I can’t help thinking that Harris had some troubles, perhaps with waning sexual potency in his middle years, and did some distasteful things, or showed an exaggerated and unseemly interest in nubile adolescents, but I also suspect that if I was a juror in that case, I would have argued that there was insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing to convict.
I hope none of my remarks here will influence the judge in his sentencing.
-
June 30, 2014 at 6:43 pm -
Given the jury apparently took a week to decide the case, I suspect there may well have been an ‘awkward sod’ arguing just like you would have.
-
June 30, 2014 at 8:21 pm -
I think the thing here is that we’ve entered a regime in which, in sexual matters, the actual offences aren’t what a person is tried for. What is being tried is whether the person has a certain nature or essence, rather than the traditional common law matter of punishing people for acts they have committed. So the triviality or not doesn’t matter; what matters is whether some behaviour is seen to demonstrate that a person is “a paedophile”.
This is the same as trying somebody not on the basis of whether they have committed a particular burglary, but on whether they are a “burglar type person”. It amounts to a total paradigm shift in the law over the past few decades.
There are really two separate issues going on for us here. The first is whether these persons did what is claimed of them. The second is the interpretation of the meaning of the acts if they did. The most significant part of that paradigm shift being the interpretation of any sexual attraction to a person below the age of consent- in practise now 18 in line with American preferences, even if it remains 16 for “non-trust” situations. In effect, an attitude considered normal as late as the 1980s- “she’s (or indeed, “he’s”) attractive but not legal yet”- is now considered to be a profound psychosexual derangement.
-
June 30, 2014 at 8:50 pm -
Yep, it seems that way. I am afraid that I suffer from the extreme disability of being an very concrete thinker and cannot deal with abstract ideas at all, so I tend to think in the “old” way, but I think you are absolutely right on several points. It is not that the offender has actually done anything to harm anyone on a specific occasion or date or in a specific place, but if he/she is a witch/paedophile, then that is enough, and can be proved by finding marks of the stigmata.
I find that when I am writing comments on The Guardian, they may often be deleted, even if I am simply recounting a 100% true anecdote from memory as faithfully as possible on a subject in which I am an expert, if the point illustrated does not match the theme of the day. I suspect that the logic behind this is that even if true, the point of view will be offensive to some readers.
For example I wrote about how careful one has to be in the workplace in the US not to be seen to be sexually harassing. In my workplace, employees had to do compulsory overtime if there were not enough people for the next shift. A female employee said to me: ” I do not feel well. Even my butt crack is sweaty. If I have to stay over tonight, I will drop my pants and piss on the floor.” My first instinct was to say, “well call me first because we will need a photograph for your disciplinary file”, but I thought better of it and just said “I would not do that if I was you. You might regret it later.”
Even though this piece of banter was 100% true, The Guardian deleted the comment, not, I believe for obscenity, but simply because the idea that a female employee would speak in such a manner is not one that can be discussed as it is demeaning to The Guardian’s female readers in general to suggest that one of them might speak in such a manner, and because even creating the mental image of a female employee pissing on the floor and a male manager taking a photograph with a cell phone would be subversive, even if the whole thing is just banter.
In the Cambridge incident, Harris was on his knees barking at a dog, then got up and hugged a young waitress (possibly under the influence of a few drinks) and possibly his hand did her buttocks in front of an audience of people enjoying a good laugh after a day’s work, and this is described as Harris believing he could sexually assault people in full view of others because he considered himself above the law? This way madness lies.
-
June 30, 2014 at 9:07 pm -
Indeed Jonathan.
I’ve been thinking a lot about all this lately (haven’t we all?) and it seems to me that we need to understand that we’re dealing with a fierce taboo system. Without realising that, we tend to think we can have a rational discussion about these matters, but that is not the case. Taboo does not work at the rational discussion level, because (this is my conclusion anyway) taboos are not conclusions but axioms. They are there at the start of a thought process, not the result at the end of one.
Every society has taboos. What we see with this, and Progressivism in general, is the construction for us of an ever more intense and comprehensive system of taboos. Once people have internalised a taboo, all discussion is shut down. Suppose it is taboo to eat cheese in some society. People are rendered incapable of discussing whether this prohibition actually makes any sense, because it is axiomatic. A person who faces somebody daring to question such a taboo immediately switches to denunciation, because there is no thought process involved or allowed, the inherent nature of taboo. In this case, by shouting “cheese eater!” at the person until they are silenced.
So what I’ve been pondering is how one cracks into that short-circuited thinking to get a discussion going, but I have no answers to that. The problem being that, although given the chance one can use rational discussion to demonstrate flaws in the taboo, that is useless because nobody will have the discussion with you. They’ll just denounce you as a cheeseophile.
-
June 30, 2014 at 10:26 pm -
Eating meat leaves you being “a carnivore”. It’s actually impossible to “morally justify” butchering a sentient being so you can eat it. You can have an opinion, but you will never be able to justify it in a “modern morality” discussion. Thus, there is no point debating it if you wish to continue eating meat; you just do so, because you still have the freedom to make that choice.
I remember having a “debate” with a very clever chap when I was about 13 or so. He maintained that “Politics” was more important than “Biology”. I said this was silly because knowing all about biology was far more important from a scientific point of view. He gradually talked me round that “Politics” had to be more important because we could control “Politics” whereas biology was fundamentally actually beyond our control because the laws of nature remained unchanged however much we might learn about them. In that sense “Politics” was far more important. Fundamentally I continued to disagree with him in my heart, but I couldnlt see that he was not correct in the context he meant. I daresay he’s a succesful and very rich lawyer now, controlling my life in many ways, while I type aimlessly on half-forgotten and unread blogs and eat eggs laid by chickens who live hellish lives of brutality and die meaninglessly to be fed to cats.
-
-
-
July 1, 2014 at 6:15 am -
IanB: “… I think the thing here is that we’ve entered a regime in which, in sexual matters, the actual offences aren’t what a person is tried for. What is being tried is whether the person has a certain nature or essence…”
Already seen one ‘Guardian’ piece that suggested celebrities be considered under the same rules as others in position of power or influence with children, such as teachers.
Now, define ‘celebrity’!
-
-
-
June 30, 2014 at 5:39 pm -
Yes the Cambridge rebuttal is being paraded as ‘proof’ when in fact all it proved was that he was in Cambridge in the 1970s – he said he didn’t realise it was Cambridge – well I’ve no idea the strength of that – if he was helicoptered into a playing field in the middle of nowhere it would be understandable not to link the event with ‘Cambridge’ and all that evokes but it was a poor decision by the defence team not to research I agree.
I don’t know what he might be guilty of in reality- but do find these investigations and trials profoundly disturbing when they go back to the 60s and bundle claims made following arrest and publicity so that they are cross-admissible.-
June 30, 2014 at 5:53 pm -
The only thing I can think of is that this was a technical decision by the defense. If the prosecution presented no pre-trial evidence that Harris was ever in Cambridge, the defense decided to deny he was ever there on the assumption that it was not allowed to bring in new evidence once the trial was underway. The trial was held up for a whole day of legal arguments in closed court before this new evidence was admitted, so it must have been a cause of extreme dissent.
However, in the view of the jury it must have undermined Harris’ claim that he was never in Portsmouth either.
Another point, I read elsewhere (Guardian or BBC), that might have gone against him is that when the affair with the Friend of Bindi (FoB) was revealed, apparently Bindi underwent counseling, but she refused to allow the counselor’s notes to be released for use in court by the defense (or the prosecution). Of course this was her right on grounds of medical confidentiality, but it raises a suspicion that she might have said something harmful to the defense that she did not want released. Prosecution witnesses, on the other hand, had released their notes. Of course they had anonymity, and Bindi did not.
-
June 30, 2014 at 6:30 pm -
The evidence would have been admissible during the trial as rebuttal evidence. The prosecution did not need to provide evidence that Harris was in Cambridge other than the say so of he complainant – but when he denied being there the prosecution would be entitled to produce evidence to rebut as it was impugning the credibility of their witness. It really should have been dealt with by the defence research team pre-trial.
-
-
June 30, 2014 at 6:20 pm -
He might have been helicoptered into a field, or just bussed into a field, but here is the problem. The woman complained that the grope happened at a kind of “Celebrity It’s A Knockout” in Cambridge in about 1975 when she was 13. Harris was apparently in Cambridge in 1978 at Star Games, when the girl would have been 16, not 13, so straight away that would have changed the charge from molestation of a 13 year old to molestation of a 16 year old which is probably a legal difference–perhaps that can be appealed.
However as the link shows, Harris appeared in 5 episodes of Star Games, and numerous other well-known TV people of time also appeared in this show. Star Games is sufficiently similar to Celebrity It’s A Knockout for Harris to have remembered participating in no less than 5 episodes and at least to have wondered where they took place, if he did not know.
Of course it is possible that he is suffering from memory loss or dementia, but the defense has not claimed that, and one assumes that other members of his family will have been involved in building the defense case.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1574511/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm
-
June 30, 2014 at 9:23 pm -
I’m not so sure he would remember. Harris was a celebrity doing numerous small gigs. To somebody outside the industry, being in a TV show would seem like a big deal and very memorable, but for somebody like Harris this would be very trivial, just one more gig. This was not a big show. For viewers, I doubt many remember it at all (I don’t, and I was 12 at the time so a pretty much peak TV viewer of this kind of light entertainment at that point in my life). For Harris, a few hours of his life on this minor TV show would be easy to forget.
It’s a bit like asking a plumber whether he remembers working on a particular house for a few days 35 years ago. He may remember if there was something specifically memorable about the job, but equally he may not.
A while ago I was thinking back on my own theatre years (as a technician) and in order to remember certain things I had to put together a timeline of shows on a piece of paper, on which I discovered blanks I could only fill in with a lot of trying hard to remember, and the help of the internet. And these were West End shows with significant runs. If you asked me to name all the sunday concerts and extra bits and bobs, I bet I’d be lucky to remember a quarter of them.
-
July 1, 2014 at 12:03 am -
He might not have remembered but he did five shows in this series and since each show employed a number of “celebrities” he would have met a lot of them on that job. (Incidentally Dave Lee Travis and Jimmy Savile each participated.)
However if he travelled a lot and often didn’t know where he was, why did the defense decide to take the line on both Cambridge and Portsmouth that he had never been to those place?. It may be an elegant line of defense, but a rather dangerous one if you often didn’t know where you were. The end result is that he was also convicted of the Portsmouth allegation which seemed a bit improbable. Harris’s statement that he would not have performed Two Little Boys solo without accompaniment is the kind of detail that lends authenticity.
-
July 1, 2014 at 12:20 am -
re.imdb
Does make you realise how lawyers have no comprehension of the quantity of information on the internet… or how people talk to many other people with whom they could not possibly have ever had any contact with… otherwise… Seems like there might be a knot in this logic-string that lawyers are very uncomfortable about picking at.There was a woman interviewed the other week about savile and she has the strangest imdb profile, with about four jobs listed between 1982 and 2010. odd sort of career. There is famous guy on imdb to this day who was called F.Gwymplaine McIntyre. He posted reviews of “lost movies” that nobody else had ever seen and claimed to be Scottish but was stolen away as a child to be abused in Australia and then made it back to England. He set fire to his own flat in Brooklyn a coupla years back and burned along with all his papers. His neighbours were not impressed, since they lived several stories up too. Anyhow, imdb have left all his duff reviews online. Online personality-building is like a game of Thrones maybe.
-
-
-
-
-
June 30, 2014 at 6:35 pm -
As I understand it, defence checked date of alleged assault and Harris wasn’t in Cambridge. Then victim changes date of alleged assault. Who actually looks the less reliable?
It is pretty weird that the only offences you’re likely to be prosecuted for after thirty years have elapsed are murder and putting your hand up someone’s skirt.-
June 30, 2014 at 6:41 pm -
I agree. If the witness (and her family) could not remember whether this happened when she was 13 or when she was 16, that would probably create doubt in my mind if I was a juror. In fact you would wonder if she could have been working as a waitress at this function at the age of 13.
-
June 30, 2014 at 6:48 pm -
The problem was he said he’d never been in Cambridge until recently. But agree that changing the goalposts is an unfair prosecution privilege. Re murder – ironic about the NI agreement – part of the reasoning (other than the peace agreement) was that they would be too difficult to prosecute at a distance – but of course there is objective of crimes and victims subsisting!
Only non-indictable offences are subject to a formal time limit (six months). this used to cover many minor sexual offences including sex with a girl under 16 (ie consensual) but indecent assault is triable either way – so at a distance you choose your charge to suit the intention.
-
June 30, 2014 at 7:07 pm -
Insightful.
-
June 30, 2014 at 7:31 pm -
…but of course there is objective of crimes and victims subsisting!
Margaret, can you explain this? Do you mean the objective of “criminals and victims co-existing or living in the same community” or am I completely misunderstanding what you are getting at here?
-
June 30, 2014 at 9:06 pm -
Margaret. You are profoundly intelligent and you can write extremely well. I have asked The Boss to email you if she can. I for one would like to hear more of your wisdom and insight!
-
June 30, 2014 at 10:02 pm -
Sorry Jonathan – meant objective evidence.
-
-
June 30, 2014 at 11:23 pm -
I can’t possibly comment on the veracity of the verdict; however what is sad about this whole sordid mess is the ghoulish relish which the media has once again indulged in.
I expect that during the course of this week, we will be subjected to an ‘inside story’ of how Harris operated, replete with scary music, and distorted pictures of Harris’s face.
What makes me very uneasy is the reporting of the actual trial. I was under the impression that details were to remain behind closed doors, and that only a summary was allowed until after the trial. Apparently the Red Tops had already made up their mind, and they seem to report in almost pornographic detail, what Mr Harris had been up to.
What indirect pressure was made on the jury to get the ‘right’ result? Unless they all lived on Holy Island circa 1080, the jury also reads the media. It would be almost impossible to reach a conclusion and not be influenced by such reporting.
With the event of social media, we are now getting instant reactions as well, so matters are only going to get worse, and it can’t be long before we get trial by Twitter.
Maybe it’s time that the courts introduce a system, as they have in the Netherlands, where names of the accused and defence are only referred to by first name only, or no reporting of names at all?
May be only specially trained and vetted journalists, who are familiar with jurisprudence should be only able to report on court hearings?
I want to preserve both the jury system, and the free press, but with resent events, I can see the day when the likes of ‘Hacked Off’ will have real cause to gaffa tape the press.
-
June 30, 2014 at 11:47 pm -
Apparently the Red Tops had already made up their mind, and they seem to report in almost pornographic detail, what Mr Harris had been up to.
Is that right? Living outside the UK, I don’t see the red top and only have access to online papers like the Daily Mail and Mirror and the Grauniad. I didn’t see any pornographic detail in the accounts of the evidence. If I had, then I might have been more sympathetic to the prosecution point of view. In any case, could this have influenced the jury who would have heard much more pornographic detail (if there was any) inside the court than anything the red tops might be allowed to say. In general my impression is that the reporting of these trials has been incredibly sketchy and it is very hard to get any sense of the details. Of course we here in the US have been spoiled by verbatim TV reporting of trials like OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, and George Zimmerman (the last not, I think, on TV, but reported on in great detail all the same.)
The most pornographic detail I remember being reported was the part about Harris having a “tiny” penis, an indication perhaps that the witness had sufficient experience to make invidious comparisons, however the “tiny” penis allegation seems to be pretty much par for the course these days in these kind of trials. (But then I always thought that the lyric to Harris’s song was “Tiny Kangaroo, Down Boy”, but I now understand this is wrong.)
-
July 1, 2014 at 12:11 am -
“The most pornographic detail I remember being reported was the part about Harris having a “tiny” penis, an indication perhaps that the witness had sufficient experience to make invidious comparisons, however the “tiny” penis allegation seems to be pretty much par for the course these days in these kind of trials.”
I think you’ve just made my point!
Max Clifford ‘tiny’ penis, Rolf Harris ‘tiny’ penis, all manner of groping etc…….what fun!! “snigger snigger”
If I didn’t know any better I thought it was Benny Hill.
Almost Viz comic knock-about stuff huh? This is meant to be a trail regarding serious sexual assaults with minors? Do we really have to know about the size of some body’s penis? Maybe your standards of journalism are different to mine, but I thought we had to be careful on how these things are reported.
Now the Daily Mail, in all its glory, somehow manages to shoehorn Leveson, Assad, having baths with his naked mum, and a nonstop barrage of sordid details in order to ‘explain’ to us how this man operated…..
The last group of people we need to ‘explain’ the psychology of Rolf Harris is the Daily Mail…..
-
July 1, 2014 at 12:34 am -
I don’t know. I have mentioned here before in the past that I have some experience with sex offenders, having worked for almost two years at Florida’s Sexual Predators institution. During that time I met several hundred sexual offenders including numerous paedophiles, rapists, some murderers and such like, and have dealt directly with scores, and read the detailed case history files of dozens.
Trial histories do go into great “pornographic” detail. This is necessary to be exactly sure what the offender has done. Needless to say none of them were in prison for patting a bottom in a public place. The kind of allegations against Rolf Harris seemed more like something out of a Carry On film than the actions of a real paedophile or sexual predator and hardly seem serious enough to meet a criminal standard.
The mention of the tiny penis came from the one witness with whom Harris admitted having a sexual relationship and did not seem to be relevant, though the defense did not produce any evidence to refute the claim (other than a song about Harris having a third leg). The only issue really disputed was exactly when the relationship started and whether the witness was under the age of consent.
All the other allegations contained no pornographic details because at worst they didn’t seem to go past larking about or acting flirtatiously in a public setting, and in no case was Harris’s penis, a key piece of evidence in a sex trial, entered into evidence. I once saw a cabaret performance by Ronnie Chong of the comedy duo Cheech and Chong. It was pretty tiresome, but I remember him getting a pretty female volunteer from the audience and getting her to kneel on the stage, and doing an impersonation of a dog having sex on her. As I say, pretty tiresome, but it seems about on the same level as some of the Harris allegations.
-
July 1, 2014 at 1:22 am -
I fully understand your very valid points.
It is important that professionals, and interested layman who have an adult, mature interest in crime and punishment understand the nature of the crimes, certainly when it comes to crimes of sexual violence, and to a lesser extent political violence, the acts themselves have a meaning far beyond the crime itself.
But when you reduce things to titillation, as often on ‘true crime’ TV, or in newspaper reports, not only are you presenting a false impression of the crime, but crime itself just an extension of entertainment, thus losing its power as a deterrence.
What’s more troubling is the different wings of the mass media are sending out very mixed messages. On the one hand you have films like A Serbian Film, Murder Set Pieces, August Underground or Human Centipede 2, which depict quite disturbing images of necrophilia, paedophilia, violence towards women and extreme fetishes, all in the name of ‘art’ and ‘freedom of expression’.
On the other you prosecute a man for touching a woman’s bottom 35 years after the event?
How on earth anybody can make heads or tails of this, I don’t know…….
-
July 1, 2014 at 2:02 am -
It makes sense if you take the view that our culture is subject to a massive culture war between- for want of better terms- puritans and hedonists, the pendulum swinging back and forth. And that puritan societies tend to wallow in lurid fantasies and depictions of corruption, sin and degradation. Thus you get a society that has enormous controversy over a woman’s nipple being visible- while simultaneously producing the “Hostel” movies.
I must admit, I downloaded and watched them. The second one in particular made me wish I hadn’t, it left me quite upset for a period afterwards. But that, I would argue, is the nature of puritan art. It’s negative and ugly. It’s the antithesis of the Hellenist art ideal- extreme idealisation of the beautiful. And also antithetical to what I call the “vulgar” art form, which is raw but positive in tone also- slapstick, Carry On, Benny Hill, Knees Up Mother Brown etc.
If this analysis is correct, then it has one (to me) interesting consequence; the most negative and grotesque forms of pornography- which the Puritans characterise as being its true nature and proof it must all be banned- are in fact the consequence of the puritanism that they themselves generate.
-
July 2, 2014 at 4:35 pm -
How on earth anybody can make heads or tails of this, I don’t know…….
You are not supposed to. The aim is to keep you spinning …
-
-
-
July 2, 2014 at 4:48 pm -
Is it possible the penis size ‘evidence’ is a legal trap. Both Clifford and Harris are old men and when men get old they stop producing testosterone which in turn reduces the size and function of the penis. So, if they said, ‘oh no I’ve got a 10 incher’ they’d be asked to prove it and would not be able to using their present condition, even if it was a modest claim about past size.
There is a tabloid trick, well used by Clifford, in which a slapper says that todays mark has a huge penis. The idea that he won’t challenge the kiss and tell on the grounds that he would be admitting to not having a large penis. The court is simply using the same trick as a challenge would show him to be a liar and no challenge would be an admission of a small penis thereby lending credibility to the witness. Damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
It would be interesting to note whether or not future trials involving young men include such tricks.
-
-
-
June 30, 2014 at 11:48 pm -
“replete with scary music, and distorted pictures of Harris’s face.”
A barrister on Radio 5 was just explaining how Harris’s verdict has proved that it’s not just sinsister weirdo’s who are sex abusers.
I’m not sure these lawyer-types have the spare time to keep up with what the ‘papers say…….-
July 1, 2014 at 1:00 am -
Indeed Moor!
What truths lay undiscovered…….at least until a breathless Mark Austin will tell us all the ‘facts’ about Harris.
Abasiophilia, Anthropophagy, Coprophilia, Sadism, Zoophilia, Necrophilia….every fetish known to man, every Wikipedia entry, will be used to describe a whole generation of perverts and misfits who held the levers of power, and manipulated us all.
And why stop there?
Fancy an older woman? It’s clear you suffer from Anililagnia? Ladies, do you enjoy wearing that nice dress? Maybe you suffer from Homeovestism? Enjoyed a snug evening with that Richard Clayderman CD and your partner? Maybe you have Melolagnia?
This is what happens when you refer everything in ‘medical’ terms. When you question the current moral trends in Islam, you are ‘Islam phobic’, homosexual acts is ‘homophobic’, those in power are ‘sadists’ and ‘sociopaths’, while those on the other end of the spectrum are ‘degenerate’.
And what about all those men, born between 1960 and 1995 who have had sex with girls under16 when they were in their teens or young men? Or touched a woman’s bottom? Isn’t it time for Operation Yew tree to expand its horizons and prosecute every man for every indiscretion?
Yet for all this apparent widespread knowledge regarding psychology, we still can’t treat the 4 million people who suffer from depression effectively, prevent actual sadists from killing children like Baby P, or prevent suicide being the second biggest cause of death in young males.
Amazing.
-
-
-
-
-
June 30, 2014 at 7:34 pm -
Given that Leigh Park in Portsmouth is one of the most deprived areas of the country im surprised there hasnt been a stampede of claims from that community centre appearance.
-
June 30, 2014 at 8:06 pm -
I’ve only seen series one as yet Gildas (but I read the books first), driven to desperation by the thought of a month of wall to wall Costa Rica vs Ivory Coast or China vs Pitcairn Island I did what I’ve never done before and bought a box set. Series 2 will drop through the letter box tomorrow.
I know a lot of people would scoff at your suggestion that GoT is true to life (Dragons, magic, dead people walking about) butit is true to life in the way that Hamlet and Macbeth are, is is about the energies that drive us, the dragons etc. are just story telling devices (My other half is showing female solidarity and cheering for Danerys – or maybe she just fancies owning a few dragons as I will not let her have a cat) .
Tyrion is a fascinating character, I think because his is a survivor and while he has his vices they very human and so not as repellant as those whose only pleasure comes from hurting others. One thing that does ring true however, the power elite are all insane psychopaths.-
June 30, 2014 at 10:51 pm -
‘One thing that does ring true however, the power elite are all insane psychopaths.’
Oh dear, I do dislike these simplistic, one dimensional, ‘medical’ terms to describe people in public office or are public figures and their motives. I respectfully think you are way off the mark.
It’s all too similar to how the Soviet Union described those who opposed the regime, or those who advocate political violence to further their cause, after all they are cleansing the ‘body politic’. By introducing such medical terms, you enter the lexicon of the ‘atrocity story’ and euphemisms’ that Orwell warned us about.
I am equally guilty of this sometimes, but it’s simply untrue what you are asserting.
Take historical figures that have used politics to advance progress. Cato the Elder, Marcus Aurelius, William I of Orange, Elizabeth I, Arthur Wellesley, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, King Stanisław of Poland, Leopold II of Tuscany, Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, Charles III of Spain.
All these figures in history (and many more) embraced Enlightenment, instituted reforms or have opposed tyranny in some form or another, in some cases did both. The Netherlands is hardly a bastion of despotism, and I would hope you acknowledge the positive achievements of this nation.
Then we can examine the proletariat that have risen to power in the guise of ‘popularism’. Adolf Hitler, Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao, Ayatollah Khomeini, Benito Mussolini. All of these men had unpleasant views long before they were public figures, it was historical circumstances that brought them power. Their appeal was because precisely they were not the ‘power elite’ but outsiders. They used this to scapegoat ‘others’ to enable them to take and hold power.
Needless to say, I suspect your view is shaped by current trends.
Modern political thinking requires the masses to believe in a political ‘messiah’ to solve the ills of the world. When he or she fails to live up to expectation, or has to make an unpopular decision, rather than rationalizing those choices, we descend into ad hominine attacks, based on very little evidence.
Leaders certainly in Western liberal democracies are ‘psychopaths’ ‘lairs’, ‘war criminals’ ‘crooks’ etc. Never mind that many in all strata of society, the bulk of which come from the respectable ‘middle class’, are also psychopaths, criminals, thieves and lairs. Never mind human failings, and having them means to check power with power, everything is corrupt and not worth defending.
Remember, leaders in Western democracies are a product and reflection of the societies they come from, not an alien breed from Mars.
Secondly we have entered an age where everybody is a General, Social Planner, Educational Expert, Spy, Diplomat, Judge, Jury and Executioner. We have experts in linguistics now foreign policy experts, pop stars who can save Africa from starvation, and bloggers and columnists who are the source of all moral wisdom.
Of course it’s easy to be the ‘expert’ when you never have to make life or death choices.
I am all for debate, but I do understand what Machiavelli understood that to exercise power, that sometimes we have to do unpleasant things for a greater cause. Moral absolutism can only lead to disaster, and while the ends never justify the means, being a saint never saved a soul in this life.
Still if you can prove me wrong, why not stand for public office? For £250 you can stand, and put your views to the test?
I suspect that this is an offer you won’t be excepting any time soon……..
-
July 3, 2014 at 8:34 pm -
Machiavelli also believed that humans were base creature, driven by the lowest instincts. I’m not going to go for a lengthy rebuttal, the Romans lived in a brutal era and cannot be judged by modern standards but your claims of enlightened leadership fall down with Elizabeth 1. Gloriana’s regime was quite brutal in it suppression of dissent, understandable to some extent perhaps bearing in mind the paranoia about a Vatican sponsored attempt to depose the queen and install a Catholic monarch, but hardly enlightened. Do some detailed research on the career of Sir Francis Walsingham, the Queens spymaster and you will see what I mean.
Power is the most addictive drug known to humanity, that is why benign dictators tend to become paranoiac tyrants as soon as they feel the ir hold on power is threatened.
One thing those of us who have stood for public office quickly learn is that if we succeed in being elected, in a democracy we will never be allowed to change anything. “Yes Prime Minister” was very close to the truth.
-
-
-
June 30, 2014 at 8:51 pm -
Quite so Ian. I am nor suggesting for a moment that dragons are real or that the evil magicians of Qarth are real. But the psychologies of the protagonists is fundamentally truthful of the human condition, particularly your observation about Power Elites. I may have some nuanced differences about the difference between psychopath and sociopath tendencies, but we can discuss over a pint in the Snug! Tyrion is indeed a very complex but fascinating character – I feel he is the author’s favourite creation.
-
July 3, 2014 at 8:12 pm -
Or next time I get into your excellent antique bookshop in Chester’s City Walls
Its always difficult to know whether to go for psychopath or sociopath. Most modern leaders are probably both, a psychopath’s ego is needed to reach for power and a sociopaths contempt for humanity to do what’s necessary to hold on to it.
-
-
June 30, 2014 at 11:55 pm -
Here we go–
I give it three days before he’s down in the morgue with Jimmy creating impromptu tableaux out of one eyed corpses.
-
July 1, 2014 at 1:11 am -
You mean – a game of ‘Can you tell what it is yet?’, I presume?
-
-
July 1, 2014 at 12:27 am -
Can any of you legal brains let me know when and where and if full transcripts of UK trials are available?–online or off. Instead of tabloid garbage I think it would be better if I read what was actually said in court.
-
July 1, 2014 at 12:32 am -
So far as I know they aren’t. You’d have to apply to the court, and it costs a sum of money. Which is something they ought to change in this digital age. I doubt anyone with the power to make it happen though is wildly keen on us getting easy access.
-
July 1, 2014 at 1:11 am -
Yes, even the lawyer who writes the UK Criminal Law Blog (Dan Bunting) has to rely on newspaper reports and often has difficulty getting all the facts about a case that is of public interest. So clearly even the legal profession does not have access to a definitive database of trial transcripts of these trials.
-
July 1, 2014 at 2:34 am -
It would make justice more open. Unfortunately the trend is towards more secrecy and obfuscation at the moment; it would inevitably be said that making testimony of victims so easily available would be intrusive, abusive, discourage them from testifying, etc. It’s clear that the current Progressive establishment think the ideal legal proceeding occurs behind closed doors, conducted only be experts. I’m wondering how long we’ve got to go before they simply abolish jury trial in sexual cases altogether on the basis that it upsets the victims.
-
-
-
-
July 1, 2014 at 6:39 am -
What a debate!
-
July 1, 2014 at 8:01 am -
This is off the topic of Rolf Harris or Game of Thrones, but I am following the so-called ‘Sledgehammer’ coup plot case in Turkey. It is a real case of an actual conspiracy to to falsely demonstrate a conspiracy in Turkey’s armed forces. The actual conspiracy, like most actual conspiracy’s, was incompetently done and based on badly forged documents.
Here is a short article by American economist Dani Rodrik (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/world/75123/turkey%E2%80%99s-other-dirty-war), and here is a much longer and recent article (http://www.sss.ias.edu/files/pdfs/Rodrik/Commentary/Plot-Against-the-Generals.pdf)
Fascinating stuff.
-
July 1, 2014 at 8:36 am -
“The most thorough analysis to date has been undertaken by Gareth H. Jenkins, a British journalist associated with John Hopkins’s School of Advanced International Studies. His verdict on the first two indictments applies equally well to the rest: “The indictments are so full of contradictions, rumors, speculation, misinformation, illogicalities, absurdities and untruths that they are not even internally consistent or coherent.”(For his troubles, Jenkins has been subjected to a smear campaign by the Islamist media in Turkey and personal attacks on jihadist web sites.) ”
He’s lucky he didn’t bother with Operation Yewtree and get the Victimists on his tail.
-
-
July 1, 2014 at 7:01 pm -
Hmmm. Very suspicious that the Savile report that mentioned RH and JS at Broadmoor was released as the jury was deliberating.
-
July 1, 2014 at 11:48 pm -
What bothers me about the whole business is how relatively petty complaints from thirty or forty years ago have been made to look like war crimes. Pardon my nasty suspicious mind, but what are these show trials a smokescreen for?
{ 81 comments… read them below or add one }