When I complained several months ago about Ms Cherie Booth sentencing of Shamso Miah to Office of Judicial Complaints my expectations were not unrealistic.
In my opinion, she did wrong in bringing religion of a man when sentencing him.
Management consultants expect those working in state institutions to have laisser fair approach to management. Usually, they are right. In the case of Ms Booth, it would be reasonable to expect her to get away with it, so to speak.
My complaint like that made by National Secular Society was found to be partially substantiated and why some expectantly ask: " In which part?" I can say that it does not matter as "One shoe fits all" and I imagine all of us received the same response from OJC although our arguments would have been individually different.
By the way, OJC is very efficient when it comes to communications about the progress of complaints.
Ms Booth did not say anything about poverty and religion during her sentencing (interestingly, Mr Shamso Miah hit a man during argument about the queueing for Cash Point at bank) as far as I know. It is recognized that religiosity of countries as a whole is linked to lower income per capita.
While in some countries judges get penalized for pushing religion repeatedly, in UK this is yet to happen.
OJC (Lord Chancellor Clarke, and Chief Justice Judge) have decided that informal talk with Senior Judge and Ms Booth is all that is needed to address the complaints against her. I guess it was brief, as it is usual custom in UK is to avoid religious matters in conversations. Thus, one saves oneself the tedium of having to deal with those who have already made their choice to cling to whatever appears to symbolically represent those in power (men).
1 comment:
I must admit to missing the point your are trying to make.
Explain please!
Post a Comment