No Exemptions

Just lately the world seems to be full of people wanting an exemption from the rules.  Take disgraced former Lib Dem cabinet minister and jailbird Chris Huhne - he seems to think that his conviction for perverting the course of justice was all the fault of the Murdoch press, who 'groomed' his wife to testify against him.  Of course, the reality is that he was convicted because he got his wife to lie to the police and courts and say that it was her behind the wheel of his car, not him, when it was clocked breaking the speed limit.  His logic seems to be that, as he got away with it in the first place, he shouldn't have had to suffer the indignity of being prosecuted when he was found out.  It's irrelevant who eventually uncovered the truth and what their motivation might have been: Huhne broke the law then evaded justice by not only lying himself, but coercing someone else to also lie.  Just because you weren't caught the first time doesn't mean that you aren't guilty.  There are no exemptions from justice for wealthy politicians who think they are too important to observe the law.

In the wake of Coronation Street actor Micheal LeVell's acquittal on child sex charges earlier this week, we had the usual nonsense about 'celebrity witch hunts' in the press.  Why was he ever charged?  Why did it go to trial if they couldn't get a conviction?  All of which misses the point that trials don't have a certain outcome - that's the point: to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused.  Certain sections of the press - frustrated, no doubt, about being deprived of their headlines about soap star nonces once that 'not guilty' verdict came in - seemed to be suggesting that celebrities should be exempt from prosecution for alleged sex crimes unless there is a cast iron prosecution case involving photographic evidence and witness statements signed by the Pope and Dalai Lama.  Then we had Prince Andrew, allegedly furious because police officers didn't recognise him in the grounds of Buckingham Palace and challenged him.  The general tone of the press reporting was that the officers involved were at fault for inconveniencing this state subsidised freeloader, sorry, Prince of the realm.  But what are they supposed to do?  Against the background of a recent break-in at the Palace, they see someone wandering around the grounds when they don't expect to - surely the only sensible response is to find out who the 'intruder' is?  But obviously, royalty are so important that they should be instantly recognisable - even Prince Andrew who has no real job and fulfils no practical purpose.  I can only hope that the pompous oaf, when challenged, asked 'Don't you know who I am?' and that one of the cops responded, 'Why, can't you remember?'.