Who are they serving, exactly?

The Daily Mail is going to town over the decision by Crispin Blunt to approve a prison inmate’s application for artificial insemination because of his human rights. They sense blood in the water and are hunting for a scalp.

But irrespective of the rights, wrongs, accuracies or otherwise of the story and the reporting, one line in the Mail’s piece should stand out as yet another example of how the ruling elite serve their own interests rather than ours. Attempts by the media to find out who exactly made the decision to let the prisoner attempt to father a child while still in prison, resulted in this outcome:

The Ministry of Justice yesterday refused to say who took the decision.

These are public servants who are supposed to be accountable to the people of this country. We are entitled to know which Minister or faceless bureaucrat took the decision. The Ministry of Justice has no legitimate reason whatsoever to deny us this information. This is deniability and lack of accountability writ large and it is unacceptable.

It is a measure of the contempt in which we are held. The political class wants us to do two things, pay up and shut up. It is another example that underlines how Referism is an idea whose time has come.

9 Responses to “Who are they serving, exactly?”


  1. 1 Brian H 02/06/2011 at 11:16 am

    Underwater scalping? Kinda mooshed mixaphors, there.

    And “his” rights? A male prisoner wants to be artificially inseminated? Good luck with that.

  2. 2 John Coles 02/06/2011 at 11:41 am

    Seems you’re a little confused this morning, Brian H – have a lie down.
    Now if this artificial insemination succeeds, should we expect the proud parents to bring up the child using their own resources? Of course not, it’ll just be another mouth for the State to feed, the good old Sosh will step in. One thing is certain – the Civil Service twat that made this decision will not be stepping forward offering any form of support – he’ll leave that delight for ALL of us to share.

  3. 3 AJC 02/06/2011 at 3:48 pm

    “We are entitled to know which Minister or faceless bureaucrat took the decision.”

    Minister: if it was a minister who took the decision we are most certainly entitled to know.

    Faceless bureaucrat: perhaps Twitter would be the most effective channel for disclosure!

  4. 4 The Gray Monk 03/06/2011 at 9:08 am

    The Sir Humphrey’s of Whitehall have not been accountable to the electorate since this corrupt and frankly worthless organisation was established. The Civil Service needs to be abolished in its entirety.

  5. 5 Brian H 03/06/2011 at 11:13 am

    J*** Coles, pls note:
    “blood in the water” & “hunting for a scalp” are metaphors related to totally different scenarios. Hence my comment.

    And the text reads, “application for artificial insemination because of his human rights.” Hence the speculation about male pregnancy, improbability of.

    Sorry if that was all a bit subtle for you.

  6. 7 john in cheshire 03/06/2011 at 8:19 pm

    For me, you have pinpointed the key issue; namely, those who are making decisions on our behalf must be made public. These people must be held accountable for their decisions, their actions and their omissions.
    If the people who gravitate to such positions within public life don’t like the publicity, then they can always seek alternative employment. In a Job Centre, for example.

  7. 8 Gordo 04/06/2011 at 3:56 pm

    Agreed, named individuals accepting responsibility, one small step in the right direction.

    They will oppose this with all their strength.

  8. 9 Brian H 05/06/2011 at 9:07 am

    Yeah, unaccountability for power exercised is hugely addictive. Withdrawal will be a beech.


Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive