IT has, on many occasions, been my unpleasant duty to remind readers that, in general and in fact, the law is, without doubt, a complete and utter chromium-plated ass.
My opinion is not confined to the judicial pronouncements of NSGB, a jurisdiction which could not deport an alien cannibalist mass murderer in case his human rights were infringed.
Reports crossing my desk indicate that legal entities elsewhere are equally incompetent when it comes to protecting the rights and security of their own law abiding citizens.
For examples, let me draw your attention to two recent decisions in the Spanish courts.
In the first instance, the Spanish Supreme Court quashed the sentence of a convicted drugs smuggler because her fundamental right to privacy was violated when customs officers opened a parcel addressed to her daughter and found that it contained a substantial amount of cocaine.
It seems that the Guardia were aware of this particular drugs trafficking route and intercepted the parcel. So far so good.
They, the Guardia, even opened the parcel in front of the accused, a magistrate and Uncle Tom Cobley but this did not satisfy the Supreme Court which, in its infinite wisdom, accepted the argument that the woman’s rights were infringed and the only question now is the amount of compensation that must be paid to her.
Perhaps there was insufficient postage on the parcel.
The second case concerns a chap who was awarded a five year spell in the pokey after robbing a bank at gunpoint.
There is no question of guilt here but the Provincial Court in Murcia has reduced his sentence to three and a half years because he only used “appropriate violence”.
On which planet are these dim-witted judges living? Is it appropriate violence if I rob a bank using a Swiss Army Knife?
How would they feel if I pitched up with a Kalashnikov assault rifle and three hand grenades? Isn’t the act of robbing a bank enough, full stop?
When it comes to accusing the law of being an ass, I rest my case on a pair of breeding mules.