Oxford vs Docksford

Over the centuries they have mastered the art of using the language to achieve their desired objective, whether it be to dispense with your services, reduce your status, blackmail or humiliate you, exalt you with status yet reduce your influence and power, disguise you in royalty and chivalry and send you to the tower to be beheaded. They can always select the correct grammatical expressions to convince you of the justification of their actions.

Sir Winston Churchill, one of the greatest exponents of the art once described a lie as a “terminological inexactitude.” William Shakespeare philosophically described financial paralysis, as he “who steals my purse steals trash.” No smart thief will attempt to pick an empty pocket. Through the ages the British have always been able to confuse or attempt to do so with their fancy double talk. The long awaited report of Lord Mustill inquiry was no different. The distinguished jurist and his British trained colleagues were no different. Their expressions in the report quoted in the print media were carefully designed to confuse the confused among us and they certainly succeeded even confusing some of us who we least expect to be confused.

What does the distinguished jurist mean by quote “the most that can be gained from weighing his evidence is that when it comes to be put in the evidence, is that when it comes to be put in the scale, weight must be given to the fact that it was less than perfect.” When reference is made of one who is less than honest, does it mean that the person is dishonest? As a graduate from Docksford, the PoS Docks, I have my own interpretation! The jovial chat with Sir Timothy Cassel about the pending case, his raising of the Hindu wives topic on more than one occasion, his intemperate press release; the over heated terms of his complaint to the Commission, all these combined with the impression gained during his oral evidence to suggest a propensity to speak and write more freely than wise without the balanced sensitivity and distance which should be the hallmark of a senior judge.

What do these distinguished jurists mean, with such choice expressions? Again as a graduate from Docksford, my simple interpretation of this high falutin phrase is that the man is unsuited for the highest judicial office in the nation. Retaliation against the Chief Justice for making allegations about the land transaction. Revenge was the word used, we are bound to say that we find this fanciful. What again does the learned jurist mean by fanciful? My own interpretation to that, it was unacceptable and comical, from a Docksford point of view. What do they mean by deeply implausible and finally “Once again, however the hypothesis runs into familiar problems. First ill wishers wished to damn the Chief Justice with a false story they would surely have taken the trouble to feed the Chief Magistrate with a more convincing tale and make sure that he deployed it convincingly.” Colourful language for stupid talk!

From these references it is quite clear to me that the eminent jurist believed almost nothing that was presented by our Chief Justice and his team of legal luminaries. The jurist concluded that these flaws coming out of the CJ’s defence camp was not the question before them, “but whether the allegations against the Chief Justice are proved so as to make the tribunal sure beyond reasonable doubt that they are well founded.” They rightly concluded they could not be proved. There is no necessity to say anything here about the highly questionable behaviour of the Chief Magistrate who has certainly inflicted severe damage to his character beyond repair. The report has certainly identified serious flaws in both the CM and the CJ during the performance of their highly responsible duties which put our citizens at great disadvantage and fully justifies the Prime Minister’s decision to recommend to the President the appointment of the Tribunal.