Boris Govt: Releasing Report on Ethnicity of
Rape Gangs ‘Not in Public Interest’, Ministers Need ‘Safe Space’
It went on in some detail, including 16 mugshots of men, presumably gang members because the ‘credit’ on the photographs was given to West Yorkshire police.
“Boris Johnson’s government (who, precisely?) has refused to release a report on the ethnic background of grooming gangs, saying it is not in “the public interest” and would deprive ministers of a “safe space” to shape policy.
The grooming gangs investigation was announced by Sajid Javid, the former Home Secretary, in 2018, with a pledge that he would “not let cultural or political sensitivities get in the way of understanding the problem and doing something about it”.
The promised transparency soon evaporated, however, with Home Office bureaucrats (who, precisely?) deciding that the report would in fact remain “internal” — and top-level politicians and parliamentarians (who, precisely?) representing constituencies plagued by grooming gangs questioning whether a real investigation was even carried out.
Now attempts by the left-wing Independent news website (an inanimate concoction – so who, precisely?) to have the report disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act have foundered, with the Home Office (who, precisely?), now led by Priti Patel, insisting it is not in “the public interest”.
Nor, presumably, in the interest of those unidentified persons in the Home Office.
Why should I almost weep over this article? Why should you care?
Have you ever heard the expression: ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune’? Well, bear in mind that every single one of those unidentified spokes persons mentioned above, is paid from the public purse. Which leads me to believe that the idiom ‘he who pays’ means that taxpayers (the public) have an over-ruling say in the matter, over-ruling the hirelings. We, the people/public, put them where they are, not to do what they want but to do what we want. That’s the way it must be if we, the people, are to be free people. (Unless, of course, we are NOT the piper payer. There could be better funded private payers simultaneously paying more, couldn’t there? Vested interests?) The idiom then would be about a dog and two masters.
* * * *
To my way of thinking the film is loaded with subliminal messages. (1) The Latoka Sioux Indians are just one of several native American tribes in that part of the world; (2) All of them identify first and foremost as of the same family; (3) They recognise hierarchy within the family. (4) Only men are named as Chiefs and names follow personal attributes or skills. (5) The ‘families’ formed into councils where equal time and attention was given to whoever spoke. (6) The councils could, if argued strongly enough, over-rule the Chief. (7) Strangers remained as strangers, even if they lived with the tribe, until such time as their worth to the tribe became evident through their actions.
Put another way, it seemed to me like a prototype Natural Law; unsophisticated but strong and very fair. Call it God’s Law, if you will. Call it Common Law, if you will. Also call it Trial by Jury and Nullification by Jury if you are on my wavelength.
Then I mused for a while on the meaning of names. I read an observation made years ago by a man named Lysander Spooner. His observation was: "To say that majorities, as such, have a right to rule minorities, is equivalent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except such as majorities please to allow them." - Lysander Spooner
(According to Wikipedia Lysander Spooner grew to be an American political philosopher, essayist, pamphlet writer, Unitarian, abolitionist, individualist anarchist, legal theorist, a member of the socialist First International and entrepreneur of the 19th century).
I mused: “What were his parents thinking to give their child the name ‘Lysander’? I looked up the meaning of Lysander – it means ‘liberator’. Lysander was a Spartan naval and military commander in 400 BC (and a character in Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”.
Hmm.
I thought about my parents and my given name – Michael. Michael is an archangel in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and is of Hebrew origin. It means “who is like God”. Wikipedia also tells me that Michael is an archangel and an archangel is an angel of high rank. The word "archangel" itself is usually associated with the Abrahamic religions, but beings who are very similar to archangels are found in several religious traditions. So, what were MY parents thinking when they gave me that name? This is shaping up to be a good game, good game.
Moving on and experimenting with names which loom large: What does Elizabeth mean? Apparently, it, too, is of Hebrew origin, and the meaning of Elizabeth is "God is my oath". Can also mean "God's promise", "God's satisfaction" or "God's perfection". The usual English spelling of Elisabeth, which was the usual form until the 16th-century reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, whose popularity made the "z" spelling more common ever since. In the Bible, Elizabeth was the mother of John the Baptist.
I’m slowing down now but still there are questions. Such as: Why do our names have meanings? Best answer I can come up with: Because we aren’t numbers. (Despite computers).
I conclude this muse with reference to the Christmas nativity play all of us know from our youth. Matthew 1:20-22 King James Version (KJV):
20 But while he (Joseph) thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD (Gabriel) appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet.
Joseph is the English form of the biblical Hebrew name Yosef, meaning ‘God shall add another son.’
* * * *
Hmm (again). What IS in a name?
