The Barrister Bard

I have developed a morbid interest in surveys, for two reasons. Firstly, for the most part, why do we need them? What do they tell us that can be of any possible use? And secondly, with the obvious exception of the government, which has a spending agenda entirely of its own, who is paying for these utterly useless surveys?

One in particular caught my eye. A recent survey has found that caffeine improves memory retention, or certainly slows down the rate of memory loss. And how do we know this? Experiments were conducted on mice, and those with poor memories were given a diet of caffeine, and lo and behold, their memories improved significantly. Now call me a sceptical old fool if you will, but how do you spot a mouse with a poor memory in the first place? And more to the point, how do you spot a mouse overdosing on caffeine that suddenly performs memory feats of proven worth? It’s akin to that hoary old chestnut about goldfish having a memory retention of no more than ten seconds. Again I ask, in a spirit of enquiry, how do they know? And where is the caffeine when they need it most? Is this positive discrimination in favour of mice? And if they are white mice, there may be racial issues to be addressed. Perhaps another survey comparing white mice with their common all garden brown cousins, but it’s a political hot potato is ever there was, and like the mice, this could run and run. Better to leave sleeping mice lie, if you’ll forgive the mixed metaphors, and when they wake up, such vivid memories to enjoy!

But on a more serious note, if that’s possible, a recent survey amongst jurors has thrown up an extraordinary range of opinions on the meaning of dishonesty. Where dishonesty features as an ingredient in the crime alleged, the judge is obliged to direct the jury in the following terms:

“In determining whether the prosecution has proved that the defendant was acting dishonestly, you [the jury] must decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, what was done was dishonest.”

This direction implies that the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people are represented by the “twelve honest men and true” as the old saying goes, so it follows, as night the day, that if those twelve honest men and true do not share the same ‘ordinary’ standards of honesty, what price a conviction? And what price the rule of law?

I read this survey with utter dismay. Imagine a three month fraud trial costing millions of pounds, and at the end of it, when the jury retire to consider their verdict, they cannot even agree on the most basic ingredient of the offence.

I suspect it may have something to do with the current political and economic climate, which we have endured for the past year or so. Those reasonable and honest people have been exposed to a daily fare of dishonest behaviour which, for the most part, has gone unchecked. Politicians swapping houses, claiming non existent mortgages, and duck houses, and moat cleaning, and wisteria trimming, and so much more. Bankers, and Hedge Fund Managers, and executive carnivores feeding off the rotting carcass of corporate Britain, and for the most part, at the expense of people who thought they knew the difference between honest and dishonest behaviour, and didn’t need to be told.

This, I fear, is the sad reality behind this depressing survey, and it is little wonder that the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people have been fatally eroded in the face of dishonest behaviour by our lords and masters, who have subverted those standards with impunity, and who still do so, and who still claim the ‘greater good’ as their first line of defence.

How quickly the memory fades! Perhaps a strong dose of caffeine might do the trick!

This entry was posted on Monday, September 14th, 2009 at 12:12 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.