|Subject: A well-known phrase or saying ...|
|From: Veronica |
|Date: 7/3/13 11:25 am|
“Don’t take the Law into your own hands!”
Right. Let’s examine that statement.
First of all, who does the Law BELONG to?
‘They’ will say ‘The Queen’.
But ... are ‘They’ right? (After all, they’re not right about very much, at all ... are they?)
Actually “No”, they’re wrong. Completely wrong.
Because “the Law” is The Common Law. It’s the Law MADE BY JURIES OF COMMONERS, to be applied to other COMMONERS (i.e. the ‘Accused’).
So, “the Law” is in the hands of COMMONERS. Always. At all times.
So, as a Commoner, to be told “Not to take the Law into your own hands” is rather
utterly futile, simply because The Law is IN YOUR HANDS AT ALL
Because anyone can be called up for Jury Service.
And who says “Don’t take the Law into your own hands”? Oh ... those who are supposed to be MERELY GUARDIANS of it ... the Policymen, the Judiciary, etc.
What right do these people, who we entrust to GUARD our Law, have ... to tell us “Not to take into the hands in which it always resides”?
Do you see how the Double-Think necessary to
say “Don’t take the Law into
your own hands”
is so persuasive? Until Single-Think
used ... to pull it apart?
“Law and Order”
That must mean “Law” and “Order” are two different things. Otherwise there would be no point in using the two, distinct, words ... would there?
Well, “Law” is OK ... we know what that is ... it’s The Common Law.
So, what about “Order”?
Well ... that could mean:
1. “Lining things up and arranging them neatly” (including “prioritising into a neat sequence”), or
2. Issuing “commands”.
Well, the Law (Common Law) doesn’t allow people
to go around
“issuing commands” ... it specifically dictates that only a Jury
of 12 can
create a Verdict, as being equivalent to a “command”.(And that,
btw, includes one single person creating a Writ of Mandamus. Yes
one person can sign one ... as I did ... but there must be the
backing of at least 12 other, independent, people ... forming an
So (2), above is covered by the word “Law” anyway.
So we are left with (1) – for the purpose of the word “Order” ... in the oft-used phrase or saying: “Law and Order”.
So ... it’s important (apparently) to go around lining things up, and arranging them neatly? Or prioritising into neat sequences?
What's actually happening is, of course, the
phrase "Law and Order" is subtly 'intimidating'. It's saying "WE
KEEP THE LAW ... AND YOU TAKE - AND KEEP TO - OUR ORDERS!!!"
It IS clever ... I will give them that.
Very subtle, and very clever.