it occurred to, or rather struck, me that some of you might wish to know my take on the current and present Ashes Test series. or, at the least, the most recent, look you see, being as it is the one which was undertaken from the end of 2021 and into the start of 2022. yes, i appreciate that a significant majority would not wish to know such, but here we are now.
at the time of writing the series is still in theory underway. perhaps by the time this gets published it has been abandoned due to all that plague business, or simply given up on due to boredom. i know not as i write, just that as i write, the series is effectively over as a contest, for the Australians have won, they have a lead which cannot be surpassed.
how is the word 'treason' defined?
the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government. at least the bit you can see before you get asked to pay to see the rest does.
yes, of course. for our friends in America (i think), the Webster dictionary goes further and defines treason as being a betrayal of trust, or treachery.
far be it from me to make assumptions or jump to conclusions, but then again also yes, i do believe it is not entirely unreasonable to see how one could interpret surrendering the Ashes to Australia without expending a single calorie of effort in defending them as being an act of treason.
but what is one to do now such has been established?
yes, yes it is.
could i provide more specific information on that?
absolutely. The Treason Act 1351 is what you want to read up on, with the definition of how someone may be guilty of it more or less meeting what has already been said here. in 1998 the Crime And Disorder Act changed the punishment for treason from death to life imprisonment.
whilst it remains very much a crime, as we have recently witnessed across a number of Test matches, it seems that the police (or constabulary) are for some reason reluctant to go ahead and make arrests, no matter how guilty some clearly are.
should people still be getting arrested for treason?
absolutely. this is all the more true (should such be possible) when their guilt is obvious, and when the police have immediate access to a list of the names of the guilty, not to mention precise details of where the crime of treason has been committed, or where they also intend to engage in it. like, for instance, here.
quite a good question that, and one which (sadly) i have no good answer for. should it help, i at least know as fact that the crime of treason has indeed been reported to the police, yet no action has been taken. except for some threats against the person who phoned them to alert them to the treason.
how should the guilty be punished?
let us not be hasty and expect the death penalty to be reintroduced for the crime of treason. and yet some form of punishment has to take place. simply taking away their right to play cricket is obviously not enough; they are no good at it anyway, and besides it does not seem that they enjoy it. perhaps community service, and hard labour, for those who confess their guilt. those who protest innocent can have a fair and free trial, which concludes with them being found guilty and serving a significant custodial sentence.
any precedent for this course of action?
many instances where and when it should have been considered, but not actual ones, no. yet such would set a precedent, and so discourage others from engaging in the same crime.
right, well, i believe that's the most fair, balanced and reasonably objective account i can give on the whole sorry state of affairs. perhaps i should have allowed some of my own feelings to come into it, but i felt it best just to rely on facts.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment