A PRAYER MAT or a FLYING CARPET to GET OUT of JAIL

 05. Feb. 2010. – 12:47:04

It seems that the wife of our former dear leader has opened her mouth once again a little too wide. A few years ago she was criticised for understanding the motivation of Palestinian suicide bombers. And it is recorded that she made efforts to explain why she boarded a train to Luton without a ticket in contradiction of unambiguous regulations.

Cherie Blair is a judge. She has been appointed to this onerous position because the Secretary of State for Justice and his predecessor The Lord Chancellor considered that she had the competencies to do the job. When I was appointed to the position of Justice of the Peace some years ago one of the requirements was to indicate that one possessed "common sense". Interestingly that requirement is now not investigated but that`s a tale for another time.
Below is a report from the BBC Website.

A secularist group has lodged an official complaint against Cherie Booth QC after she spared a man from prison because he was religious. Shamso Miah, 25, of Redbridge, east London, broke a man's jaw following a row in a bank queue. Sitting as a judge, Ms Booth - wife of former Prime Minister Tony Blair - said she would suspend his sentence on the basis of his religious belief.

The argument of whether or not she was judicially correct in her decision that being religious was enough mitigation to avoid immediate imprisonment for the thuggish behaviour is being investigated.
But what interests me is the term "religious"....... "having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity; "a religious man"; "religious attitude"
So if a mistletoe waving druid was in court in front of Ms Blair and confirmed his devotions to the wind would his being "religious" allow him the same lenient treatment? Would a member of the cult known as scientology but whose members consider themselves privileged followers of the one and only way to Paradise be given the same status when the term scientology has even been banned from Wikipedia?

This is a monumental decision by the Arbitration Committee. Individual people have been banned before from editing on Wikipedia pages, but never before has such a large organization been banned completely from editing Wikipedia pages. The case has been running for a while now, but the evidence presented was convincing enough: members of the organization that calls itself a church, but many consider to be a dangerous cult, have systematically edited relevant pages on Wikipedia in an organised fashion.

There is no doubt that when religious matters begin impinging on the general columns of our newspapers rather than in articles by religious correspondents trouble lies ahead. Will the good lady be criticised by her superiors? There is more chance of snow falling on May Day!