First Harriet Harman suggested that yer RBS fella shouldn’t ‘count on keeping his pension’, because the government would force him to repay it. Never mind that the law was clear on the fact that he couldn’t be forced to hand over a penny; she wanted to ignore reality and force others to be made to do what she wanted.

And this from the Leader of the House of Commons, and a qualified lawyer.

Then, another government minister with a background in law decided that Jonathan Ross and Russell “No, I’m not funny” Brand should be made to pay the fine for that little fracas a while back. Again, never mind that there is no legal foundation to do such a thing, and never mind that fine was dished out for institutional and procedural failings within the Beeb as much as for the actual on-air behaviour. She wanted to make her point, and fuck the precedent.

How is it that people who should have a thorough understanding of the concept of law can get away with making such calls without being called out for it? How can it be that people don’t just immediately say to them that they’re spouting nonsense?

By they way, both Harman and Blears are often mentioned as likely high-ups in the post-Brown Labour party. With an attitude like this to the rule of law, I think they’d fit right in with the traditions of the two most recent PMs. With all the badness that that suggests…