The country's most senior judge yesterday demanded an end to criticism of the judiciary for handing serious criminals 'soft' sentences.
Well, I demand that this bewigged fool take the sex and travel option fortwith! Who is he to demand that his actions, and those of his fellow bleeding hearts, never face critiscism?
Lord Burnett said 'ignorant' attacks on the penalties set by judges are 'corrosive and harmful'.
But setting free criminals far too early isn't 'corrosive and harmful'..?
Lord Burnett, the head of the judiciary in England and Wales, said: 'Occasionally judges go wrong. We operate in public and state our reasons for making our decisions. Anyone is at liberty to disagree and can do so explaining why.
'But unreasoned or, worse, ignorant or ill-informed criticism from apparently authoritative quarters tends wrongly to erode confidence in the administration of justice. That is corrosive and harmful.'
Why do I think that in Burnett's pompous little mind, the definition of 'unreasoned, ignorant or ill-informed' is simply 'doesn't agree with me'..?
Earlier this month Lord Burnett said attacks on lawyers and judges undermine the rule of law and questioned if politicians knew the boundaries of their role.
I question if he knows the boundaries of his own role...