It was written ‘The law is an ass’, supposedly said by one, Mr Bumble.

And there have been a couple of stories on the Guardian website today that bear more scrutiny.

The first is this. When first reported, some weeks back it reminded me of the BNP. There he was, this Chief Constable, a person who is supposed to uphold the law as it is and follow the instructions of the courts, saying that he would not. He gave his reasons which, on the face of it seemed very reasonable.

The problem with this, though, is that he is charged, as part of his job, to ensure that the ordinary citizen upholds the law and the rulings from the courts. Surely he cannot, therefore, decide to go against the court.

But reading a little deeper, the claim is made by the man whose goods his police force seized, that the police are, in fact, out to get him. And the judges in the case criticise the Chief Constable ..

.. for attempting to smear Bates in a series of newspaper articles “all of which were directed to bring Bates into disrepute as a result of suggestions that there was salacious material which he had on computers otherwise than for purely professional purposes”

Maybe the Chief Constable should have used Nixon’s line with a little change thus:

When the Chief Constable does it, that means that it is not illegal”?

The other case was that of the blogger who wanted to remain anonymous. He wrote a blog called NightJack (no longer available). I’ve never read it but it won the Orwell award for his blog, so I’m guessing it was good.

He needed to stay anonymous so that the cases detailed on his blog would remain untraceable and, also, so that he could continue to blog truthfully about his cases and the police force (from what I have gathered).

The Judge, however, thought that he had no right to privacy regarding his identity because the act of blogging is in public.

Now, for sure, this, like most other blogs is available to all who wish to read it, even those people at work (if they can find it like Pietro did). I don’t wish to be anonymous, particularly, although I have no wish to be absolutely open either, if you see what I mean BUT, if I were writing a blog about work and, say, there was some aspect of my daily work that I felt the public should be made aware of that, maybe, my workplace would not be in total agreement to, then I probably would prefer anonymity. In fact, it might be crucial.

And, in this case I think it was crucial as now, as a result of him being ‘outed’, the blog has been deleted. What a great shame.

But it does beg the question – if a blogger has no right to anonymity, then, surely, a journalists sources have no right to anonymity since, through the journalist, they have allowed their comments to be made public? And, since it was a journalist who ‘outed’ the policeman, I wonder how he would feel if all his sources were to be made public? Surely, then, it would be harder to get their scoops? And that must be bad, don’t you think?

And, therefore, for me the writing of a blog anonymously fits neatly with the source of a journalist remaining secret. The only difference being the person who actually writes the words

It seems that, in both cases, there is one law for some and another for others, depending upon who you are and this cannot be right nor just.