Well you must have come across them, the criticisers, those who have a knowledge of the rules but not the activity. Usually they are in the control line, the purse string command line. As I referredĀ  golden rule in a previous post, he who has the gold, rules. They're not really "jobs worths" usually well meaning, even thoughtful, helpful when it suits but lapse to criticism when the rule book cannot be obeyed. And sometimes it cannot be obeyed. Because the rule book does not apply to a current problem or covers all aspects of problems that it should. English is a language that can be specific, detailed, yet disputes arise over meanings of words put together, say to form a contract. Perhaps the English language is too rich in meaning? Money causes polarisation of opinion and when in dispute and when the look back occurs 20/20 vision makes it clear to the look back observer how the other party went wrong. Of course in a rich diverse society we don't have one contract between parties for a single transaction, too simple, contracts are made by the gold holders, within rules, theirs, risk is constantly eroded from gold holders and deposited on gold seekers. So when contracts go wrong, who accumulates the most opprobrium? well those that have strived to fulfil their tasks, the problem solvers, the gold seekers, the gold holders set the rules, know them, and with self satisfied smirks raise problems and cannot solve them. that's why they're gold holders. O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!

2 Responses to “Solve problems or just raise them?”

  1. April 9, 2009 at 11:51 am

    You have uncovered one of the great contradictions of the UK (let’s stick with UK just now). We have a legal system which is much admired and shouted about, and held up (by some) as being clear, strong and definite. Yet, here is the rub, it is anything but certain, Why; because it is based, funnily enough, on the English language, which is, as you describe, the polar opposite of clear, concise and unambiguous. Why the surprise therefore that the legal system that flows from the language of the same name is equally uncertain. We spend much money and time onn establishing precedent, perhaps ending up in the House of Lords, and then sit back thinking “good, at least that is now sorted.” Then some clever clogs QC comes along, analyses the langauge in the judgement, and proudly states that his case, which every other mortal thought was identical, is in fact totally different, and hey, off we go again!!

    Why do we allow it to continue: Because without it, there would be less work for the legal fraternity, who are, you guessed it, the gold holders (and wow, how much gold can they accumulate on that hourly rate!). Still, love to get somewhere near their hourly rate!!

  2. Ian April 9, 2009 at 6:16 pm

    Interesting, see my post on Jury duty, similar conclusion

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

© 2017 Materials Man - All Rights Reserved

Perth Web Design - Free Web Host