Report this comment to a moderator

Time to cut the silken thread

"After all it is the clients and state who pay for these services that need to be reassured." Who is complaining that they do not receive sufficient reassurance? Where is the evidence for this? "The granting of a QC is insufficient guarantee as it stands." Why not? Where is the evidence for this statement? "...we could do with a more rigorous, analytical and sustained system." But where is the evidence of this need? Simply because it would be "better"? That does not seem a compelling reason. Prof Flood is a highly distinguished academic (look at his CV), but this article has the ring of a commissioned op-ed piece designed to stir up debate, but lacking in any real arguments to back it up. The basic points appear to be (1) it's odd and arcane; (2) although there is no evidence of dissatisfaction, one could design a better system. Not good enough really, and the citation in the article of one QC's misguided notion of a silk acting in a quasi-judicial role serves only to reinforce the view that Prof Flood is engaged here in rhetoric, not reasoned analysis. I would also add that nobody outside of left-wing academia uses "privilege" as a verb. Perhaps that betrays the political views underpinning the article. Nothing wrong with that (I too am a left-winger) but at least call it what it is.

12-Apr-2012

4:20 pm