Members are not only unaccountable, but also likely to be unrepresentative, and the dynamics of decision-making are likely to be uninformed and questionable.
In the light of the Woodward case, and of the crisis of confidence in the British justice system caused by recent high-profile miscarriages of justice, isn’t it about time that the Government included this issue on its agenda, and gave consideration to ways in which jury decision-making processes can be monitored and evaluated. Come backanother timeAnd we shall talk about yourMum and Dad.Exit Macbeth. I broughtabout his death,For much I feared that hewould take my throne,SHAKESPEARE:I see .. well to sum up. You areconvincedThat you are King of Scotland,on the throne.You have a wife who murderseveryone,Who stands between yourselfand high-born power.From time to time you meetthree lady witchesWho tell you what will happennext to you.The only witness, sadly, youhave slain.Is that about the length andbreadth of it?MACBETH:Oh, sir, how well you sum these matters up!So, what think you? Can I befully cured ?SHAKESPEARE:No doubt of it. Do you see witchesstill these days?MACBETH: When they havesomething solemn to impart.SHAKESPEARE:Alone? Or do you have awitness of these meetings?MACBETH:Yes, yes – brave Banquo sawthem too with me!SHAKESPEARE:And he would bear this out,would he?MACBETH:Alas, he’s dead.

That is my name, forbetter or for worse.SHAKESPEARE:A family name, perchance? Or is it oneThat comes familiarly first?Surname or forename? Areyou Mr Macbeth?Or is Macbeth your Christian,given name?MACBETH:None of these. My name is KingMacbeth.SHAKESPEARE:How very nice for you! Andking of where?MACBETH:The King of Scotland, won byforce of arms.As the three witches didforetell to me.SHAKESPEARE: Ah ha! Soyou see witches, do you? Well, well, well!And tell me, King Macbeth,what do they say?MACBETH:That I shall be the king.SHAKESPEARE:And so you are!What splendid witches youhave got and no mistake!They seem to know a lot, thesewitches that you see.So, was the throne inherited?MACBETH:No, ta’en by forceFrom Duncan, King before me,who was slain.SHAKESPEARE:By you?MACBETH:Yes, yes, by me. Now, sir, you havean appointed time?MACBETH:Aye, that I do, at eleven of the clock,The hour at which you fixed to sort me out.SHAKESPEARE:And you are punctuality itself.Sit down, good sir, and tell me,please, thy name.MACBETH:My name? It is Macbeth.SHAKESPEARE:Just that? No other names?MACBETH:No, no. A new book called The Genius of Shakespeare claims that as a psychologist Shakespeare was way ahead of Freud and knew far more about the human heart than he did. But however good a psychologist he was, what kind of psychiatrist would he have made?
It’s all very well writing great dramatic masterpieces which explore the human condition, but sorting out a patient with a real-life problem is a slightly different kettle of fish, as this scenario shows …SHAKESPEARE (opening door):Come in, come in and makeyourself at home.Your coat can go up there, andhere your hat.And you can lie down on thecouch just here.That’s good.

With his every challenge to the UN, and the fevered response to it within the world community, Saddam reminds us that he is Iraq’s recognised leader. But why should this be? Why not link his compliance with UN resolutions to his continuing membership of that body? Meanwhile his record of lawlessness and brutality at least equals that of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic in Bosnia – why not treat him as an indictable war criminal, and ostracise every emanation of his regime?This finally might encourage the putsch against him for which the West has waited in vain so long It is not much of a solution, and it will take time But it is the best available.. First, a forgetful world needs to be reminded of what it is up against: let the UN lay out detailed evidence of the secret weapons programmes. But, it will be objected, the limited force used thus far has manifestly not stopped these programmes, still less brought about Saddam’s downfall: should not the allies do what they did not after the 1991 land war and “go all the way to Baghdad”? But George Bush’s objections then are doubly valid today Now, as then, no obvious alternative to Saddam exists. Now, as then, the American-led invaders would either have to take over the government of Iraq, as an occupying foreign power in the Arab heartlands, or countenance the disintegration of Iraq and even greater regional instability than today.The second line of attack must be diplomatic, against the legitimacy of his regime. What is more, Saddam is an inextricable piece of the wider Middle East puzzle.

Thanks to the intransigence of the Israeli government and the reluctance of Washington to do much about it, defiance of the US is a powerful card for Arab public opinion, for Saddam as well as Hamas suicide bombers, however vile their methods. Small wonder the Americans this time are palpably uneasy about acting alone. If push comes to shove, Britain, propelled by the Blair-Clinton friendship and the dictates of an “ethical foreign policy”, will doubtless go along. France, China and Russia, for understandable reasons, may not.If so, then they are wrong. The Gulf war showed the doctrines of collective security and Mr Bush’s “new world order” working at their best.

For Saddam to flout the United Nations now and get away with it would show them at their worst A stake would be driven through the heart of UN credibility. Saddam Hussein remains a blight on his region; not quite an Adolf Hitler, perhaps, but an utterly ruthless leader who has invaded a neighbour, used chemical and biological weapons against both foreign armies and his own people, and would almost certainly do so again, given the opportunity.If necessary, therefore, the West must use force. But if the cycle of ever-diminishing returns is to be broken, it has to do more. If it does not punish Saddam, the 1991 Gulf coalition will lose face and the dictator has won both prestige and additional elbow room. But each successive missile strike seems less an act of international peace-keeping than vengeful spite. After driving him headlong from Kuwait in 1991, the Western allies quite reasonably expected that Saddam would be overthrown – if not by popular uprising, then at least by a section of his humiliated regime But it didn’t happen.