Ken Clarke’s captivity in the “hole of his own making” is nothing as compared with his deeply flawed contempt for constitutionality......

AADHIKARonline © Muhammad Haque Constitutional Law Commentary.
0830 [0640] [0610] Hrs GMT
London
Friday
20 May 2011.

Ken Clarke’s captivity in the “hole of his own making” is nothing as compared with his deeply flawed contempt for constitutionality, as the failures of his “Justice” portfolio to deliver constitutional compliance by the various entrenched bureaucracies confirm.
Come to think of it, his “detractor” on record and surfaced yesterday via Rupert Murdoch's endorsement as displayed as a page one slot about Ken Clarke, is no better: Jack Straw is as contemptibly disrespectful of the ethics and the morality of universal constitutionality as Ken Clarke has been.
I shall diagnose Jack Straw's unfitness in the course of this series of Comments. First Ken Clarke.
I have first hand experience of the brazenness of Ken Clarke’s mind. Even without such experience, I would find him guilty of disrespect to constitutional ethics and morality. The man is, truly, a disrespecter of constitutionality. That he has managed to say the “sorry” word “at last” should not be allowed as an excuse for his disservice to universal norms of constitutionality.
This Clarke, like the other one bearing the same surname and also occupying the “high office” called the British Home office in the recent past, is not fit for UNIVERSALLY valid and warranted constitutional purpose. What his “choice of words” has exposed is not his lack of linguistic dexterity but his fundamental disrespect to the universal rights of people he considers to be at a level below the one where they “should be” to warrant his respect! On this latest row, Clarke has been shown up for his disrespect to women.
On MANY other occasions in the past decades during his occupancy in publicly paid and “constitutionally-"validated” posts, Clarke has been directly seen for hs disrespect to people of African and Asian backgrounds. And of “other” faiths other than the or any “faith” that alone warrants his respect, “according to him”.
That Clarke has had to be cornered from so many sides in the hours following his abrasive and contemptible expression of contempt to victims of the violence called rape is not something that ends with him alone.
It goes straight into the mind of David “Dave” Cameron who failed to answer the charge when confronted at the PMQs with the evidence of Clarke's unsuitability.
What does THAT say about just how much, if at all, Cameron has “changed’ from the mindset of the likes of those who claim he is not a genuine Reactionary Right-wing Conservative?
[This “AADHIKARonline © Muhammad Haque Constitutional Law Commentary” is continued on http://twitter.com/aadhikaronline]