LAW LORDS

Fair enough.

BBC World does not report on the Judges who occupy seats on the Supreme Court of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Jamaica...the list goes on.

But the Renaissance Man notes the same noticable ommission about Britain's highest Judges; the Lords of Appeal. These members of the Judicial Committee of the House of lords are ananymous.

What are their names? Are they liberal or conservative? What organizations did they belong to when in University? What has been their paper trail?

One will search in vain on the BBC, BBC World or anywhere else in relation to that illustrious news gathering organization if you want to find out about those who make up the roster of Britains highest judges.

Which brings up the main point. If the BBC cannot be bothered to report, enquire, question or even note the occupants of their own country's highest court, why does it spend so much time and energy reporting on nominations to the Supreme Court of its former colony The United States of America?

I have seen interviews, analysis, "Hard Talk" interviews and reports about every facet of the Samuel Alito nomination process (and the process over John Roberts before that) and am left with the question "why?"

The decisions of the US Supreme Court are not binding in Britain and are not even particularly persuasive to the judges.

I cannot imagine why the BBC spends so much time reporting on the USSC and not on its own. The Renaissance Man has a theory...it is part of the BBC's obvious and ongoing agenda to report not on the Court but on President Bush, and to portray him as a right wing zealot.