‘Equity thus depending, essentially, upon the particular circumstances of each individual case, there can be no established rules and fixed precepts of equity laid down, without destroying its very essence, and reducing it to a positive law. And, on the other hand, the liberty of considering all cases in an equitable light must not be indulged too far; lest thereby we destroy all law, and leave the decision of every question entirely in the breast of the judge. And law, without equity, though hard and disagreeable, is much more desirable for the public good, than equity without law: which would make every judge a legislator, and introduce most infinite confusion; as there would then be almost as many different rules of action laid down in our courts, as there are differences of capacity and sentiment in the human mind.’ (Sir William Blackstone. http://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-002/).
An editorial in Stabroek News on Mr. Hamilton Green’s pension bill (21/11/16) rightly observed that what the prime minister’s pension should be must have been settled decades ago, and it was. As a matter of principle, I do not believe that once settled, someone’s pension should be encumbered by all manner of emotionally subjective characterizations. Mr. Green is arguably the most negatively conceived figure in
