The country's most senior judge yesterday demanded an end to criticism of the judiciary for handing serious criminals 'soft' sentences.
Well, I demand that this bewigged fool take the sex and travel option fortwith! Who is he to demand that his actions, and those of his fellow bleeding hearts, never face critiscism?
Lord Burnett said 'ignorant' attacks on the penalties set by judges are 'corrosive and harmful'.
But setting free criminals far too early isn't 'corrosive and harmful'..?
Lord Burnett, the head of the judiciary in England and Wales, said: 'Occasionally judges go wrong. We operate in public and state our reasons for making our decisions. Anyone is at liberty to disagree and can do so explaining why.
'But unreasoned or, worse, ignorant or ill-informed criticism from apparently authoritative quarters tends wrongly to erode confidence in the administration of justice. That is corrosive and harmful.'
Why do I think that in Burnett's pompous little mind, the definition of 'unreasoned, ignorant or ill-informed' is simply 'doesn't agree with me'..?
Earlier this month Lord Burnett said attacks on lawyers and judges undermine the rule of law and questioned if politicians knew the boundaries of their role.
I question if he knows the boundaries of his own role...
"....erode confidence in the administration of justice."
What confidence? I spent over 20 years as a front line Police officer, and learned, fairly early into my service, that there is often very little connection between the law and justice.
Let me give you one example. A shopkeeper was badly beaten by 3 young, male, shoplifters, who were all arrested and charged with GBH, the injuries not only being life threatening, but long lasting.
Each of the thugs had their own, legal aid funded, lawyer, who all had a meeting with the CPS. Now, the CPS not only has conviction targets to meet, but has budgetary constraints. The three defence briefs explained that their clients would plead not guilty, meaning a long, and expensive Crown Court trial, which would necessitate the added expense to the taxpayer of 3 legal aid funded barristers. However, the thugs would plead guilty to the lesser charge of ABH if it were held in a magistrates court. CPS agreed. They were each bound over for a year, ordered to pay £200 each in compensation (which they never paid), and ordered to do 50 hours of community service (which they never did).
The shopkeeper, through his MP, challenged the decision of the CPS over the mode of trial, as well as the level of sentencing. The response, both from the CPS and the Judiciary appeals board seemed to make out the whole incident was the fault of the shopkeeper in trying to stop the shoplifters.
I would suggest that there has not been a genuine example of justice in the UK for years. Karen Matthews is out, and living on benefits, and at least one of the Rotherham rapists is out, and living on benefits.
Quite right and proper, it's time we peasents learned our place and stopped critising our betters. Get back to your dung heaps you rebellious dogs.
"What confidence? I spent over 20 years as a front line Police officer, and learned, fairly early into my service, that there is often very little connection between the law and justice."
Post a Comment