Jury Trial Restriction

 

I often ask myself, who is it I dislike the most in Starmer's gang? Obviously I despise them all; in fact nearly everybody does. They're the most unpopular leaders since King John; but are there any that stand out in their levels of deceit and corruption? I would answer possibly David Lammy, Sir Keir's deputy and Justice Secretary; and it's hard not to put his job title in quotes, especially now. A couple of months ago he entered a bill removing the right to a trial by jury in crown courts. There was a heated debate in the House of Commons about this, with several MP's describing their own experience of being victims of crime; but this backfired because Lammy announced that the purpose of the bill, supposedly, was to reduce the backlog of cases, which number in the tens of thousands; and that without swifter justice more criminals would be out on bail and able to commit further offences. The bill also makes it clear this will only apply to minor charges, ones with a maximum prison sentence of three years... for now! It doesn't say as much, but no doubt this bill will be sold as a "temporary measure", rather like the reforms Adolf Hitler made when he took power in Germany. The bill was passed by a terrifying hunded-and-one votes with an unusually large number of abstentions. Infuriatingly most of its supporters were Scottish Labour members whose constituents won't be affected because Scotland has its own independent legal system. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw0eg9q7kwo. A few years ago I'd have hoped for the House of Lords to scupper the scheme, but Labour are currently reforming the upper chamber to remove the hereditary peers. This has been justified by appeals to "democracy!", as if Labour cared about that. After all, the hereditary peers are aristocrats appointed by the King and unelected. However, the whole House is unelected anyway; all that will change is that elderly patriotic men raised with an ethos of noblesse oblige, who are needed to keep these selfish career politicians in line, will be replaced by sycophantic party donors and obedient ex-cabinet ministers.

One solution might be for England to have a devolved government. Right now England is one of the few internationally recognized countries without an independent state. In the last few decades Scotland and Northern Ireland have regained theirs while Wales got one for the first time, see: https://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.com/2024/01/visiting-senedd.html. England has been left out of this movement. I am Welsh, but live in England so this affects me directly. We residents of England and Wales have now lost one of our fundamental and essentially human rights, and one of the hallmarks of a civilized nation, the right to be judged by our peers if accused of a crime. Do not think for one moment this is just about "something for now just clearing up the backlog!" It's also not going to stop with three-year charges. It will be adapted and expanded. David Lammy seems to be some kind of demolition man, leaving political rubble in his wake wherever he goes. His last cabinet post was Foreign Secretary and he is most infamous therein for throwing away the Chagos Islands, see: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/10/chagossian-repatriation.html. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up as prime minister once Keir Stalin is finally thrown out for being too toxic. As Mark Twain once said: "Politicians are like nappies; they have to be changed regularly, and for the same reason." As I've said before, our only hope now is something coming out of left field. I've found that in history it always does.