Saturday, 10 March 2012

Justice? How? Where? When?

"The course of justice often prevents it."
Edward Counsel, Maxims
"Justice in the hands of the powerful is merely a governing system like any other. Why call it justice? Let us rather call it injustice, but of a sly effective order, based entirely on cruel knowledge of the resistance of the weak, their capacity for pain, humiliation and misery. Injustice sustained at the exact degree of necessary tension to turn the cogs of the huge machine-for-the-making-of-rich-men, without bursting the boiler."
Georges Bernanos, The Diary of a Country Priest

 Yesterday I posted on the case of Hollie Grieg and the injustices involved in her case. Yesterday a post appeared on the campaign website "Hollie Demands Justice", from which:
"Then there is the case of Jim Boyling, embedded police officer in the Reclaim the Streets campaign. Boyling was undercover, using the name Jim Sutton, between 1995 and 2000 in the campaign Reclaim the Streets, which organised colourful, nonviolent demonstrations against the overuse of cars, such as blocking roads and holding street parties.

But the real damage is done when, as has now been exposed, Police Chiefs authorised undercover officers embedded in protest groups to give false evidence in court in order to protect their undercover status. When Boyling went into the witness box at the trial, he swore under oath that he was Sutton, and gave evidence under questioning from the barrister for the defendants and the prosecution, according to a legal note of the hearing.

As defence lawyers said at the time:

"This case raises the most fundamental constitutional issues about the limits of acceptable policing, the sanctity of lawyer-client confidentiality, and the integrity of the criminal justice system. At first sight, it seems that the police have wildly overstepped all recognised boundaries.
So, someone sworn to uphold the law, is permitted to lie under oath?

Christopher Booker, in his latest column in the Sunday Telegraph, posts the harrowing tale of a mother of two small sons - go read it and then wonder how the law allows social services to make her life a misery, cost her promotion and eventually her job. As Booker writes:
"As the number of children seized by social workers soars to a record level of more than 225 a week, David Cameron merely urges that we must speed up the process whereby only 4 percent of those taken are being adopted – oblivious to the possibility that many should never be removed in the first place."
Who allowed situations such as the above to flourish?  Politicians? True - but they are not the only culprit because we, the people, were complicit too. We, the people have, by our apathy and our disinterest in the actions of our politicians, allowed them to perpetrate all manner of evil upon us - not just in judicial matters - but in matters relating to our society, our nation and its governance, our freedoms, our thoughts, our actions and our speech.

If the course of justice often prevents it, then logically, there is something wrong with our system of justice. If politicians have been allowed, for political ideology, to 'fiddle' with our society, our nation and its governance, our freedoms, our thoughts, our actions and speech, then, logically, there is something wrong with our politicians, our political system and our democracy.

If justice does remain in the hands of the powerful as it surely does, then it is no more than a political tool by which politicians and the 'elite' of our society 'control' we, the people. It must then follow, logically, as free men and women supposedly in a free democracy that there is something drastically wrong with that system of democracy which is currently imposed on us.

It is apparent that we are unable to rely on those we elect to safeguard our nation and its governance, our society and our freedoms - which begs the question what are we to do? It is regrettable that we cannot look to the Lib/Lab/Con to address these concerns; neither, unfortunately, does it appear we can look to the alternative offered, namely Ukip. In respect of the latter party there is no mention in their policies of re-balancing what is obviously examples of injustice. For a party that presents itself as an alternative government - one totally different to the Lib/Lab/Con - not one word have I heard on the subject of Hollie Grieg, nor the matter of children being removed by social services for what can only be described as spurious reasons - coupled with what are draconian restraints imposed on the parent(s).

If there is no justice in a country there can be no country. I am fast coming to the conclusion that a new party will need to be created; one that will promote an alternative system of democracy and which incorporates the element of referism, which hands power to the people so that they can decide the future of their country; one that allows the people to decide what is justice and what is not.

The system under which we live is not a democracy, the justice meted out is not an acceptable system of justice - both democracy and justice have become nothing but an extension of the art of dictatorship.

And we all know how dictatorships end - they get strung up!


TomTom said...

Have you ever used the court system and heard the lies ? Watched the judge cavort with the barrister ? seen the delays, the sheer incompetence, the judge say he couldn't be bothered to read the file, lose the file, borrow the file from the Defence Solicitor with all his annotations ?

Have you seen the policeman lie and the witness sit beside him stroking his leg having just gotten a job as a civilian in the police force ?

Anyone who thinks Judges are other than Croupiers clearly hasn't seen the Casino Crest behind his chair

Antisthenes said...

"but they are not the only culprit because we, the people, were complicit too"

You are fighting an uphill battle. When the UK electorate decided to embrace social democracy, that entailed transferring to the state responsibilities that individuals at hitherto taken upon themselves. In return the state promises to cushion it's citizens from the vagaries of life. So is born the nanny state. This nanny state is inherently inefficient and can only function within rigid rules and structures and by being dictatorial. Under this system some become caught up in the machinery of the system and are badly served by it. Despite this even though many rail against the systems inadequacies the majority do not want to dismantle it as it panders to our natural human tendency to take as much as possible with as little effort as possible. So yes the people are complicit in it to. However the nanny state is not a sustainable entity and will in time destroy itself. The process has already begun as can be seen by the economic and social crises that faces us all currently. Until the destruction is complete most will want to cling to the status quo. When the destruction is complete then your battle will be won for you but what emerges afterwards may be equally as bad.

Woodsy42 said...

It is not justice it is people management.

TomTom said...

When the UK electorate decided to embrace social democracy

They DIDN'T.

A Liberal Government elected in 1906 set Britain on the path to World War with secret agreements with France....the Liberal-turned-Conservative Spencer-Churchill then set Britain on another war with State Control of Everything and had to justify it in 1942 by promising a Better World thereafter

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TT: Yup, done jury service - although I was more than a tad naive in those days, but thinking back........

A: I know I am - but I ain't giving up!

W42: Agreed!

TT: I know, I know.........