Friday, 9 March 2012

Magisterial incompetence?

Not just, I hasten to add, by the Magistrates in their sentencing of Eric Joyce, but also of the MSM.


From Direct.Gov we learn:
Some offences (known as ‘summary offences’) are dealt with only by magistrates’ courts. These include:
most motoring offences

  • minor theft - like stealing from a shop
  • minor ‘public order’ offences (like being drunk and disorderly)
We also learn that the maximum sentence which can be imposed by a Magistrates Court is:
  • six months in prison, and/or
  • a fine of up to £5,000 (£2,000 in Northern Ireland)
While actual details of charges are not known, from the Huff Post we learn that Joyce was charged with four counts of Assault, which are listed in the Magistrates' Court Sentencing Guidelines as:
"Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.47 201Assault on a police constable, Police Act 1996, s.89(1) 209Assault with intent to resist arrest, Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s.38 205"
 When "L'affaire Joyce" broke, much was made in the media that were he to be sentenced to more than 12 months he would automatically lose his position as a Member of Parliament. Yet, if you have been charged with a crime, the process to decide whether you're guilty or not guilty begins in a magistrates' court and we all know that, do we not? Although not, it would seem, the MSM! Presumably as the House of Commons is not classified, I believe, a 'public place', Joyce could not be charged with being drunk and disorderly under the Criminal Justice Act 1967 s.91


Yet one has to question why four charges of assault did not bring the maximum sentence of six months in jail and a fine of £5,000 - the chief magistrate would not have had a word said in his ear, would he? Pound to a penny, if it had been one of 'us plebs' we would have had the book thrown at us and been sent to Crown Court for sentencing.


That our justice system appears to stink; and the suspicion that what you know and who you know plays a big part cannot be discounted. One cannot help wondering how long it will be for the likes of Devine and Chaytor to resurface in some publicly funded role - having been promised: take your punishment and we'll see you alright.........


A paper has been published by Professors Dr. Matthew Goodwin, Lecturer in Politics at the School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham, and Associate Fellow at Chatham House; and Jocelyn Evans, Professor of Politics at the University of Salford, in which it is stated that the 'far right' will rise up resulting in conflict between ethnic, racial and religious communities which they suggest is inevitable.


While hating to disagree with such eminent people, I would suggest that when the 'far right' do rise up and rebel it will be against politicians, members of the judiciary and bureaucrats - and their common purpose in life!

9 comments:

john in cheshire said...

As usual WfW, I agree with your sentiments. One question I have, though is what is the definition of 'right-wing', or for that matter 'far right'? Do you know if this has been defined anywhere, because I can't find it. I happen to think it refers to normal people who are fed up with being shafted by all the socialists who rule the roost in our country.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

jic: Oops, sorry - forgot to link to he paper. Now done, so go read and you will find the answer to your question - according to the Profs!

Anonymous said...

'Joyce, who had been drinking wine, shouted at police trying to restrain him: "You can't touch me, I'm an MP."'
That about says it all.

john in cheshire said...

WfW, thanks for the link. Having read the report, I'm afraid I'm not that impressed - it seems to me to be the kind of stuff that can be churned out with little effort or expense to support a predetermined purpose. I don't really think they've provided a definition of 'rightwing', 'far right' etc. They seem to have launched into their study, if that's what it can be called, by assuming we are all in agreement that the BNP and UKIP and the EDL are by their very nature 'right wing' and/or 'far right'. So, I'll stick with my thoughts that it means non-socialist and normal people (although a lot of the BNP policies are rather leftwing). I note also that the authors prominently use the term 'hope not hate'; wasn't that Mr Obama's slogan prior to his election? I didn't know what it meant then and I still don't. It's just the usual apparently meaningful rubbish that socialists tend to excrete.

Ian Hills said...

Re equality before the law, Mr Joyce is entitled to the same exemption as any speeding chief constable. See the old pals act, as amended etc.

TomTom said...

The extreme right wing are the puppetmasters behind this ruling elite. The people these reports claim to identify are simply sans-culottes frustrated at being handed the script from on high and told to dance.

The vilification is necessary to deflect from the Agent Smith figures acting as random variables in the guise of special interest groups trying to bludgeon the mainstream population into cowed submission.

This is a very National Socialist society but not yet a totalitarian one

Anonymous said...

Joyce could have been charged with Affray carrying an sentence of imprisonment of up to 3 years, or a fine,or both.

However, this charge seems to be reserved for a different class of people.

"In recent years, the option to charge people with affray has been used as part of a strategy by HM Gov't to aggressively address problems with drunken individuals who cause serious trouble on airliners."
From Wiki.

Good to see the consistent policy.

right_writes said...

I agree with your sentiments as per norm WfW. I took it from the document "hope not hate" that these people have no concept of the difference between right and left, preferring to just tar their enemies with hate speech.

Their enemies of course being the BNP, who are so close to their own philosopy of socialism and authoritarianism, but with the added ingredient of publicly stated intolerance )which they prefer to hide), and the UKIP which though it claims to be centrist, is at heart (and head) genuinely right wing and anti-authoritarian.

Their misuse of philosophical, economical and political terms is designed to differentiate themselves, from their target groups, but read carefully merely reveals them to be subjective and childish.

How these people ever rose to their lofty positions within the halls of academe, would be beyond me if I didn't already know that the socialists and the common purpose types had rather successfully infiltrated education to a similar extent that they have infiltrated the government and the main stream media.

Oh, and by the way, I emailed them to point out the errors of their ways (for they are many), I don't expect to hear back any time soon.

Captain Ranty said...

How= armed fightback

Where= Aberdeen to start with

When= After easter but before i go to butlins at skeggy in june.