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!

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!