Hot on the heels of their voting for new laws permitting euthanasia and decrimnalising late term abortions at any point pre birth, (effectivly legislating the return of back street abortions,) the Labour government revealed plans to reform the UK’s criminal justice system, which include the scrapping of the right to trial by jury for many offences and reduced sentences for those who plead guilty. All are part of a larger agenda that would empower tyrannical authoritarianism hidden behind the mask of human rights.
Former senior judge and current Investigatory Powers Commissioner Brian Leveson was in the news this week for defending the commission's recommendation of, among other things, “jury-free” trials, in order to “prevent the collapse of the criminal justice system”.
Note the language. “Jury-free“, not “jury-less“, as if juries are a food additive we should avoid, rather than a right guaranteed in British law for over 800 years.
This is not new. “Replacing”, “updating” or otherwise “reforming” Jury trials has been on the globalist agenda for years now.
However jury triasl is held in high regard by the public: confidence is retained because ordinary people can be seen to participate equally and to be the guardians. In one sense, it is one of the very few opportunities in which democracy comes to life. Above all, it generates respect for the rule of law – so grossly ignored at present on the global stage. The jury provides, in clearest terms, a conscience. This is particukarly important in cases like the UK-wide 'grooming gang scandal' in which the politicisation of policing and justice have led to political considerstions taking precedence over the protection of the vulnerable from criminals.
There may be quicker ways of dispensing justice (famously parodied by Lewis Carroll in the trial of the Knave of Hearts); even faster and cheaper via AI; also, cheaper ways by inducing quick pleas in exchange for a reduction in sentence. But these do not engender confidence or reliability. An alternative is to restrict the number of cases eligible for trial by jury. Then it can be said it’s not an attack on juries but just a response to exigency. Over time, however, it gets dangerously close to the former.
All of this is completely Illegal under common Law THE ONLY LAW In fact Legislation in contradiction of Common Law is logically Illegal, as its BREAKING the existing Law and any Legislation which is in line with common Law, is completely redundant, why do you need a piece of legislation when the common Law crime already exists to prosecute them ?
Well the answer is simple lets take for example some company poisoning a river, politicians would have you believe the act of poisoning isn’t a crime under common Law (it most certainly is) and that we need them to come to our rescue, the second thing they achieve is lessening the sentence for their mates who own these poisoning companies, instead of a 15 year jail sentence, the new sentence is a small percentage of their profits and a hearty slap on the wrist.
There is not a single wrong doing which cant be dealt with the correct application of Common Law, for those still on the left right hamster wheel (which is not many here thankfully) For the left companies damaging Public property and poisoning rivers, those are crimes under common Law and for those on the right Mass immigration would be considered theft of public land and trespass. You don’t need legislation its nothing more than the public declaration of the criminality of politicians.
FROM THE ARCHIVE: