This cannot be taken away. It is not in Parliament's power to remove from us the inalienable rights which were granted to us by God before Parliament came to be.
When Louise Casey says that:
"We should not view the right to a jury trial as being so sacrosanct that its exercise should be at the cost of victims of serious crimes"
She is attempting to usurp God, she is placing herself above the concept of the Almighty creator that is so important to the constitution of the country. She is also portraying herself as one of the most disgusting, odious, objectionable people in the country.
Victims' Commissioner? What? We are all victims if this is introduced. If I were to be tried under this scheme by a Magistrate, I would find myself in Court refusing to comply or cooperate and shouting, very loud, that my God given rights had been infringed by a body which has no power to do so.
Perhaps the money spent on this department would be better spent on the Police or Courts Service, because I'll tell you what victims want; they want the criminal who has wronged them to be caught, arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to a proper punishment that is really, properly proportionate to the offence committed. What they don't want is another self-important, attention whoring, mindless fucking quango headed up by another poorly tailored suit of toss all with a mouth that looks like a slit in the side canvas of a curtain sided artic.
Got it?
Just in case you are in any doubt, here is the clause of Magna Carta, which has served us perfectly well for the last 795 years, written in a plain style of English that is easy to understand, salient, concise and quite beyond anything that a shower like Louise Casey could write if her miserable, insignificant and pointless life fucking depended on it:
No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land.
Fuck you and the broomstick you rode in on, Casey.
You want to do away with this for the sake of expediency? I'll tell you this, doing away with the right to trial by jury (yes, even in the case of like, really complicated fraud trials) is but one step removed from sweeping away innocent until proven guilty.
2 comments:
**Applause**
And nothing to add.
Worryingly, precedents have already been set. There have been at least two cases I've heard of and blogged on where a UK judge more or less went, "Jury? Meh". One was a libel and one was armed robbery, and in both cases the justification seemed to be cost and/or convenience. Too much trouble to protect a jury from being nobbled. Too much cost involved in waiting for all 12 jurors (quite possibly young and with good eyesight) to get on the same page as the (probably) ageing and myopic jurist on the bench. It's not the slightest bit surprising that someone is now suggesting more of the same.
And I'd only just got over laughing at David Cameron for lecturing the Chinese about freedom.
Post a Comment