DON’T criticise the JUDICERY –Judges will lock you up?


Unbelievably perhaps, the current President of the Supreme Court, indeed one Lord Neuberger, had the temerity to use the ‘media’ to criticise the ‘media’ for its coverage (though probably unfair and undoubtedly vitriolic) of the UK’s Courts’ interference in the Government’s triggering of Article 50, that was needed to ensure that Britain left the European Union in accordance with the public’s democratic decision in last June’s EU Referendum.

He moaned and whined that the just (for some?) condemnation of the judiciary by certain sections of the press (that would be the newspapers who supported BREXIT, wouldn’t it?) had undermined the rule of law, no less?

Moreover, he wailed that all the politicians (including the Lord Chancellor) should have been immediately clearly strongly defending the three Judges responsible for the crass decision of the Appeal Court to ignore the will of the people, eh?

Well, to properly appreciate that unwarranted outburst by Neuberger, you have to understand one outstanding thing about judges, and that is that they are in general temperamentally utterly unsuited (through training) to really considering the views of other people, so they fully expect to be above ANY criticism whatsoever, at ANY time whenever, and in ANY circumstances whatever, don’t they? Moreover, the higher up the legal tree they have climbed, the angrier they get if anyone, but anyone, dares to voice the opinion that they have got something wrong, eh?

Neuberger came out with all this claptrap despite the fact that clearly there can be a legitimate difference of opinion on the matter in question, as amply demonstrated by the fact that the decision of his own Supreme Court wasn’t unanimous (8-3), plus the point that the Attorney General, chief the legal advisor to the Government (and the Queen), disagreed throughout with the Courts, didn’t he?

Now, you might wonder like the rest of us, just how the hell did lord high and mighty David Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury indeed, rise from a pauper serf to be king of the castle in the UK’s Court world, eh? Well, for a start he didn’t set out from any poor man’s hovel, did he? No, he came from a very privileged background (no fault of his in that of course), but he made the most of it to latch-onto the legal profession, as it being the most privileged one of all, and the one where from time immemorial (a thousand years?) their appointments all happen in relative secret, behind closed doors, controlled by unaccountable shadowy figures, to boot?

However, you can be sure that Neuberger is certainly a clever cookie (as many judges are), as can be amply demonstrated by his rapid elevation through the lower ranks into the very top echelon, so he should have more sense than to place himself at the front of a potential baying mob of hurt judges.

Not only that, but he is having a laugh when he says that it is the papers that were undermining the rule of law, when if the truth be known, it is the Judges themselves that have been exactly doing that for decades, haven’t they? You see, in our complicated courts system we get the likes of Crown Court Judges, High Court Judges, Appeal Court Judges and nowadays even Supreme Court Judges, who somehow ‘emerge’ to be appointed to those loft roles and who frequently fully demonstrate by their actions in their Courts that they are totally ‘out-of-touch’ with the general ‘law-supporting’ and law-abiding’ population, don’t you think?

Now, you may think that our elected Parliament makes the law of the land, but you would only be ‘partly right’, wouldn’t you? Yes, apart from the faceless EU bureaucrats doing just that more so these days (until we achieve BREXIT that is, eh?), it is the unelected bleeding judges much of the time, who do it, don’t they?

You see, they are the ones who are allowed to “interpret” the law in each specific case, and they seem to do it in a bizarre way whenever they get the chance to make a name for themselves – they give new a “ruling” that they claim is required to cover ‘their case’ in hand and that becomes the law for everyone else hearing any future case, unless our MPs step in with a new law to overrule them (unlikely most of the time, as that is a difficult, expensive, and extensive business, isn’t it?).

Some of these charlatan Judges seem to think that they can and should impose, what THEY think the Law OUGHT to be to be, rather than applying what it actually IS, or even what was MEANT to be the law by those setting it up in the first place, haven’t you found?

This means that judges presiding over any case are deemed like the Pope to be ‘infallible” (it’s like having a hundred or so pseudo-popes alive all the same time, no less?) – so what they decide in their court becomes a precedent i.e. common law, and becomes binding unless overruled by a superior court.

The general British public are sick & tired of seeing career criminals getting away with it all, or violent individuals & even murderers on occasions, because of their smart-arsed barristers’ patently false excuses, regularly indulge by bad judges, who even when the jury have convicted the defendants, the guilty are then told by the judge that he/she would “take-a-chance” on them (your, mine, and society’s chance NOT actually theirs, eh?) and give them no or very lenient sentences [despite the fact that they know full well that these days the government simply lets them out half way through anyway (because it consistently refuses to harshly terminate offending or alternatively build enough prisons to but the ever increasing number of the buggers in, wouldn’t you say?)].

Sentences are often in the public’s view unduly lenient, when given out by judges for serious cases such as sexual assaults, actual body harm, or malicious wounding and so often they are not possible normally to be appealed against by the Prosecution (that also applies to burglary, child pornography distribution, careless driving killing, youth offenders including rapists, amongst others) – when it all is subsequently reported by the media, that not only really angers normal people, but it undermines any faith that they have had in the operation of the British criminal justice system and the application of the law in this Country, doesn’t it? There are numerous examples occurring all the time of course like below:

A female Judge exonerated a violent father and against family pleas returned his daughter to his control for him to murder her just a year later (she would still be in her job of course had she not resigned a week before the subsequent murder trial, eh?).

A middle age man was let-off by the Judge and walked free with a 6 month ‘suspended’ sentence after being convicted for sex with a 13-year-old girl (that decision had to be overturned by the Appeal court which sent him down for 2 years). In a similar case, another secondary school teacher had a sexual relationship for a year and a half with a fifteen-year-old girl and again was given his freedom and that inane decision couldn’t be challenged.

During a gang of four’s violent burglary of a vicarage in London a young woman was repeatedly raped but the judge on their conviction decided that her “trauma had been not so great” so said he was prepared to be lenient with her assaulters, while at the same time dishing out harsher punishment for the burglary part (the judge, supposedly a criminal specialist, of course simply later carried on, regardless of the public outcry, indeed with going on to be an Appeal Court judge, and serving on judicial boards and committees).

Magistrates and judges unbelievably at times, release the criminal intent on bail only for them to continue willy-nilly on their existing reoffending ways or worse – did you realise that one in seven of the murders in Britain are committed by those actually released while awaiting trial on another charge, eh?

However, one can’t get away though with calling a judge ‘a silly old fart’ when they make ‘however stupid’ a judgment, sentence, or precedent decision, because if it is within earshot they will lock you up for ‘contempt of court’, won’t they? You see, JUDGES are like the old Roman emperors (past terminology for military commanders) of some two thousand years ago – Julius Caesar (the dictator’ish start guy), Augustus (the first actual Roman one), Claudius (invaded Britain), Nero (murderous), Hadrian (kept the raiding Scots out of England with a wall), et al – welding great tyrantical power over all citizens and being like Caesar’s wife ‘above reproach’, aren’t they?

Now, the other overriding thing you need to know about judges is that we can’t easily get rid of any of these blighters – they being man or woman Caesar Popes you see, however crass their decisions, or whatever serious mistakes of judgment they make, or how frequently their legal rulings are overruled, or how many times their sentences are revised or reversed, or practically anything else, eh?

Well, they even used to have the job for life, however long that went on, so they could still sit on the Bench ruling the roost until their nineties or so, unless they fell-off their perch, but some twenty-five years ago, it was decided that new ones had to mandatory retire at 70 (but then these days they often go off to run special enquiries, tribunals and the like, don’t they?).

[The Romans has a similar kind of problem with getting shot of their emperors and that is why so many of them actually came to a sticky end, eh?].

Now, these court cases to try to use parliament to block the UK leaving the EU, were provoked by mega rich investment Banker foreign born Gina Miller, the most prominent of the chief complainants, who brought the case against the Government, but while they may well have succeeded at Court, but they look destined to failure in Parliament, don’t you think? [The Commons voted overwhelmingly to proceed with the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, and it is with the Lords who will ‘consider’ any of their members’ potential amendments next week before coming to a final conclusion the first week of March – dare THEY as an unelected elite really try to defy the will of the people (when their own continuance may well pivot on their decision), do you think?].

The particular BREXIT episode spat involving the Supreme Court is generally worrying though in a number of ways, isn’t it?

Firstly, the very fact that our current Attorney General (Jeremy Wright MP), who the Government of the day (not forgetting the Queen as well) always relies-on legally, doesn’t actually know the Law here in the UK (despite his obvious undoubted access to the best legal brains) is really a bit concerning, don’t you think? [Though perhaps hardly surprising to many of us, as a previous one (Lord Goldsmith) advised Tony Blair’s government in 2003 that it was ‘probably’ legally OK to invade Iraq, and we all well know now that it bloody well wasn’t justified, was it?]. Moreover, this is particularly so, when it was widely trailed in the press from the start that the Government would certainly lose by a substantial amount in the Supreme Court, don’t you think?

Now, the Attorney General’s role, as a law person being separated from direct government control, should not be confused with that of the Lord Chancellor/Justice Secretary (currently Liz Truss), who as a full Cabinet member holds the truly political law role in the administration, while the AG by tradition keeps out of that particular bunfight – he just gets the joy of witnessing the fighting of the Government’s legal battles in court (under his advice), so sometimes getting egg all over his face, as in the case of BREXIT, eh?

Secondly, the fact that the top dog of the Supreme Court believes he has some kind of role and a right to lambast the media and the politicians, from outside of his Court. Now, that is something wildly outside his job description and is a dangerous precedent – well, someone needs to put a stop to things like that, as it is a slippery slope for deocracy, don’t you think?. If the person wants to make such comments (which anyway seems to simply express their strongly held personal views, eh?), then it should be done in the right place at the right time – and that should have been in the Supreme Court when their judgment about the case was given (but only IF that was the unanimous opinion of his court, don’t you think?).


[As far as the Judges are concerned democracy is insignificant, right & wrong extraneous, justice irrelevant, and our society immaterial, compared to their profession’s independence, their self-importance, and the right for them individually to have a personal interpretation of the law – God help us all, eh?]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.