Along with other Magistrates who 'blog' it would appear that I shall shortly have to amend my blog to conform to a diktat issued by the Judicial Office and supported by no less than the Deputy Senior Presiding Judge and the Magistrates' Association.
The essence of this supposed 'guidance' is:
"Officer holders who blog (or who post comments on other people’s blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary. They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general.
The above guidance also applies to blogs which purport to be anonymous. This is because it is impossible for somebody who blogs anonymously to guarantee that his or her identity cannot be discovered.
Judicial office holders who maintain blogs must adhere to this guidance and should remove any existing content which conflicts with it forthwith. Failure to do so could ultimately result in disciplinary action."
In my opinion, this 'guidance' is in direct contravention of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees 'Freedom of expression' and of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, which states that:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
and I have so informed both the Judicial Office and the Magistrates' Association, time will tell as to the extent of the bollocking I will no doubt receive, but I'll keep you advised. Until then I'm not making any changes or, like some bloggers, entering into a pretence as to who writes this blog. If forced then no doubt I'll be able to come up with some subtefuge, which will fool no-one but which may satisfy our 'masters'.
And they wonder why the ordinary Magistrate has lost faith with those who are supposed to support him or her.
Friday 24 August 2012
Sunday 12 August 2012
The Olympic Games
I can’t let an occasion like the 30th Olympiad pass without some comment and the one that most compels me to write, but doesn’t surprise me, is that the Director General of the BBC has reportedly issued a memo ordering staff covering the Olympics to tone down their ‘patriotic reporting’ and instead focus more on other country’s achievements, (just like the French, Australians and Americans do for us – I don’t think).
Needless to say, once the memo became public the BBC claimed the Director General’s directive had been ‘misinterpreted’, well they would wouldn’t they?
This attitude does no more than reinforce the view of many that the BBC is ashamed of Britain and all things British, epitomised by David Bland talking over the National Anthem during the Olympics.
I’m proud to be British and consider that I have indeed ‘won first prize in the lottery of life’, to miss-quote Cecil Rhodes, and I’m proud of all that our English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish athletes have achieved, in whatever discipline, and of the planners, Architects, designers and builders who have translated Lord (Seb) Coe’s vision into reality.
When it was first announced that London had been selected to host the 2012 Games there was an avalanche of nay-sayers, mostly in the media, the BBC included, who were only too ready to do Britain down and forecast a disaster in the making: that it wouldn’t be ready in time, that the organisation would be chronic, that London would be grid-locked and that we wouldn’t win a thing – and they’ve been wrong on every point.
The Games have been an outstanding success from every viewpoint, even the Olympic chiefs proclaiming it ‘the best Games ever’ and the 2016 hosts, Rio, asking London for advice - and that’s without a record toll of medals for Team GB!
How it must eat out the hearts of those doom-mongers at the BBC and elsewhere.
Friday 10 August 2012
Soft Sentences
So another judge gives the lie to the oft-made assertion that courts are 'soft' on sentencing.
His Honour judge Rodger Hayward, sentencing two yobs who stole a car and crashed it into an innocent young woman, causing her devastating injuries, laments the fact hat he can only jail them for 18 and 16 months.
Without doubt these are 'soft' sentences but judge Hayward makes it clear that it's not for the lack of will on his part but that he is constrained by Parliament as to the sentences he can impose.
One day it is to be hoped the press and other media will begin to make it clear to the electorate where the responsibility for these 'soft' sentences really lies - WITH THE GOVERNMENT - and that their continued lies about being tough on crime will finally be exposed for what they are, the machinations of a liberal elite with no regard for the welfare of the people.
One day it is to be hoped the press and other media will begin to make it clear to the electorate where the responsibility for these 'soft' sentences really lies - WITH THE GOVERNMENT - and that their continued lies about being tough on crime will finally be exposed for what they are, the machinations of a liberal elite with no regard for the welfare of the people.
What a stinker!
It was informative to listen to David, ‘call me Dave’ Cameron on London’s LBC phone-in program trying to justify the £12,000,000,000 spent by this Government on Foreign Aid to a woman denied the drugs, freely available in Germany, to treat her cancer.
Apparently the ‘moral obligation’ ‘call me Dave’ thinks we have to the dictatorships of Africa does not extend to the people of these islands and that ‘breaking promises (on Foreign Aid)is not the right thing to do’.
Ok to break promises to the those who elected him though.
What a stinker!
Apparently the ‘moral obligation’ ‘call me Dave’ thinks we have to the dictatorships of Africa does not extend to the people of these islands and that ‘breaking promises (on Foreign Aid)is not the right thing to do’.
Ok to break promises to the those who elected him though.
What a stinker!
The Outrageous
Apparently Government Ministers are ‘outraged’ that fewer than 1 in 20 of those convicted of Benefit Fraud are sent to prison, laying the blame on ‘soft-touch’ courts.
Tory MP Pritil Patel is reported as saying ‘It is vital the courts start getting to grips with this problem’ and that those who rip off the system should be ‘properly punished’. Johnathan Isaby of the Tax Payers’ Alliance is reported as saying ‘it is deeply worrying that that so few are sent down’.
Both these gentlemen, and the ‘outraged Government Ministers’ aught to take a close look at the Sentencing Guidelines for Benefit Fraud imposed on the courts by these same ‘outraged Ministers’ and passed through Parliament by none other than the said MP Priti Patel.
Most Benefit Fraud is for sums less than £12,500 and falls into the category of ‘not fraudulent from the outset’, ie they were originally claiming benefit legitimately but continued to claim even after they became ineligible, for example by finding work.
Such a one was Stephen Stockton who fraudulently claimed benefit totalling £5,631 between October 2009 and March 2011 by failing to declare that he was working as a fork-lift driver.
Or those who acquire a live-in lover, like the woman who failed to notify the authorities that her working husband had returned to the household and fraudulently claimed £6359
In both of the above the amount fraudulently obtained was less than £12,500 and the Government tell us that in such cases we must impose a medium level Community Order, which is what the courts did, and what so ‘enrages’ those who seek to blame others for their misdeeds.
It is galling to be criticised by the Government, MPs and their ilk for carrying out their orders, if ‘they’ want the courts to impose sterner sanctions, for this and any other form of crime, then tell Ken Clarke to build more prisons and free the courts from the shackles of these ‘Sentencing Guidelines’.
Tory MP Pritil Patel is reported as saying ‘It is vital the courts start getting to grips with this problem’ and that those who rip off the system should be ‘properly punished’. Johnathan Isaby of the Tax Payers’ Alliance is reported as saying ‘it is deeply worrying that that so few are sent down’.
Both these gentlemen, and the ‘outraged Government Ministers’ aught to take a close look at the Sentencing Guidelines for Benefit Fraud imposed on the courts by these same ‘outraged Ministers’ and passed through Parliament by none other than the said MP Priti Patel.
Most Benefit Fraud is for sums less than £12,500 and falls into the category of ‘not fraudulent from the outset’, ie they were originally claiming benefit legitimately but continued to claim even after they became ineligible, for example by finding work.
Such a one was Stephen Stockton who fraudulently claimed benefit totalling £5,631 between October 2009 and March 2011 by failing to declare that he was working as a fork-lift driver.
Or those who acquire a live-in lover, like the woman who failed to notify the authorities that her working husband had returned to the household and fraudulently claimed £6359
In both of the above the amount fraudulently obtained was less than £12,500 and the Government tell us that in such cases we must impose a medium level Community Order, which is what the courts did, and what so ‘enrages’ those who seek to blame others for their misdeeds.
It is galling to be criticised by the Government, MPs and their ilk for carrying out their orders, if ‘they’ want the courts to impose sterner sanctions, for this and any other form of crime, then tell Ken Clarke to build more prisons and free the courts from the shackles of these ‘Sentencing Guidelines’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)