Both the Tories and Starmer's Government are at odds with a Sentencing Council and Judiciary, determined to pursue a progressive agenda - so why can't the Government stop them?
Under the English Constitution we abide by Halsbury Statutes (10th edition) : Constitutional Laws
This covers the Bill of Rights, etc. which enshrined the People as Sovereign. You see we the people allow the Monarch to rule over us. We the People the election a Government that then must garner monarch approval. So in terms of power status of our christian country the highest rank is God then We the People then the Monarch and finally the Government.
The Bill of Rights is forever and can never be changed but then in 1867 Parliament illegally and unlawfully removed Chapter 2 and then in 1947 they illegally and unlawfully top and tailed Chapter 3.
All these changes now give the illusion that Parliament is sovereign.
I think it's on a par with revolutionary France. It's attempting and succeeding to destroy as much as possible of what it views as the 'ancient regime'. See Victor Davis Hanson talk about this on Youtube. Just like Robespierre and his pals they are renaming everything, destroying culture, tearing down statues. We need to counter-revolutionaries to take control. Unlike the French revolutionaries these people have no accountability.
The natural response to the outrage of the the Sentencing Council (and all its equivalent quangos) cocking a snook at the minister is simply to say: pass an Act to abolish the quangos.
But as you say we would then be faced with challenges going all the way to the Supreme Court arguing that transferring powers to politically focussed ministers, rather than so called independent experts, is not compatible with the Human Rights Act or the Equalities Act.
The necessary order of reform to undo the Blair Vandalism (aka Regime of Terror) has to be the repeal of these two Acts of Parliament first; abolishing the quangos can then follow on short order.
Excellent points, and thank you for a great article. A few comments:
- Blair's innovations moved into a vacuum; they didn't displace a different way of seeing things (had that been the case, he might not have succeeded). While your father may have felt that he was being impartial in interpreting the law, every judge - every person - is partial due to his fundamental beliefs. For centuries in England these were derived from Christianity, but once religion was in such decline, a vacuum opened up just waiting to be filled by some new belief, which "progressivism" neatly fills, not because "Nature abhors a vacuum" but more specifically because humans crave belief in something and the "intelligentsia" or whoever backed Blair's program were eager to latch onto something that gave them the feeling of meaning they lacked.
- I find it curious that you credit Germanic tribes for the development of English law and its sense of fair play, as those tribes' sense of justice was based on upholding their tiered social system and not on any ideal of equality before the law, which really goes back to what is commonly called the Judeo-Christian belief system. In fact, Germanic tribal law is more similar, I believe, to progressivism in its ideals of maintaining the social order above all, restorative justice rather than punitive/deterrent justice, and so forth.
- I am not sure where I read it; it may even have been on this substack - but it was noted that the belief of many of the ruling and upper-middle classes in the UK that everyone, at root, is in favor of fair play and the "public school morality" is naive. It's based on a social order that no longer exists (feudal ideas of the noble being responsible for his serfs) plus Christian morals (which also have all but disappeared). If a sense of fair play is typically English (and I believe it is) then surely its loss over the past few decades should be seriously pondered.
I have a friend who has been a magistrate for 20+ years. He is really angry about the comments of the JP who wrote to a member of the left wing press. Firstly because they are not supposed to be political in public, but most importantly he said a burglar is a burglar, a drunken driver is a drunken driver regardless of race, faith or colour or any other characteristic and he has never sat on a bench that treated ethnic minorities drunk drivers or burglars harsher than the indigenous population. Sounds like that was radio 4 being it's biased self. How do they keep getting away with it.
The biter bit, in Starmer's case, but that's little consolation if we are stuck with legal witnits wielding unaccountable power and doing what they want rather than what is just.
Good article except one major error.
The People are Sovereign: not Parliament.
Under the English Constitution we abide by Halsbury Statutes (10th edition) : Constitutional Laws
This covers the Bill of Rights, etc. which enshrined the People as Sovereign. You see we the people allow the Monarch to rule over us. We the People the election a Government that then must garner monarch approval. So in terms of power status of our christian country the highest rank is God then We the People then the Monarch and finally the Government.
The Bill of Rights is forever and can never be changed but then in 1867 Parliament illegally and unlawfully removed Chapter 2 and then in 1947 they illegally and unlawfully top and tailed Chapter 3.
All these changes now give the illusion that Parliament is sovereign.
They committed treason.
Great article. I have been thinking and researching in my substack all the quangos that proliferate in all parts of government.
You may be busy, there are 700 I believe.
More as they are quangos of quangos. Lots of Arms Length Bodies
Isn't it about time we stopped calling leftist ideology 'progressive', which makes it sound like a positive thing? It's very regressive
I think it's on a par with revolutionary France. It's attempting and succeeding to destroy as much as possible of what it views as the 'ancient regime'. See Victor Davis Hanson talk about this on Youtube. Just like Robespierre and his pals they are renaming everything, destroying culture, tearing down statues. We need to counter-revolutionaries to take control. Unlike the French revolutionaries these people have no accountability.
I prefer "Retarded".
I've just found this out from you and, yes, I'm pretty angry about it.
Great piece, C.J.! I'll include this in the next Bazaar at the end of the week (a round up of news and opinion pieces).
Stay wonderful!
Chris.
The natural response to the outrage of the the Sentencing Council (and all its equivalent quangos) cocking a snook at the minister is simply to say: pass an Act to abolish the quangos.
But as you say we would then be faced with challenges going all the way to the Supreme Court arguing that transferring powers to politically focussed ministers, rather than so called independent experts, is not compatible with the Human Rights Act or the Equalities Act.
The necessary order of reform to undo the Blair Vandalism (aka Regime of Terror) has to be the repeal of these two Acts of Parliament first; abolishing the quangos can then follow on short order.
Simple answer is to scrap the sentencing council and sack the staff. Money saved, govt control returned, job done.
Excellent points, and thank you for a great article. A few comments:
- Blair's innovations moved into a vacuum; they didn't displace a different way of seeing things (had that been the case, he might not have succeeded). While your father may have felt that he was being impartial in interpreting the law, every judge - every person - is partial due to his fundamental beliefs. For centuries in England these were derived from Christianity, but once religion was in such decline, a vacuum opened up just waiting to be filled by some new belief, which "progressivism" neatly fills, not because "Nature abhors a vacuum" but more specifically because humans crave belief in something and the "intelligentsia" or whoever backed Blair's program were eager to latch onto something that gave them the feeling of meaning they lacked.
- I find it curious that you credit Germanic tribes for the development of English law and its sense of fair play, as those tribes' sense of justice was based on upholding their tiered social system and not on any ideal of equality before the law, which really goes back to what is commonly called the Judeo-Christian belief system. In fact, Germanic tribal law is more similar, I believe, to progressivism in its ideals of maintaining the social order above all, restorative justice rather than punitive/deterrent justice, and so forth.
- I am not sure where I read it; it may even have been on this substack - but it was noted that the belief of many of the ruling and upper-middle classes in the UK that everyone, at root, is in favor of fair play and the "public school morality" is naive. It's based on a social order that no longer exists (feudal ideas of the noble being responsible for his serfs) plus Christian morals (which also have all but disappeared). If a sense of fair play is typically English (and I believe it is) then surely its loss over the past few decades should be seriously pondered.
Thank you
thanks for your feedback - I use hyperbole extensively - hence the German tribes. Injecting some humour makes the subject less depressing!
I have a friend who has been a magistrate for 20+ years. He is really angry about the comments of the JP who wrote to a member of the left wing press. Firstly because they are not supposed to be political in public, but most importantly he said a burglar is a burglar, a drunken driver is a drunken driver regardless of race, faith or colour or any other characteristic and he has never sat on a bench that treated ethnic minorities drunk drivers or burglars harsher than the indigenous population. Sounds like that was radio 4 being it's biased self. How do they keep getting away with it.
Tell me you dont know Starmer is a jew 🇮🇱👿🇮🇱
... Can we make that VERY angry??
The biter bit, in Starmer's case, but that's little consolation if we are stuck with legal witnits wielding unaccountable power and doing what they want rather than what is just.