No, fuck off, fuck off, fuck off

The legal scheme under which anyone can ask for convicted criminals to be given tougher sentences is to be extended to cover more terrorist offences.

An order will be laid before MPs next week allowing those found guilty of encouraging terrorism, sharing terrorist propaganda and related offences to be brought back to court to have their punishment reassessed.

The Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) procedure – which allows victims and the public to query sentences handed out by judges – will now also include crimes such as membership of banned organisations and taking part in weapons training.

The scheme permits anyone to ask the attorney general to review a sentence. Where the senior law officer deems it appropriate, the case can be referred to the court of appeal for reconsideration.

The entire point of the courts of law is so that we are not ruled by the whims of the mob.

Further, despite the limited abolition of the double jeopardy rules, the State does not, or perhaps given double jeopardy fraying should not, get a second bite at trying, convicting nor punishing you. They get just the one chance to stack up their story against your.

And yes, this includes terrorists as well. Including those who “share terrorist propaganda,” as slippy an offence as to do credit to a Stalinist system of propaganda against state interests.

No, fuck off, and the horse you rode in on.

14 comments on “No, fuck off, fuck off, fuck off

  1. With the present obsession with “hate crime” the Guardian’s audience would no doubt buy tickets to see Ulster cake makers fines escalated to suspension from cranes.

  2. Who’s behind it?

    The article mentions some turd of a “justice minister”–so its likely the stupid fish-faced bitch is still determined to push as much arrogant authoritarian shite as she can.

    Reminds me more and more of the last Czar. Weak where it matters, surrounded by fuck useless “advisors” yet still arrogant and stubborn in all the wrong places.Are terrorists likely to get probation? Are they fuck. It is the vague “enablers” bullshit they are pushing. The stupid cow gets BluLabour’s nose broken for them but she is still trying to unload the wheelbarrow of shite she carries for what passes for her head.

    And to –say– ReMainiac scum advocating Brexit “enabled” the Jo Cox murder.

    The poli-scum will not be happy with anything less than full-on anarcho-tyranny.

  3. Is it meant as a defence against bribed judges? Ever since Deadly Ernest Saunders walked I’ve wondered whether the cops keep an eye on judges’ bank accounts.

  4. The devil is in the detail, and I don’t know the detail.
    But if judges can be induced to bring their judgement in line with that of the general public that would be a good thing.
    Plenty of ways this could go pear shaped of course.

  5. “Weak where it matters…yet still arrogant and stubborn in all the wrong places.”

    Spot on, Ecksy.

  6. This is the kind of nonsense one gets by turning the Lord Chancellor’s Department into the Ministry of Justice.

    If a judge sentences consistently badly, the judge should be removed.

  7. We know what’s going to happen: a middle class white-collar white-faced criminal will get 20 years, but the Somalian rapist will still get his 3 months.

  8. Interested,

    You really think this set of Tory politicians are going to stand up to the Daily Mail, Sun and Mumsnet on a point of classic liberal principle?

    And when/if JC gets in all anti terrorism laws concerning RoPers are likely to be scrapped. And if Labour’s right manage to topple the hard left they’ll be just as vulnerable as the Tories to the Adam, Sun and Mumsnet Triumvirate.

  9. The scheme permits anyone to ask the attorney general to review a sentence. Where the senior law officer deems it appropriate, the case can be referred to the court of appeal for reconsideration.

    I don’t see what the fuss here is about. This seems a perfectly reasonable (and small) way of attempting to mitigate against the effects of the leftie hand-wringers having taken over the judiciary.

    It’s a sentence review process (additional to the ones available to the guilty party), with two filtration layers against frivolous vindictiveness.

  10. Seems reasonable to me, if one can appeal against a sentence being too severe, surely it follows that people should be able to appeal against a sentence being too lenient.

  11. When people being mean on social media, or committers of nonviolent crime involving pork products get time, but convicted traffickers and rapists get legal aid to avoid deportation, and travellers never get charged for anything, it seems that the state, in its role as monopoly upholder of justice, is a failure.

  12. BiND – if the choice is between ordinary peeps get to moan about sentencing, or they don’t, I favour the former. But mainly I was just saying it’s not mob rule, because it’s not mob rule.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

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