Thin end of the wedge stuff:
Specialist courtrooms prioritising cases of rape and other serious sex offences are to be introduced across England and Wales, with campaigners welcoming the move as potentially transformative.
The rooms, well. But we can see how this will transform into specialist courts. With their own judges, rules of evidence and so on. Which is what the feminazis have been calling for for decades of course. Rape is not to be judged on the facts, as with other crimes.
As to the delays in cases being heard. That’s across the board, not just rape. And not providing the tolerable administration of justice is violating one of those prime duties of government. If they’d not nationalised British Steel they could have fixed the entire court system…..
The courts system is a superb example of inefficiency and waste.
The situation was not helped by the Tories selling off court buildings.
The problem, of course, is that it is run by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers. One of the vested interests that Mrs T failed to take down and was of course promoted and bloated by the Blairs to line their own ad their friends’ pockets.
A few executions would get them to buck their ideas up.
It’s far worse than that. The criminal justice system is no where near as lucrative as other opportunities for the legal profession. Time is money so there is no incentive to speed things up. Also very few new entrants choose that area of speciality so the delays are only going to get worse as the current incumbents retire. Shiny new courts aren’t going to help unless even more money is thrown at the legal profession. Perhaps this will be phase 2.
Actually MrsT made a start. She removed the monopoly right of barristers to appear in court and the monopoly right of solicitors to deal with conveyancing.
““These changes are long overdue and will make a significant difference, but focusing on prosecution alone will not be enough,” the prime minister said.“So as well as ensuring victims get justice, we will step up action to prevent these horrific crimes from happening in the first place.””
Hoe? Pamphlets for the unknown foreign nationals you’re importing into the country in hordes ain’t gonna cut it.
If only they could allow some of those nice ladies in keffiyehs just to talk to the migrants for a little. This whole problem would go away.
how about deporting those from rapey cultures?
Why is rape more important than murder?
People can recover from rape. You can’t recover from murder.
It’s certainly harder to establish. People can come to the conclusion they were raped days, weeks or even years after the event. This is rarely the case with murder.
The problem is that there’s also perception involved. No-one wants a knife pushed into them. But women like to have sex.
There’s obvious, clear-cut rape. Stranger approaches a woman at night etc.
But when you get into cases where she says “I just wanted to fool around, and he raped me”, we just have no idea what happened there. Maybe he talked her around, but she remembers it differently. Raging hormones cause all sorts of things. Maybe he dumped you the next day and your emotions say that you were violated by that act?
There’s a lot of “self protection” around these things. Like, you watch out for pickpockets in Rome. You don’t leave your iPhone on a table in a cafe in London. It’s still a crime if someone nicks your phone, but far better to prevent it in the first place. If you don’t want a bloke to fuck you, maybe don’t go to his house. You can talk about the latest Coldplay album in a cafe.
I mean, it’s funny that we have a bit of a Chesterton’s Fence thing with marriage – you publicly declare this is the man you are fucking. Or even those laws that Islamic countries have about unmarried women being left alone with unrelated men. Those countries take the view that if you got raped when alone with a man, well, what did you expect?
Which has two effects:
– the people who are murdered aren’t around to complain about it; and- it’s very difficult to falsely claim that you were murdered.
“rape and other serious sex offences”
Who gets to decide what are non-serious sex offences?
Presumably those that take place every year at the Notting Hill Carnival…
Or anything done by those the left deems structurally oppressed.
If this leads to fast-tracking Muslim rape gangs into court, I’m all for it but we all know that won’t happen; after all, Labour need their votes…
Meanwhile the alleged murderer of Ann Widdecombe has a provisional trial date in June 2027.
Whereupon he will be said to be ‘unfit for trial’, I suspect
There’ll definitely be some dodge or other to avoid placing responsibility where it lies; with the left and their hateful ideology.
Yup. I expect by the trial date all evidence of his political leanings will have disappeared, and he’ll have a deal to plead guilty so nothing has to come out in the trial.
Probably with some convenient finding of diminished mental responsibility, so he can go to a comfortable secure hospital for a few years and the Left can say it was just his personal breakdown, nothing to do with them.
their *hate* ideology – hate anyone who dares to disagree with them
See jgh’s comment above:
Will this be another “single justice system” procedure, where any defence ‘may, or may not’ be presented to the bench. A system where, I am led to believe, less than 5% are declared not guilty.
Bloody hell, I didn’t realise things had got that bad.
How the hell does that get past ‘human rights’, fair trial and due process when expelling murdering illegal immigrants doesn’t?
Wonder if most of the people dealt with under “single justice procedure notices” are white working class?
Sadiq Khan fell foul of the single procedure but managed to kept it over turned.
The Black Belt Barrister addressed them if you want more explanation.
The only way you can guarantee the magistrate hears a plea of mitigation for a guilty plea, is by attending court and giving it verbally. To send that plea of mitigation to the organisation prosecuting you, in the hope that it is passed on to the magistrate, is the epitome of naivety. DVLA is said to be the worst offender in ‘not having the facilities to submit any mitigation plea’.
Gamecock wonders if they have to prove you received the notice.
In US, you simply don’t sign for a summons.* Don’t answer your door. Don’t reply to any communication. If they are serious, they’ll get a warrant and come for you. But no sense making it easy for them.
*50+ years ago, corporate lawyers advised – ordered – me, “Never sign for anything you are not expecting.” Even at home.
And you’ll find forty-eleven Youtube videos by lawyers saying, “Never answer your door,” and “Never talk to cops.”
If they say they have a warrant, ask to see it. If they have it, damn well better do whatever they say. Defying a warrant will get you in serious trouble, perhaps more serious than what they were going to charge you with in the first place.
[Disclaimer: This is not legal advise. Gamecock is not a lawyer. He is not licensed to practice in UK, SC, or anywhere else. He is only providing synopsis of Youtube videos.]
In England they (likely) don’t have to prove you received it. Legally, a notice is presumed to have been received if it was posted using first class post. The intended recipient may produce evidence to rebut this presumption (e.g. they were away on holiday, or the address on record was incorrect). For this reason, legal papers would never be sent using a signed-foir service unless they are to the benefit of the recipient, and hence it is a bad idea to refuse to sign for anything.
If there is *evidence* that it was posted
Criminal justice is a core function of government.
Government under funds criminal justice. One noticeable effect is delay in proceedings. Allocating funds for specialty courts will cause further delays. But liberal white women will be happy.
If liberal white women are happy, it’s a sure fire sign you’ve made the wrong decision!
At least the BBC had the good grace to call the ‘special entrances’ to be set up at court an entrance for the ‘alleged victim’. Whoever it was they rolled out from the government this morning on the radio was calling them entrances for the ‘victims’.
I thought the preferred terminology nowadays was ‘survivor’.
Differing burdens of proof, differing treatments of the accused? Go to murder court and have all the traditional protections and rights, go to rape court and get railroaded?
Wait until it is calculated that you get MUCH more lenient and protective treatment for murdering your vic after raping her than you would get if you JUST raped her.
Not many rape victims are going to survive that.
There is a basic principle with the law. All legislation is intended to keep the people running the country in power. Any justice that comes out of the court system is purely fortuitous.