The Terrifying Prospect of the Future for British Justice

Up to the point when my daughter (a partner in a firm specialising in criminal defence and prison law) first explained the proposed changes to Legal Aid funding to me, my opinion of British justice was that the system was relatively robust but, like everything, open to failings from time to time.  This confidence was in spite of an incident in which someone close to me became a victim of some of those failings.  However, since becoming involved with the Save UK Justice campaign and listening to the anecdotes from my daughter and reading some of those told by other members of the campaign I have formed a completely different opinion.  I have been forced to re-evaluate my attitude towards changes that have been made over the years, my opinions formed as a layman from information available in the press.  Reading the tales of those in the legal profession, those on the periphery and the opinions of knowledgeable commentators has given me an entirely different perspective. 

It is apparent to me that miscarriages of justice of one sort or another are now almost commonplace and not just an occasional aberration.  As successive governments have come to power over the last 20 years or so waving metaphorical banners and claiming to be the party of law and order, or whatever; changes have been made to our criminal justice system have eroded any claim we ever had to be a land free and fair to all.  These politicians make sound bites about being tough on crime and/or tough on the causes of crime but when they come to power they make profound changes to the legal justice system like shooting from the hip with scant regard to their macro effect.  Whilst seeming to address one aspect of criminal behaviour or other, little thought has been given to justice; or how it would be assured that innocent people would not fall foul of laws and themselves become victims.

Our governments have lost sight of the fact that there are two sides to justice (hence the scales of Lady Justice) or the fact that she is blind to represent she holds no favour.  Many solicitors working in criminal law estimate that 50% of the clients they deal with are innocent, and are neither cautioned nor charged.  If the Lord Chancellor’s proposals go ahead then those few people left who are entitled to a Legal Aid lawyer, will only get one with a financial incentive to persuade them to plead guilty.  The lawyer would get the same fee for a contested trial as he/she might get for short hearing where the accused pleads guilty.  Now I don’t care what protestations the Secretary of State for Justice says but that is NOT justice for either client or lawyer.

So what happens if someone becomes a victim of a miscarriage of justice?  Well they won’t be entitled to Legal Aid representation so the likelihood is the sentence will prevail even if that is a prison sentence.  There are numerous examples where people have been exonerated after having spent years in prison for crimes they did not commit.  If the proposed changes had been in place then almost of them would probably still be behind bars.

To misquote Thomas Jefferson, until recently there were certain truths that I held to be self-evident:

·         In a trial someone would need to be proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

·         People were to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

·         It was a police duty to investigate crimes and gather all relevant evidence that might prove by whom they were actually committed.

·         That although each political party may have its own view about how to go about governing the country they would always act in what they believed are our best interests.

Unfortunately, none of those things are now true.  It was once the case that having heard all the evidence, closing statements by the defence and prosecution and after a summing up by the judge, he/she would caution the jury that in order to issue a guilty verdict that they should be sure beyond all reasonable doubt.  Now apparently the judge will now only ask them to be sure.  But what does that mean?  ‘I’m sure he did it.’, sounds awfully like ‘On the balance of probabilities he did it.’  The latter are the words used in civil litigation, supposedly a lower burden of proof.

How about where a defendant of previous good character is charged with more than one offence?  Because of changes which now allow evidence of poor character to be introduced by the prosecution, the jury may be told that if they find the defendant guilty of one offence they can assume guilt of the others if they want to.

We like to believe that when the police investigate a crime it is their function to catch the culprit(s) and to charge those responsible for its commission.  However, it is looking increasingly like they see their function as finding someone who might have committed the crime and to gather evidence that might go to prove that is case.  In other words to disregard witnesses or evidence that might put doubt upon the police case; or to withhold contrary evidence in the disclosure process.  I’m not suggesting that this is always the case but it seems to occur often enough for there to be a serious cause for concern.  There may be political pressures that cause that to be the case but the effect remains the same.

The effects of these three things are serious enough but when taken into account alongside the fourth one, the consequences for British justice are enormous.  This government is first in recent history to make a deliberate and concerted effort to dismantle our Criminal Justice System.  The changes that are proposed include making Legal Aid unavailable to many and unaffordable to all but the obviously innocent.  Reducing those cases eligible for judicial review to almost none.

THE CONSEQUENCES

The list of potential outcomes is long and frightening:

·         The almost complete destruction of the criminal bar.  That would mean a massive reduction in qualified barristers to prosecute as well as defend.

·         Over time there will be less and less people qualified to become judges.  I can’t imagine how future governments will deal with that.

·         The loss of anything up to 1600 small solicitor firms with a long and respected record of service.  Thousands of highly qualified professional people and their support staff out of work.

·         Legal Aid lawyers will only be available from big companies such as G4S, Serco, Tesco and the Co-op.  Many of these companies are already completely discredited from other government contracts that they have failed to administer either competently or honestly.  These will be paid the same for a straightforward guilty plea as for a long protracted trial.  Giving the lawyer a financial incentive to persuade the accused to plead guilty even if that need not necessarily be the right thing to do.  These ‘lawyers’ would not necessarily be the same qualified people that have done this kind of work in the past, but possibly paralegals, people who have attended a 12 hour weekend course in advocacy.

·         Miscarriages of justice will become even commonplace because people will be represented by poorly qualified advocates; or will represent themselves in court.  Lack of representation will prevent people from successful arguing for an appeals in many cases.

·         Courts are already struggling under the weight of cases that need to be heard due in no small part to programme of court closures introduced by this government.  This situation will be severely exacerbated by the increase in court time caused by poor advocacy and self-representation.

·         From time to time the government makes a decision or brings into force laws or regulations which are contrary to natural justice or are in themselves in conflict with other existing law.  In such circumstances people can request a judicial review where these things can be independently considered by senior judges and put aside if found to be unjust or incorrect.  The government’s proposals would make it almost impossible for an individual to get such a review and totally impossible for groups or charities to do at all; leaving the government of the day to act with impunity.

These latest changes are a terrifying attack on the freedom and democracy of this country if allowed to go through I don’t know how this government intend to exploit them but the potential for misuse by future governments is incalculable.

The Great British Rake Off or Family Silver Gone Now What .....?

Remember those days back in the 70s when the government set about privatising our nationalised industries?  Remember the rationale?  The income would be good for the country they said.  Introducing more competition will be good for prices they said.  Some of us believed them others didn’t, and all of us watched over the next decade or two as various utilities and assets disappeared into private hands.  It never became clear where the money went that the government got for those precious things but somehow we accepted that it had contributed towards paying off the national debt or some other equally laudable cause.
Well here we are now, 40 years down the line and most of our assets with any substantive value at all have gone to the highest bidder (most of them in other countries) and we find ourselves with gas, electricity and water bills going through the roof and allegations of corporate profiteering appearing in the press on an almost daily basis.  But, you might argue, surely the government has introduced safeguards to ensure that our best interests are protected.  Yes of course there’s Ofwat, Ofgen, Ofcom, Oftel Ofthis and Ofthat and numerous other quangos that cost god knows how much to run.  But none of these committees comprising of jobs for the boys appear to do anything to rein in the excesses of the huge corporate leeches that have carried out this passive takeover of practically every physical asset that wasn’t nailed down and quite a few that were. 

But all that is history, it’s gone, we can’t get it back we have to accept it and move on there’s nothing left to sell is there?  Well you’d think not, but behind the scenes a surreptitious and insidious (and some might say even more dangerous) programme of asset stripping has been going on; it is called ‘outsourcing’.  This innocuous sounding word, as far as our government is concerned can be roughly defined as holding a fire sale of any or all public services that can be privatised without causing riots in the streets.  It began quite uncontroversially with things like cleaning in hospitals and moved on to waste collection and the like.  Then they started to get really serious about things with moves such as selling the London Fire Brigade’s entire fleet of fire fighting vehicles to a private equity company for £2 so the Brigade could lease them back and not have to maintain them.  Needless to say the company went to the wall and sold the vehicles on to another faceless company almost leaving the Brigade without an appliance to their name.  Had it not been for the intervention of the court, London could have been left effectively without a fire service.

There have been thousands of these dodgy deals going on over the years, but the pace of the selloff seems to be accelerating.  Among the latest, the handover of prisoner tagging services to G4S.  This particular masterpiece of contract negotiation and supervision led to the government being overcharged 10s of millions of pounds for services which included tagging for dead people, people in prison and people who had been found not guilty.  Then there the court interpreter service this went to a company called Capita.  This company is routinely guilty of sending interpreters who:  speak a different language(s) than that required, are unqualified, don’t turn up at all, turn up late; and several other variations on that theme.  Some may remember that organisation Group Four Securicor that used to deliver cash and other valuables between banks well it has now morphed into the afore-mentioned enormous international corporation G4S, with fingers of thousands of pies.  Most will recognise the name from their embarrassing inability to meet their obligations at last year’s Olympics.  You may even have spotted their fire appliances at the recent airport fire in Kenya.  A brief look at the Wikipedia page will give you a soupcon of the extent of the G4S reach, and a little taster of their incompetence.  As a service provider they have proven to be something of a government favourite they have the prisoner transport contract (frequently failing to get prisoners to court on time or at all on occasion) and sometimes to the wrong court.  They even operate police services in some parts of the country.  Now they feel themselves qualified to operate children’s homes and provide advice to defendants under Legal Aid in spite of having no expertise or experience in either of these areas.  I know that there many other areas of public service where G4S and other huge corporate organisations already have contracts although I don’t believe they actually run any NHS hospitals yet but it is probably only a matter of time.

When these massive companies fail to provide the service they are contracted to (and have been paid for) there is no evidence of any of them suffering any penalty; financial or otherwise.  In fact the reverse is true; we see government departments and local authorities almost biting at the bit to renew contracts or to give them another contract in a different field of operations.  So what is the incentive then to hand over these sometimes vital services to organisations with proven records of incompetence, and some even with allegations of criminality?  Well the government will always claim that it is to ensure best value for money.  Well that is an argument of course, but only if, a) it actually does save money, b) we do actually get the service we pay for, c) that the service is of the minimum acceptable standard, and d) that the standard is maintained as a matter of course throughout whole of the term contract.  However, experience (and there is a lot of that) tells us none of those things apply in most of these contracts and the bigger the contract the less likely they are to comply with the service level agreement.  And thereby hangs the first part of the tale, if the contract is too big it cannot be allowed to fail as the consequences of failure would be political embarrassment at best, and/or massive disorder/suffering/injustice at worst.  So what does happen when it does go wrong is the politicians blame someone else such as the last government/external forces/the workforce/global conditions.  We have seen that G4S have withdrawn from bidding for the next tagging contract but they are nonetheless still allowing to continue with the existing one purely because there are no alternatives; all the competition have been forced out of business.  Every failure adds to the cost of running the service but not to the contractor but to taxpayer.  Every missed court hearing and every miscarriage of justice has massive cost implications for the whole justice system; and the same applies in other areas of public service too numerous to mention.

What’s the second part of the tale then, I hear you ask?  Well if this type of business model has been proven not to work (as it has been both here and in the US) why are officials so anxious to keep using it.  Well one can be charitable maybe it’s because the headline prices of these contracts appear attractive and without close examination look as if they have saved money.  That of course is very rarely true because the only beneficiaries of these contracts are the shareholders, unless some money, benefits or political donations changing hands somewhere along the line.  The losers are normally the service users such as the general public, the taxpayer and the workforce whose pay is forced down to the lowest possible denominator.

Public Service - A Political Ping Pong Ball

State run public services versus private enterprise along with their associated politics.  I thought I might like to put my point of view.  As someone who spent most of his working life as a public servant I like to think my opinion is valid though some might not agree.

Like many of us, my early employment was a job, something one had to do in order to support oneself, not a vocation and certainly not a political statement.  When becoming a public servant for the first time it was because liked the idea of the job, not for any altruistic reason or the politics.  The next thirty-five years gave me the opportunity to see public service at its very best and its very worst.  I’ve seen demonstrations of courage and commitment to duty that would put many to shame; and seen blind mindless adherence to rules with total disregard to the service people were there to provide.  And I’ve seen those qualities and weaknesses demonstrated at every level of the organisation.  Governments have come and gone each with their particular brand of ‘reform’ and very few having a positive effect on service provision, let the alone professionalism of the employees.  Unions have had their say to argue the case for their membership, often with the quality of the service as their slogan of the day but disregarding the fact that many of their campaigns having had a detrimental effect on professionalism.

It seems to me that a public service’s first duty is to provide that amenity to its users (the public) efficiently, effectively and to the highest standard possible given the resources available.  However, in my experience, too many public employees forget the reason why they have a job in the first place and behave as if their employment is a God given right.  For example a police officer who arrests someone because he can, not because it is the right thing to do having regard to why a law might have been passed in the first place.  Or a fire officer who refuses to rescue someone from a pond because they were only trained for operations in water up to 15cm.  Then there’s the parking warden giving a ticket to a hearse when collecting a body or because a vehicle is 6cm over the line.  A 13 year old schoolboy arrested and DNA tested because of some overheard offhand hearsay remark in the playground by his boastful 13 year old girlfriend.  Endless examples can be given and although I suspect some might be apocryphal, I have seen the attitude with my own eyes.

Likewise I have seen the various attempts by political parties to use all aspects of public service as some sort cause celebre and plough on with changes and reforms in spite of the evidence proving a change would not work and any damage it would cause.  Normally that damage is at the cost of the service in both terms of budget and professionalism.  This damage is often exacerbated by the political collusion of non-operational bureaucrats in both central and local government with little or no understanding of what is really going on at the sharp end.

The government’s job as far as public service is simple, decide what services you want.  Decide to what standards you want them provided, having regard to advice from people with acknowledged expertise in the appropriate field.  Find out what resources are required to deliver those services with the appropriate support and then provide them.  Institute independent arrangements to ensure those standards are being adhered to.  Then keep their noses the hell out of it and remember these services are not there to be handed out as some sort of recompense for party donations.

In thirty-five years public service I have seen no evidence that either state or privately run solutions are exclusively the right answer; but of one thing I am certain and that is, their fate needs to be decided because it is the right thing to do not because of political dogma.

First There Were Public Services Then Came Public Service-Lite.

In the Service of the Public

Once upon a time a long time ago, in a land they used to call the United Kingdom where common-sense reigned; there lived a nation of folk content in the knowledge that when they were in difficulty there would always be someone to help them.  The people didn’t expect that all their problems could be instantly solved but they were confident that if their lives, livelihoods, liberty, homes or health were under threat someone would be there to lend a hand.  One thing that made them feel most re-assured was that when those troubles arose they always knew exactly where to go to get that help.  In those times a quick telephone call to 999 would rapidly connect them to the Police, Fire Brigade or Ambulance Service; and in some areas, also the Coastguard or the Mountain Rescue Service.  If they needed to consult a doctor they called their local surgery and made an appointment that was convenient to both parties; and when a medical problem was more pressing such as a broken bone or an imminent birth they could drive to the nearest hospital confident that a competent practitioner would be there to help.  They also knew that if the worst were to happen and they found themselves on the wrong side of the law, then access to a solicitor to act in their best interest and advise them of their rights and best course of action.

The Police

That was then of course, now things are not so straightforward.  So there has been a crime, who do call, well the police of course, but what is the number?  Three nines I hear you say well maybe, or maybe not?  It might be 101, first you must ask yourself, is it an emergency, because apparently police control officers are unable to tell the difference.  Well you might be forgiven for thinking, ‘My home has been broken into and some of my possessions have been taken, and I would like the perpetrator caught and my belongings recovered.  Of course it’s an emergency.’  Not so, apparently it’s not an emergency because someone in a uniform can take down the particulars at any time.  Not a detective then.  Probably not.  Someone in a uniform don’t I mean a police officer?  Well sort of.  Did I mean a well-intentioned volunteer a Special Police Constable, a hobby bobby?  Well not exactly.  What then?  Well it would likely be Police Community Support Officer.  What’s that?  Well usually, a slightly over-weight individual sometimes of rather worryingly advancing years without a lot of training.  Why’s that then?  They’re cheaper.  Oh.

The Fire Service

But things are still the same with the Fire Service aren’t they?  Well the telephone number hasn’t changed.  What’s different then?  After you’ve made the first call, the time that you might expect the first appliance to arrive might be longer.  But surely time is of the essence when your house is on fire?  Of course it is, it’s just they just don’t want to waste all that money having all the those stations not being used most of the time so they closed some down.  That’s quite worrying, but at least they’ll be properly equipped when they arrive won’t they?  Possibly.  Possibly, why ever might they not be properly equipped?  Well, all those big fully equipped fire appliances were so expensive to maintain and it was terribly dear paying all those well-trained firefighters.  So what happens now?  You’ll probably get a converted Mini with two firefighters and a couple of extinguishers.  What!?  Will one of them be an officer to assess the situation?  I doubt it, they don’t have officers anymore.  What do they have?  Team Leaders and managers.  It sounds more like a call centre.  What if they need to make a rescue?  They’ll have to wait until the second attendance arrives.  Why?  Because they are only allowed to go into a building in pairs wearing breathing apparatus and a third person has to act as a control officer (sorry I meant manager) and stay outside.  How long before I can expect a second attendance?  Well it varies in some areas it could be up to a further 20 minutes.  You can’t be serious another 20 minutes before I get a fully equipped appliance with a trained and fit team of firefighters to rescue my family and save my house?  I didn’t say they would be fully trained or fit.  What do you mean?  Well they’ve increased the minimum retirement age to sixty; and since the overzealous enforcement of health and safety regulations much of the training is thought to be too dangerous so they don’t do it.  What do they do then?  Well between incidents they tour the streets fitting free smoke detectors to any house that doesn’t have one.  And when they do get to a fire some stand outside and squirt water through the window while the others try to find something soft for your family to jump onto when they throw themselves out of the window.

Your GP

One place where you could always be sure of a sympathetic ear was your local GP.  Minor ailments were always dealt with by a brief word or two of advice and a prescription, and more serious conditions referred further up the health service chain to the appropriate specialist.  Nowadays that uncomplicated system has been replaced by arrangements that involve dialling the surgery number probably upwards of twenty times before making a connection and hopefully before all the appointments for that morning have been taken.  Of course if you are out of luck and the appointments have all gone then you will need to start the whole process again at one o’clock and repeat twice a day until you are lucky enough to be awarded an appointment.  But that won’t happen until you have negotiated with the receptionist; this is usually someone without any medical knowledge whatsoever who will want to know all the intimate details of your alleged ailment and who began their training as an interrogation officer for either the KGB or Stasi.  Of course being ill at night or over the weekend presents an altogether different set hurdles; those heady days where you rang your GP surgery and spoke to either you own doctor or his immediate colleagues who gave advice directly related to your history or if necessary even visited your home accompanied by your notes, those days have long since gone.  Now, if you ring your surgery after-hours your call will be redirected to something called ‘NHS Direct’.  You will be connected to a ‘trained nurse’ who will tell you one of five things; (a) There’s nothing wrong with you, (b) Wait till your doctor’s surgery is open and go and ask him, (c) Go to your nearest hospital and see the on-call GP at 3am and if you can’t drive get a taxi, (d) Go to your local A&E department and if you can’t drive get a taxi, or (e) Wait where you an ambulance is on its way and try not to die before it gets there.  Usually (c) and (d) are the default answers.  But all is not lost because the government has brought in a new service called ‘111’.  This new innovative service is exactly the same as ‘NHS Direct’ but has the distinct advantage of having a different name and different telephone number, but unfortunately has one minor problem in that it doesn’t work.

The Post Office

Remember those days when you wanted to send someone a letter and all you had to do was put a stamp on the envelope and pop it in the post box at the end of the road, knowing that it would arrive at its destination the following day?  Well it’s not quite like that now, somebody thought it would be a great idea to sort all the mail out first into urgent and non-urgent post, they called these first-class and second-class post and charged differently for each.  This new arrangement still seemed quite easy to understand, although it was never made clear how much time it took to carry out the sorting process.  The idea was that first-class post would arrive the following day and second-class the day after.  However, although these arrangements started well, this sorting business became quite a difficult problem and it seemed that first-class letters were taking longer than one day to deliver and second-class were taking anything up to a week and on occasion not at all.  This problem prompted someone in the Royal Mail to come up with the inspirational idea of sorting the mail by weight and envelope size as well.  To accommodate these arrangements they gave every household a folded sheet of paper with a hole in it for them to gauge the size of their envelope.  They never did solve the problem of how everyone was supposed to weigh the letters (not everyone owns scales suitable for that purpose) nor did they manage to inform everybody of the various prices of stamps appropriate for different sizes/weights of letters.  The result of this is that every letter that is larger or heavier than your common or garden small envelope with two pieces of paper inside requires a trip to the Post Office (if you can find one that is still open) and a half-hour wait in a queue.  After a while it became clear the new system was not going to work, it seemed that many urgent first class letters were taking anything up to four or five days to arrive and second-class up to a month.  This was clearly not acceptable to businesses and the legal profession where it is essential the mail arrives on time so the Royal Mail wheeled out their tame mastermind again and he came up with the idea of ‘Special Delivery’ where next-day delivery could be guaranteed.  ‘Wait a minute’, I hear you ask, ‘isn’t that what First-Class is supposed to do?’  Well yes but this way they can charge a King’s ransom and take people off normal deliveries to make sure they meet their obligations, thereby making First and Second class post even slower.  But does it work?  No of course not, but heigh-ho they’re going to sell it off anyway and leave it for someone else to sort out.

Legal Aid

So there you are one evening going home from the cinema with your wife, you are walking down the high street and bunch drunken unruly youngsters spill out of a pub and bump into your good lady.  Your protests, demanding they take more care, are met with a violent response from one or more of the mob and understandably you defend yourself and a fight breaks out during which one of your assailants receives an injury to his face.  The police are called and the time they have arrived the group of youths have largely disbanded leaving just the injured man and a couple of others.  The youths maintain a united front and all claim that you were the aggressor and in the end the police have no choice but to arrest you on suspicion affray or assault or maybe even causing actual bodily harm.  You are a British citizen you know your rights and at the police station you ask to see a solicitor before you are interviewed and to represent you should this lead to you being charged.  Now would you prefer to have a Legal Aid lawyer whose job it is give you the best possible advice and who has no advantage from you pleading guilty or otherwise to any possible charge?  Or would you prefer someone who is paid the same whether you plead not-guilty (requiring a defence case to be prepared and presented at a trial which may take a day or two; or if you plead guilty (in other words very little work for him/her to do).  In other words your lawyer would have a financial incentive to persuade you to plead guilty perhaps even to a crime you did not commit.  Would you prefer a lawyer to be experienced in dealing with the type of crimes you may be charged with or perhaps one you may have used before and that you trust?  Would like to be able to change your lawyer if you are unsatisfied with his/her performance?  Well if the Ministry of Justice have their way none of those things will be possible.  You might be just as likely get a representative that has only just left grammar school with an A level in law and a crash course in advocacy employed by Eddie Stobart (yes that’s right, the lorry company).  Furthermore you would have no right to choose anybody different.

First there were Public Services then came Public Service-Lite.

The Matter Before You

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the matter before you is of national and constitutional importance, and goes to the very heart of the equal availability to justice for all. 

The case for the prosecution has been hastily prepared and presented to you by a TV producer without any experience or qualifications in law and with a record of dubious expense claims, before absenting himself from the court for most of the argument. 

Junior counsel, another with a woeful absence of qualifications and who has allegiances that swing from one part of the political spectrum to another with almost monotonous regularity, has enthusiastically but rather ineptly taken the baton to carry it forward.  His bumbling attempts to argue the case exposed a lamentable ignorance of the facts and his inadequacies often led him to resort to scurrilous and at times libellous denigration of a respected profession in desperate attempts to support his position.

Their pupil, who has at least some qualifications in the legal profession but has an undeclared interest, has presented some supporting arguments with half-hearted enthusiasm and has often appeared uncomfortable with the case.

Much of the evidence presented has been discredited for lack of providence or accuracy.  Arguments that have attempted to demonstrate a financial imperative have not been supported by a) a well presented business case for change, nor b) accurately demonstrated a significant deficiency in existing arrangements.  Little evidence appears to be available to show that the proposed new arrangements would be able to provide consistent quality of service or indeed would be able to provide a service at all in some remote areas.

Leading Counsel has demonstrated a total unwillingness to meet with recognised experts in the field to discuss alternative solutions to a perceived need to save money.  A similar disinclination has been demonstrated to examine inefficiencies in existing arrangements that might achieve the savings as have been reported to be required.  The irrational preference shown for handing services over to huge corporate organisations with no experience in the field, must lead one to suspect an ulterior motive.

Support for the prosecution case has only so far been voiced by three people outside prosecution team, two tabloid journalists one a failed barrister and another who has an established reputation for writing right-wing gibberish; the third a Member of Parliament who has made vociferous but misleading arguments in the house.

The case for the defence has been eloquently presented by acknowledged experts from all branches of the law (including the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society, and the judiciary.  Even the government’s own Attorney General and the Treasury Council) have spoken against the proposals)  These objections have been made in a passionate yet measured manner without resort to personal abuse (although it must be said the subject has provoked many questions regarding the parentage and sanity of leading counsel by some supporters of the defence).  The proposals have been roundly condemned as unjust and dangerous.

Convincing arguments contradicting the evidence given by the prosecution have been made, and incontrovertible rebuttal evidence placed before the court.

Existing practitioners have expressed a willingness to discuss alternatives but understandably refused to engage in negotiations that would ultimately lead to the destruction of their profession (one might say that turkeys don’t vote for Christmas).

A back-bench debate in the house almost with one voice expressed dismay at the proposals with members from all parties speaking strongly against them.

Interested parties from peripheral professions have widely condemned the proposals and a petition demanding a debate in the House about it has attracted over 100,000 signatures.

Media interest has focussed on the more sensational aspects of the case and most of the general public have exhibited a typical disinterest born out the mistaken belief that it won’t ever affect them.

So members of the jury consider your verdict how shall you decide?  That’s a really tough one.

Important Advice To Prospective New Government Ministers

Do you have feelings of inadequacy?

Do you suffer from shyness?

Do you sometimes wish you were more assertive?

If you answered yes to any of these questions ask your party leader about the benefits of a ministerial career.

A ministerial career is the safe, natural way for politicians to feel better and more confident about themselves or their actions.  It can help ease you out of you shyness and let you tell the world that you’re ready and willing to do just about anything.

Feelings of insecurity about the size of genitalia will disappear on appointment (this benefit is normally only felt in male ministers, but there are exceptions).

You will notice the benefits of a ministerial career almost immediately and will start to feel that you can overcome any obstacles that prevent you from living the life you want to live.

Shyness and awkwardness will be a thing of the past and you will discover many talents you and almost everybody else were unaware you had.

A ministerial career will make you believe you know what you’re talking about; especially if it involves an area of expertise that has never troubled your consciousness in the past (this is particularly useful when shifting from one department to another).

All those times when you thought you were useless and incompetent will become a dim and distant memory once you begin your ministerial career.

WARNINGS

Side effects may include:

·         Incidents of severe criticism from professionals and experts in the field of the things you last spoke. These are best ignored as they may tend cause you to reconsider your actions.

·         A sharp decline in the standard of services provided by the department of which you are head.  Once again denial is the best strategy as these effects can be easily explained when challenged by changing the subject and answering a different question than that asked.

·         Becoming a minister may give you the illusion that when you speaking you are not lying (this is not normally accurate)

·         Although a ministerial career may make you believe that you are tougher, smarter, faster and better looking than most other people this is rarely the case and minute comparison with others should therefore be avoided.

·         Ministers also often experience frequent accusations of Onanism.

Blaming departmental shortfalls on (a) other parties (b) previous post-holders and/or global forces will only be temporarily effective and it is generally considered best to resort to obfuscation or mendacity.

Ministers should also be aware that upon leaving government genital dimensions revert to normal.

Please feel free to share this important information with as many other members of your party that you feel could benefit.

Now that you know some of the benefits of a ministerial career, just think what you could do with a premiership….

Anybody interesting in applying for a ministerial post can get further information and details about training in advanced sycophancy and toadying techniques from the Chief Whip’s office.

* Acknowledgements to the author of similar advice for consumers of cabernet sauvignon.

Put An 'X' in Which Box?

Who do we vote for at the next election?  The choices:

1. The party run by megalomaniacs & Trotskyites that:-

a) Sold off our gold reserves for a pittance and then spent the money on employing millions of people to do jobs that we didn’t need in the first place.  Who, in order to fund these jobs once the proceeds of the gold reserves had run out, went on to borrow billions of pounds in our name that we will never be able to pay back.

b) Took us to one war that cost the deaths of 179 British servicemen, injuries to 1000s more and £9 billion based on lie.  The lie conveniently covered up by the death (allegedly by suicide) of a leading scientific advisor.  And who also arranged the vilification of the BBC and one of its reporters in order prevent exposure of the lie.

c) That rewarded an ex-minister with the post of European Commissioner after he had been forced to resign twice following allegations of wrongdoing.

d) Signed away huge chunks of the country’s sovereignty to the EU without any mandate and often without informing the public.

e) Began the process of destroying the British Justice system by removing ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ from proof of guilt in criminal prosecutions; amongst other things.

f) Created an ‘open door’ immigration policy with total disregard to the consequences and thereby changing the face of Britain forever, creating friction and a rise in racism. 

g) Signed us up to a ‘human rights’ policy that seems to protect the rights of those some of the most undesirable people, and which can be used for absurd and trivial issues for which it was not intended.

h) Devised an NHS service so expensive and unworkable that it almost collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy.  This included a new contract for GPs that entitled them not to treat people in the evenings or at weekends.

i) Got us involved in a second unwinnable war on the other side of the globe that after 10 years has so far cost us £37 billion, the lives of nearly 450 British service people and God knows how many other casualties.  Afghanistan is now exporting more drugs to the UK than it did before we started.

j) Passed a new law for almost every day they were in office creating opportunities for many of the people mentioned in (a) above to snoop on you and/or prosecute you.

k) Kick started the break-up of the United Kingdom by devolving powers to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.

l) Introduced Student Loans that it are almost impossible to repay.

 

2. Maybe the party that: a) Promised a referendum about the EU and then reneged on it.

    b)  Set about changing the welfare system in a manner that makes life even more intolerable for the most vulnerable.  Pushing elderly and disabled people out of their homes and an exponential rise in food banks like we have not seen since the depression.

c) Continued the destruction of the British justice system by denying worthwhile Legal Aid representation to the vast majority of the public, handed over the court interpreter service to an incompetent con artist and is currently dismantling the probation service.

d) Did little or nothing to rectify the immigration policy referred to in 1f above.

e) Set about ‘reforming’ the NHS at enormous expense with no idea as to whether their plans will work.  (for 'reforming' read 'privatising')

f) Set about ‘reforming’ the education system at enormous expense with no idea as to whether their plans will work.  (for 'reforming' read 'privatising')

g) Discarded its historical identity and attempted to become all things to all men and set about tearing itself apart in order try to create a new one.

h) Introduced tuition fees at university and increased the afore-mentioned Student Loans so they are completely impossible to pay back.

i)  Handed over public service contracts worth billions of pounds to suppliers, many of whom are party donors and who pay their tax overseas and also have long established histories of incompetence and dishonesty.

 

3. Or perhaps the minority party that: a) joined a coalition government and then spent most its time preventing the same government from enacting some of its policies (thankfully some might say).

b) Made absolute and unconditional promises to its voters and then reneged on them.

c) Appointed a minister who subsequently ended up in prison for lying to a court.

d) Would readily hand over the keys to the borders, the treasury and just about everything else to the EU

d) Advances a load of half-baked idealistic policies imagining some post-electoral Utopia where people of all races, religions, sexuality, conviction and/or nationality suddenly experience a miraculous renaissance and start to live harmoniously side by side regardless of their history or culture.

 

4. Then of course there’s the party that champions the environment whose policies include: a) Protecting the environment from dangers that may or may not be (i) real, or (ii) caused by things we have any control over; and

b) Oh wait a minute that’s their only policy.

 

5. The party with less than 10 articulate politicians and holds amongst its electoral candidates a selection of extreme disaffected former members of (2) above and some the would have been at home alongside Oswald Mosely .  That has adopted as its manifesto all the worst policies from (2) above because before that only had one policy.  That promises to extract us from the EU and then afterwards what ??????

6. Of course we could choose any one of the parties that claim to be patriots and chooses to take to streets as a disorganised rabble as soon as anybody mentions nationality, colour, race or religion especially if any or all these can be perceived as coming from outside the UK; who are thinly disguised Nazi xenophobes.

7. Or the other party that claim to be patriots and chooses to take to streets as a disorganised rabble as soon as anybody mentions nationality, colour, race or religion especially if any or all these can be perceived as coming from outside the UK; who are completely undisguised Nazi xenophobes.

 

Why can’t we just have the option ‘None of the above’?