SEND FEWER CROOKS TO JAIL-SAYS LORD WOOLF
Daily Mail
Steve
Doughty-Social Affairs Correspondent Friday,
May 13, 2005 THE debate over how to punish criminals was reignited yesterday when England’s most senior judge said fewer should be sent to prison. Only a week after Labour’s General Election victory, Lord Woolf warned Charles Clarke not to try to interfere with sentencing. Renewing his
longstanding appeal to his colleagues to keep criminals out of jail, the Lord Chief
Justice added: ‘Fourteen years ago the prison population was 42,000
and falling, while today it is 76,000 and forecast to rise. This apparently
wholly contradictory to public perceptions that the courts are unduly lenient’ [Our answer to this is that if the courts had been doing their duty to protect society particularly the old and disabled whom we hear are burgled and possibly murdered on an almost weekly occurrence then the number in prison would have been not 76,000 but possibly 100,000 or even higher. [If prisons are bursting then this is the responsibility of Government who refuse to take advise to increase the building of more prisons or use other tough camp regimes under military guidance. The Government made the
Problem THEY
must solve IT Of course we value the Independence of the Judiciary because without it we would be on the road to an eventual totalitarian state -some believe we are in fact almost there. Let the Government build the
prisons and the Boot Camps or whatever and reverse their policies, which have
caused the major damage to our society. The softly softly approach no longer
works and the People are paying the Price? Let the Judiciary do their job under the Law but they should have wide discretion in order to see that the criminal cannot laugh at the Court of Justice and think they can get away with it. Respect for our Judges is paramount in our 800 year judicial history and for the Lord Chief Justice to let it be known that he is not concerned that the criminals are becoming a plague as dangerous as the word implies which is the interpretation that many people read into the appeal for less criminals should be sent to jail. If they are not in jail the majority are committing more crime which includes rape -murder- assault and not to be forgotten- burglary which the elderly and disabled bear the brunt. We believe that the Judges of England have not been as patriotic or bold enough to protect our Constitution in the past though we have seen signs that there is movement in that direction. In the reign of James the First the Lord Chief Justice Coke (Cooke) challenged the king on an important constitutional matter and stood firm as a rock for England and as a result he was obliged to resign. In ‘LAW IN THE MAKING’ by Carleton Kemp Allen M.C., K.C., D.C.L., F.B A. J.P.- OUP 1946 ‘Nor is the English
lawyer prone to confuse the legal and the political. Our LAW has had its political
vicissitudes, and at certain periods of its history it has been threatened with
degradation into an instrument of government; it might, indeed, have suffered
that dismal fate but for the resistance of men like Sir Edward Coke. But today (1946) there
is nothing more repellent to Anglo-Saxon legal instinct than the corruption of
law by political ‘ideology’. [Is that not true today when the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith in being asked by Jon Snow -Channel 4 -7pm news to explain his decision to change his mind about the legality of the Iraq War after he had earlier stated with caveats the consequences of such a war. After first refusing to even answer the question he was finally provoked to give a partial explanation which did not close the matter and therefore the sore has not been lanced. When the Independent adviser to the Government the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith does not under such circumstances give a full and open response it leaves the people with the last stronghold of protection against wrongful action of Government under great suspicion. In our day we have had no resignations and only recently have the Lions of England begun to show their teeth and one should remember that a Prime Minister has signed our country into the corrupt, unelected, unaccountable, and totalitarian United States of Europe without any mass resignation of the Judges in defence of our Common Law. Instead they have been the instruments of our enslavement as surely as if they themselves had signed the Treaty. Where and when over the past 30
years have the Lions about the Throne fought to prevent the drive to an
England subject to a Foreign Power. Whatever they may have done if anything it
certainly has made no effect on the road to an enslavement of the Free
Born Englishman. To return to the subject of
crime: Well! - It is no coincidence that the rise in crime has taken place considerably since the advent of New Labour with their almost destruction of Family and those values which this nation held dear in Parliament and the Country. The Government set the example so they must reverse the trend and bring respect back into society. In the meantime those persistent offenders should be consigned to a tough regime -a boot camp where they will learn that their attitude will not be tolerated any longer. Reform
is of course necessary but the first duty of the Government is to protect the people
in their homes and the community.] To continue: Lord Woolf in a speech to academics in Cambridge, told ministers to stop trying to set down tough prison terms. He called for ‘restraint
on legislation on sentencing’ adding that there should be no new laws
unless ‘ absolutely necessary’. His message came after his victory over David Blunkett, Mr Clarke’s predecessor as Home Secretary, who used new laws to try and force judges to make murderers serve longer in jail. Lord Woolf’s Sentencing Guidelines Council- the quango that sets down rules for judges-managed to find ways of ordering shorter sentences anyway. On the day Mr Blunkett quit in December [2004], it issued instructions to allow killers who plead guilty to go free early. [Victims relatives should have a say in the matter -as a compromise - the killer could be placed in an another less restrictive but secure environment after release from prison releasing space in prison for the tens of thousands that should already reside there.] To continue: The speech yesterday came amid a furore over leniency. Hampshire Chief
Constable Paul Kernaghan this week called inadequate sentences ‘ demoralising for officers
and the communities they serve’. Lord Woolf’s comments looked certain to cement his reputation as the ‘burglar’s friend’. Prison,
he said, should be used primarily for the most serious offences. [But have not so-called less serious crime in many cases developed into serious crime. To talk in the terms of ‘serious crime’ is to overlook that so-called less serious crime can be devastating to the victim -particularly the elderly who had hoped to enjoy their last years in peace and quiet only to find the offender back breaking into their homes yet again. Judges live in secure homes in a world that many of them appear to give the impression that have no real inkling of what is happening back on the streets.] To continue: Instead he called for ‘more meaningful’ community punishments, more drug testing and fines to be properly enforced. [The facts are -the majority of offenders avoid community punishments and as for fines in many cases they are never paid. As for drug testing it is the Government’s see-saw attitude on drugs policy which has created the dire conditions which have arisen in our society today] Lord Woolf praised ministers for accepting that short jail terms for less serious criminals are not constructive. He demanded greater use of innovations such as electronic tagging [this did not stop a murder being committed] and called for more ‘restorative justice’ -in which offenders apologise to victims. Referring to the rise
in the prison population, he went on ’What perhaps should come as a shock to
the public is how successful we have been at preventing reoffending. [Other
studies no doubt will dispute this] The cost of
reoffending by ex-prisoners is £11billion per year. Jail overcrowding hits
the ability to cut reoffending, he said.
‘If an
offender is returned to society at the end of his sentence with increased
skills, a job to go to and accommodation, the risk of offending is
significantly reduced.’ [No reasonable person disputes
the matter of reform with this there is no dispute but what is surprising is
that Lord Woolf is saying that jail
overcrowding hits the ability to cut reoffending -is he not the advocate of
keeping the criminal out of prison? His correct analysis over
needs to assist the offender to rejoin society will no doubt if successful
encourage those who in society have no job -no skills-or accommodation and no four
meals a day will find these features with the added marvellous recreation
facilities -drugs available and learning - behind those walls - one might
wonder whether life in jail might be an advantage -away from our crime ridden
community-at least if one is in solitary it is no doubt the safest place to be
in the country today.] To continue: He implied that tougher
sentencing came as a knee-jerk reaction by Labour ‘I understand the desire to
respond to public reaction over the latest horrendous crime,’ said Lord Woolf. ‘However, to resist this
pressure would make a significant contribution to achieving the real gains that
the Government and Judiciary would like to see.’ [Well
what does this mean? What
are the real gains that the Government and the Judiciary wish to see? We are under
the impression that they are opposed to each other’s policies.] To continue: Sentencing, he
argued, should be left to the experts. [How
many times have we heard the judges to apologise because the sentence does not
fit the crime therefore the so-called experts are powerless to prevent the many
guilty from escaping their just disserts.] His critics would point out, however, that jail numbers have risen alongside crime levels, particularly violent crime. Evidence also suggests that
community punishments fail to cut reoffending. [Font altered -bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets] * * * JUNE/05
* *
*
The abolition of Britain * Veteran parliamentarian TONY BENN speaks of the absolute necessity of a REFERENDUM HEAR HIM ON http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o *
13th October,2007
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OptoutDetails from petition creator With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the people of Britain were given DUAL CITIZENSHIP -both EUROPEAN and BRITISH The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge. The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with BRITISH DOCUMENTATION -only such as British (not EU) passports, driving licences and other national documents. EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
[PETITION OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER 08]
*
*
[Latest Addition - June07] * * *
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
*
VOTE MAY -2007
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO SET YOU FREE
THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER BUT SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES. *
ONLY WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE * WHY NOT
* MAY/07
[All underlined words have a separate bulletin
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
