They Have Throw Us to the Wolves

 Lord Justice Leveson’s new Sentencing Guidance are in themselves an injustice and a betrayal of trust.

Under the proposals those convicted of assault in England and Wales will be sentenced on the basis of the harm they caused victims and fewer criminals would face prison.  Leveson, chairman of the Sentencing Council, said: “None of us are soft on crime.” He said the new proposed changes were “not driven by the Government” and its need to cut public spending, and yet the Sentencing Council immediately claimed that its new guidelines could save the prison service more than £16million a year, and save the probation service £3million annually.

Let me offer The Sentencing Committee an alternative to letting thugs escape prison.

1.     Starting from today, all those convicted of murder, beyond reasonable doubt, will be hung within 30 days.  Thus saving an estimated £400m p.a.

2.  All foreign Nationals convicted of a crime or suspected of belonging to a terrorist organisation, be deported to Brussels within 14 days, along with their wives and families. Saving £100m p.a.

3.  Prison discipline must be restored, and privileges earned, not bestowed as a gift.  Criminals and would be criminals should have reason to fear prison, not welcome it.

4. The existing Sentencing Council to be trounced out of office and replaced by one Judge and seven men and women chosen at random from the electoral register.

5. The protection of the law abiding citizen to go about his or her lawful business without fear or interference, must once again be the main purpose of law, along with the protection of life and property.

6. The law should be seen as an umbrella that protects the citizen against those violating it.  The idea that someone can step out from beneath that umbrella to commit a crime, yet remain protected by it, is a nonsense; the logic of fools such as, Justice Minister Ken Clarke and the unelected, liberal elite judges, such as Lord Justice Leveson.

They continue to act against the known wishes of the taxpayer is a dangerous game to play, for it is we who pay their hugely inflated wages. 

It could well be that the worm will finally turn, maybe a Scaffold on Tyburn Hill?

In the meantime, the only option left to us, the public, now the courts, judges, police and politicians all refuse point-blank to do their duty, which is to protect us against violent criminals by locking them away, is to bear arms and defend ourselves.

By arms, I refer to objects that can be carried lawfully, walking sticks, umbrellas, and spray bottles containing perfume.  Personal alarms are fine but will do little to deter a determined thug who knows the police are either unlikely to be nearby, or too busy carrying out a ‘risk assessment’ to come to our aid.

The 1865 offensive weapons legislation prohibits the carrying of any object with the intention of using it as a weapon, even as a weapon of defence, though the latter interpretation has been tagged on by the liberal elite.

However, if you are attacked you are allowed to defend yourself using reasonable force, and not a jury in England would convict anyone for using an everyday object to defend themselves.

But, be warned, if asked by the police, “Would you defend yourself with that walking stick, umbrella, etc?”

Reply, “No!”  For to reply, “Yes,” would result in you being arrested and charged with possessing an offensive weapon, even though you have not used it; whereas using such to defend yourself  from an attacker would be deemed acceptable by a court of law.

(Mainly because most juries would refuse to convict anyone in those circumstances.)

Know your enemy, is the first rule of warfare, and today our enemy are the criminals, along with these stupid liberal judges and politicians, who still, despite almost thirty years of experience to the contrary, still believe that the criminals, are the victims, and their victims should stop complaining.

The liberal establishment are stark raving mad, perhaps that’s why they insist on wearing 16^th century horsehair wigs, and Little Lord Fauntleroy Breeches?

“Sentencing is a complex and difficult exercise. It can never be a rigid, mechanistic or scientific process. Consistency of approach by sentencers is essential to maintain public confidence. But perfect consistency in outcome is impossible to achieve because of the infinite variety of circumstances with which, even in relation to one kind of offence, the courts are presented.” Lord Justice Leveson

No! If someone causes GBH to a member of the public, or wounds with a weapon, such as a knife or gun, or stamps upon or kicks someone’s head in, consistency of sentence is not only possible it is essential.

No excuses, no sob stories, the thugs upon conviction go to prison for a long time, long time, with no reduction in sentence for pleading guilty. 

We must make our homes, schools, streets and workplaces safe from their kind, nothing less will do.

The pressure to plead guilty or face a crippling fine or a longer prison sentence is a criminal abuse to the right of the accused to defend themselves in court, without fear or favour.  “If you fight us over this fine in court and lose, it will cost you thousands.”  That’s not justice but extortion.

Angry Old Git