www.mainstream.org.uk
Justice InJustice

SLOW Justice is NO Justice

the Time for Tears ......     NOT when the victim is murdered .....
but when the murderer only gets a Micky-Mouse sentence.
That's the time to weep in despair....
Not my words: the words of  Bob Dylan, poet and singer.

 in "the Lonesome death of Hattie Carroll"

 

  It used to be said that "Quick Justice is Bad justice". In Britain we've got the opposite: a Justice so slow, that important cases don't come to trial till a year (sometimes two years) after the defendant is charged. During all this time, they are brought back to court, week after week, for further remands. Meanwhile, the media are not allowed to talk about the case.    How can we expect witnesses - especially children - to remember and describe, something that happened YEARS ago ? This is a recipe for INjustice.

     What causes the massive delays? One is the preparation of so-called "Reports" on the defendant - so the magistrate or judge, can see "what makes this person tick."
  Why do they need to know that? A trial has just two purposes: 1 - to see if they are guilty or innocent. 2 - If guilty, to decide the sentence. The first is just a question of facts. The sentence should be from a fixed scale, set by Parliament. There's no reason for the judge to see or know, any of the "personality" stuff.
We would also abolish the so-called "Sentencing Council" which has set itself up as an adviser to judges and magistrates, on the length of sentences. Under MAINSTREAM, sentence lengths would be set ONLY by Parliament, Judges and magistrates would just look at the statute book - which would be online on their computer screen - to see the correct minimum and maximum sentences available to them.    
  

 MAINSTREAM would end  all this pre-trial stuff  in a major reform of the legal and court system. This would give us a trial much sooner; the trial would be much shorter; and last (but not least - 'cos it's me and you, taxpayers, who are paying) - it would be a lot cheaper. There should be a guarantee of a trial, at the latest, 10 weeks after the defendant is charged. There is no technical reason why this can't happen. Then the defendant who turns out to be innocent, has spent at most ten weeks on remand. And those who really are guilty, serve ALL their time in prison, not in remand-centres.

"the long-dragged-out legal process benefits only lawyers ....
including a large number of MPs"


    The longer the legal process drags on, with endless court-appearances - then of course it's all the more work for Britain's huge army of lawyers. The crime-wave has made Britain "Lawyer Heaven". So it's in the interests of the legal profession (which includes of course the majority of MPs - yes, most of them are (or were) lawyers.) 

    MAINSTREAM  will  get rid of all the various agencies  which make trials take longer, or which  try to stop courts doing what Parliament intended, by 'advising' judges and magistrates.  These include: the Probation Service and  the Sentencing Council.  We managed just fine before these bodies were invented. We will manage  better without them.  Mainstream will end the ridiculous system of judges who convict  sex offenders, ordering them to  put themselves on the Sex Offenders register.  The judge will do that FOR them, all it needs is for the judge to log on immediately to the Sex Offenders Register website - enter their password - and then he or she just adds the offender's name on to the end of the list and clicks 'Save'.  Simples. 

    We've got a major problem with jury selection - juries are now very un-representative of the  general population.  This is because of three reasons:  It's too easy for Defence lawyers to object to a jury selection;   it's too easy  for people selected at  random for jury service to refuse to go; and  compensation payments  for jury members who have to stay off work, are not sufficient.  This has resulted in a disproportionate number of jury members who are less well educated, and may have difficulty understanding technical points; and are also more easily manipulated by lawyers for one side or the other, rather than thinking for themselves.  This needs urgent reform - only MAINSTREAM will DO IT.  We will allow  objections to jury members only for the gravest of reasons, and people chosen for jury service will only be allowed to be excused for a life-or-death emergency,  Compensation payments will ALWAYS cover their loss of work IN FULL, no matter how much they earn.  If a jury member is earning 10,000 a week and their employer does not pay for jury time - then, sorry, yes they must be compensated at 10,000 a week during the trial.  (It will be a serious criminal offence for a jury member to lie about their earnings).          

                 

         HOW CAN YOU   BREAK THE LAW AND GET AWAY WITH IT ? 

ANSWER: BE IN ONE OF NEW LABOUR'S PROTECTED GROUPS.

  

   Travellers smash into a school grounds with a digger - while the children are in their classes - in Harlow, Essex.  Like all  "protected" groups, they know they are above the law and can do what they like.

    This particular traveller group was eventually removed by police - but of course, no charges were made against anybody; and they were'nt made to pay for all the damage made in forcing entry.  If you or I drove our car through a school gate during school hours, terrifying the schoolchildren and leaving a trail of destruction - we'd be arrested and taken to court.

 But in the Harlow case, as far as the police are concerned, "no crimes" have been committed. That's because the offenders are in an ethnic protected group.  It's the same with the Asian grooming gangs in the North of England  (Remember the "Three Girls" in Rochdale ?). Why did it  take so long to bring them to justice?  Because, again, "ethnic protected group" - Council officials and Police were all told   "leave them alone,  they can't be touched".

All this is the result of New Labour's 2010 Equality Act. 

    Protected Groups - your FAQs

Q.  I thought were were  supposed to be all equal under the law?

A. We were until 2010.  New  Labour's Equality act established "protected groups" by ethnic origin, religion, colour and so on. If you're in one of these lucky groups you're more equal than every one else - you have special rights not to be offended or upset, and are largely immune from having legal action taken against you..

Q. So this is a Labour law - hold on,  New Labour LOST the 2010, 2015 and 2017 elections. So why is one of their laws still in place?

A. That's because ALL the establishment parties - Tories, Liberals, Nationalists and so on - SUPPORT the protected groups idea. They will never remove this law - they all agree with it!

Q. Would Mainstream abolish these protected groups?

A. Yes of course; we'd make it the way it was before 2010: We would be ALL equal under the law - whatever our colour, whatever our "ethnic group", whatever our age or sex. The law should be and MUST BE the same for everybody.

 

Equality of Outcome: can this ever be attained?

"Equality means equality of opportunity - not equality of outcome" - a famous quote from one of Labour's female shadow cabinet members in 2015. Most people would agree this is common sense, and any laws on equality must enforce giving the same opportunity to all regardless of sex or skin colour. This has been the law since 1975. In taking on a new employee for example, employers are breaking the law if they give preference to either males or females; or if they give preference to white applicants over brown or black, or vice versa. They're only allowed quite rightly, to base their selection on the applicant's skills, ability, and suitability for the job.

There are well-established tests to check if the law is being broken: you send in two pretend candidates of different colours, with exactly the same skills and ability levels on their CV. The black one (say) goes in first. If they get told there's no jobs left, then you send the white one in five minutes later, and if they get accepted then it does look like discrimination.

Some politicians want to legislate not for equality of opportunity but equality of OUTCOME. What does this mean in real life? Take an example - a dental firm employs 3 dentists - two male and one female. They work full-time and earn £200,000 a year. They also employ 5 cleaning ladies who work part-time and earn £7.77 per hour, 10 hours per week. Outcome Equality advocates want employers to pay the same amount of money to males as to females. Is this possible? The existing wage bill is £20200 a year for the 5 cleaning staff and £600,000 a year for the 3 salaried dentists. But if we split this by gender the total going to males is £400,000 and the total going to females is £220,200. For male employees to get the same pay as female employes (and not break existing discrimination law) - you need to pay each employee £77,525 a year regardless of sex. So the three dentists would each get their salary cut to £77,525 with possibly a reduced number of hours. The cleaning staff would have to double their hours to 20 per week and then get £75 per hour - so a big rise for them. Would this be acceptable or even possible in real life?

Can you legislate for "Lifestyle choices" ?. Some people CHOOSE to study for years to better themselves and get professional qualifications - putting off starting their family. Some people can't be bothered with this and CHOOSE starting a family and caring for their children full time - so their employment prospects are limited to part-time, unskilled work.

 

Prison Equality "could take 140 years to achieve".



What about equality of outcome in other fields - take a real-life example again : the Prison population; it's sometimes said this is unfairly distributed. There's 97,500 people in prison in the UK today. That's split into 93,600 men and 3,900 women - could we even these numbers by legislation? There's several ways to do this. The quickest way is releasing nearly 90,000 male prisoners immediately. Then the numbers are equal and several prisons empty, so some spare buildings. The downside: thousands of murderers and rapists wandering round the streets. Or you could stop sending men to jail until the numbers are equal. Gradually, as people's sentences end the male prison population would decline and eventually we would get equality: it's been estimated this could take 84 years. The third way is change the so-called "Sentencing guidelines" for crimes comitted by both sexes, so that the men get a fine or community service; only the women go to prison. (So obviously this couldn't be done for rape as only men commit this crime; but say for fraud). This is the so-called "positive discrimination" solution. However this could take even longer before we get numbers equality between the sexes - up to 140 years! Can we wait that long?

"Equality of Outcome" - your FAQs

Q. Why are women only 4% of prisoners? Is our legal system biased against males?

A. No, no, no! It's because men commit far more serious crimes than women. Nearly all criminals are male people. That's true not just here, but all over the world. Simples.

Q. Is that because it's impossible for some crimes to be committed by a woman?

A. That's true only for rape - unique among crimes in that it can only be comitted by males. No the reason is down to the different make-up of males and females. Men are the more inventive sex but they are also more aggressive; all the wars in history have been started by men. Women are less confrontational, less impulsive, drive more carefully, and so on. It's that "Lifestyle choice" again.

Q. Some people say there's too few women in politics. Could that be a lifestyle issue too?

A. We all have equal opportunity to enter politics at national level - but overwhelmingly 'wannabee politicians' are male, so the evidence seems to point that way.

Q. How do you know that? Did you tot up the numbers of male and female candidates for the main political parties?

A. NO - that doesn't give a true picture. Some major parties have rules which exclude one or other sex from applying in given seats (even though that's breaking employment law). No you need to look at minor party and independent candidates only - these are the guys making their OWN decision about standing for parliament - not  being chosen by a party hierarchy. This gives the true picture of the male-female split among wannabee politicos. In the 2015 Election, the total (Independent + Minor Parties) candidates - ignoring Northern Ireland - was 528 males - 80%,  133 females - 20%. 

 

 

 

Abolish the Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution service was the brainchild of one of Britain's worst Home Secretaries, a tory called Leon Brittan.  prior to this, all police forces employed lawyers who would explain to the police, when there was enough evidence to take a case to court.  

  What kind of country are we, where the relatives of murder-victims (such as Stephen Lawrence), have to bring their own private prosections, because the CPS refused to do so ? It should be up to a jury to decide if someone is guilty or not !

    Today's CPS, under the direction of Keith Starmer  has a  sinister function. It exists  to dispense justice in a political way  - outside the control of Parliament.  It does this by filtering all pending prosecutions,  and only letting some of these go on to court. The decision is NOT made by the quality of the evidence - but by what they call the "Public Interest"   which in effect means the political interests of a small group,  Keith Starmer and his cronies.  Every day, perfectly good cases with lots of evidence, are prevented from  going to court by the CPS.  They never have to explain to us what the "Public Interest" was in any particular case - this is kept secret. In effect the CPS is a secretive super-court  with no accountability to Parliament or the Public.   WE WILL ABOLISH THE TORY CPS.

             

 

Reform the Crime Compensation scheme to remove any incentive for false accusing

   Britain's Crime Compensation scheme is by far the most generous in the world. It's paid for , not by the offenders who commit the crimes, but by you and me, the  taxpayers. It pays out to alleged victims even where no-one has ever been convicted of the crime. The amounts paid out are very high and are tax-free - equating in some cases to several years' earnings.

Many believe the system has gone too far and is driving a surge in false accusations - especially for "historic"  offences which are often very difficult to prove, as often they are just one person's word against another; but this scheme will even pay out even when the alleged "offender"  has never been convicted; even when they have not been identified, and even when they are dead.  The compensation  body CICA make their decision not on "Innocent until proved guilty" but on what they term the "balance of probabilities". 

Most important of all in many compensation claims, the identitiy of the alleged victim claiming, is kept secret. 

MAINSTREAM would reform this system to remove even the slightest incentive to make false accusations. This would give use a more open, visible justice.