Fact 1: When I was appointed in 1998 the application form had a section asking which political party had I voted for in the previous general election.
Fact 2: That question has long been omitted from application form
Fact 3: Religious affiliation is not an admissible necessity
Fact 4: Local Advisory Committees have some of these statistics
Fact 5: Freedom of Information Request to release those statistics not honoured.
Re Fact 5 above please find copied below reply:-
24 October 2022
Dear Ms
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request – 220927003
Thank you for your request dated 27 September 2022 in which you asked for the following
information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
Dear Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace for London,
1.Please publish any material received from any other relevant authority relating to
the appointment criteria for those of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.
2. How many JPs have been appointed in the last five years for which statistics are
available?
3. How many of of those re 2. above were of BAME identification?
4. How many of those re 2. above considered themselves Muslim on application?
Your request has been handled under the FOIA.
The MoJ does not hold any information in the scope of your request. This is because the
local Advisory Committees of Justices of the Peace are separate public authorities for
purposes of the FOIA. The MoJ may provide some services, such the provision of IT; but in
terms of recruitment (the subject of your enquiry) a Committee is its own public authority.
The MoJ (including HM Courts and Tribunal Services, which is an executive agency of the
MoJ) cannot answer for a Committee in this regard.
On November 21st 2022 an appeal against the refusal was confirmed.
On 22nd March 2023 there was an F.O.I. request as follows copied below: It seems that between November 2022 and March 2023 MOJ removed copy compliant facility of replies. This has necessitated using other publicly available means to paste relevant information:
So far so good or so it appears but further on there is this again copied below:-
Note the last two words above; "future publication". The final extract below from the reply is again by necessity a JPG from publicly available information. The link highlighted is unavailable.
The only conclusion is that the MOJ does not want we, the public, to know the religion if any of those who sit in judgement upon us. Richard Page ex JP was sacked for expressing his judicial opinion was based on his Christian beliefs. Until the early years of this century few of those involved in any way with the religious component of those on the bench high or low paid much attention to whether they worshipped a deity or not. But in 2024 a week before an election and eight months since an atrocity which has exposed the underlying hatred of Jews by many Muslims and the subsequent ouvert identity politics involving Muslims being persuaded by their peers and Imams to vote according to their preferred candidates` positions on the war against Hamas things are very different. The second most senior magistrate in the country, a Muslim, has been subject to a formal warning of misconduct for his social media activities liable to indicate his partisan (Islamic) approach to justice.
As readers will be aware, judges in USA are elected; the public has virtually the contenders` biographies and legal histories upon which to make a choice. In this country such people are appointed by "the great and the good". However we know to our shame and cost that supervisory bodies of all manner of industries and professions have been failing for decades with only the most heinous cases ever hitting the headlines Grenfell, Hillsborough and in the worst maternity scandal in the history of the NHS over two decades at Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust hundreds of babies were left brain damaged or dead. Bereaved mothers were blamed for the deaths of their babies. The Post Office and Blood scandals have yet to reach their public climax. Last week the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire was exposed as a liar and fraud in the qualifications he had submitted prior to his appointment. Northamptonshire Police Fire and Crime Commissioner Danielle Stone, who was voted in to replace disgraced Stephen Mold – the man who oversaw the appointment of Mr Adderley – promised residents it wouldn’t happen again. But this malfunction has happened in previous cases of Chief Constables being sacked.
To conclude this post I leave readers with the question of whether in the light of current and historic circumstances supervisory bodies and those responsible for the appointment of the most senior responsible positions in society would do their jobs much more efficiently if they were accountable to being voted in or out by those over whom they have such onerous responsibilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment