Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.

Tuesday, 29 October 2024

UNCONSCIOUS BIAS IS A FALSE TOTEM



Everyone knows what prejudice is.  Many of us will have enough self awareness to know that in some form or other there is a possibility, probability or certainty that on some every day topic or  subject of minor interest we are prejudiced or in the words of some psychologists who think they have all the answers, we have a conscious bias for or against said topics or interests.  My wife, for example, is biased towards purple.  Her house plants are dictated by the colour as is her car, her wardrobe and long ago the paint chosen to cover walls in the hallway. She is also biased against intellectual snobbery and doesn`t suffer fools gladly.  


However the spreading tentacles of human resources departments and their university psychology departments` academic sources have fostered the concept of "unconscious bias".  This concept has  infected the western world without challenge.  It has infiltrated the working and academic lives of millions.  It is within the legal profession that, in my opinion,  it has been the most devastating to freedom of thought and the corruption of what constitutes reality.  Politicians have been quick and eager to jump on this bandwagon for their own nefarious ends. Unconscious bias as defined by Edinburgh University is  The tendency of us as humans to act in ways that are prompted by a range of assumptions and biases that we are not aware of.   This can include decisions or actions that we are not consciously aware of, as well as hidden influences on decisions and actions that we believe are rational and based on objective un-biased evidence and experience.  Unconscious bias can be present in organisations and groups as well as influencing the behaviours and decisions made by individuals.  


Civilisation has developed from primates learning from their and others` actions and reactions which are beneficial to their survival and which are detrimental.  The most active benefit to the individual is the bond of the family.  The bias toward family is natural and rewards such affinity with longer life and happier offspring.  We learn continually who, what, when and where  love, safety, danger and misery lie.  These are conscious and  unconscious thoughts, feelings, actions and reactions to maximise our lives, loves and livelihoods and to diminish the dangers we had and have to face from sabre toothed lions to telephone scams.  


But now the lines are crossed.  Those who refuse to accept the mantra of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) as a requirement to rid themselves of unconscious bias are labelled fascist, racist or similar epithet.  And those within the legal profession who have fallen for this artificial fabrication and the politicians who empower them have failed to realise that within that mindset the need for inclusiveness also must encompass acceptance of ideologies which are the very antithesis of western civilisation and are indeed a suicidal call for what has been the Judeo Christian foundation on which our society has been built.  Nothing exemplifies this attitude more than the disgraceful and disgusting verdict on the successful appeal by David Miller against his expulsion from his tenure at Bristol University. Astoundingly an employment tribunal decided that "The claimant’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic pursuant to section 10 Equality Act 2010 at the material times."  The full 120 pages of the judgement are available here.  Building on the incessant anti "Zionist" propaganda of the past year in which clear anti semitism has been expressed using the term Zionist as a cloak the tribunal has ratified that a belief in a Jewish homeland held by a large [60%-80%] of Jews here and worldwide is not protected in law from those who would preach in a manner directly based on activities in pre war Germany.  Indeed by substituting Zionist in their diatribes in place of Jews Miller and his ilk  can continue to spew their hatred to those who are the children to his Pied Piper.  I would argue that if unconscious bias does exist it existed in the minds of that Tribunal. It has been offered as the reason for another forum to castigate a magistrate [see below].  Unfortunately but unsurprisingly it has taken a marxist orientated publication to offer a riposte to the Tribunal`s decision to which I understand an appeal is in hand.  There are those who would defend Miller and that verdict.  The professional judiciary are government paid and pensioned civil servants. There is always a significant cohort who would put their own careers and well being above the requirement to uphold the law where the two come into conflict.  In the Miller case it might be said that the Tribunal members revealed their own unconscious bias against Jews.  Now that is  paradoxical. 


Closer to home a magistrate has recently been investigated by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office for making antisemitic remarks in a court setting. To quote the particular paragraphs;

 "A fellow magistrate complained that during two conversations with him, Ms Killoran made remarks which displayed an unconscious bias of an antisemitic nature. He alleged that she spoke about her work in the charity sector and a correlation between Jewish charities and fraud. {my bold}

She stated that Jewish charities are believed to make use of the ‘Jewish Accounting System’, whereby money disappears without a trace and reappears later at a much higher value. The magistrate, himself Jewish, was concerned that Ms Killoran was relaying antisemitic stereotypes."


The complete report can be accessed here


I would opine that there was nothing "unconscious" about the prejudice that Ms Lynn Killoran JP expressed.  It was a deliberate anti Jewish slur of which she was fully aware.  The implication of the judgement is that she was not responsible because it was unconscious bias.  Just as the fashion for the gender bending of children has been demonstrated to be against all logic and laterally illegal so it will be, concerning the concept of unconscious bias. That change in perception cannot come soon enough.  Academics and pseudo psychologists have weaved their dangerous patterns for far too long. Soon reality must resurrect itself and prevail.  Unconscious bias is a false totem. 



Tuesday, 22 October 2024

GORGE ORWELL HAS ADOPTED ALICE IN THE WONDERLAND THAT IS NOW THE UNITED KINGDOM




I suppose it`s not being too late with the news that once more magistrates courts` sentencing powers have again been increased to 12 months custody for a single offence. The reason given by the MOJ is that prison overcrowding will be eased.  But does this simple explanation stand up to simple scrutiny?  Forget all the statistics except this; for decades the rate of immediate custody in the lower courts has been no more than 3% - 4% of all sentences.  On an individual level I have yet to meet a magistrate who enjoyed acquiescing to such a sentence. Indeed a personal guideline which in days gone by I offered to a new magistrate was a case which has stayed in my mind for 20 years when discussing custody for assault: it went as follows: a man in his mid twenties with a previous record of violent behaviour living with a partner in the late stages of her pregnancy  pulled her down a flight of stairs by her hair at their home.  We sentenced him to the maximum six months immediate custody.  The proposed new guideline will mean that more either way offences will be tried and sentenced in magistrates courts.  Perhaps in its wisdom the MOJ will remove that choice.  In any event why would the number of custodial sentences be reduced?  There does not seem to be any logical reason.  What will happen is that the waiting time at crown courts will be reduced.  However an unintended consequence for this chopping and changing trial horses in mid gallop is that there will be a frantic increase in attempts to have more magistrates and perhaps an increase also in the number of appointed District Judges[MC].  A rushed recruitment programme for demanding jobs inevitably leads to a lowering in subsequent performance.  Police forces throughout the country having lost long serving officers by the thousand since 2010 are facing a similar situation with fewer "old hands" available to bring their knowledge and experience on the streets to their new young colleagues.  The new Secretary of State by publishing another sentencing review is just following on the pious words of so many of her predecessors.  How long she will be around to see it fail is a moot point.  


In view of the fact that Scotland has the worst drug problem in Europe there was an interesting answer to the following Freedom of Information Request:- In the last five years how many people have received the maximum sentence permitted for contraventions of the Misuse of Drugs Act, in relation to possession, possession with intent to supply or being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs in the High court?  The short answer is not one.


It seems that the push of some Muslims to associate many social issues to the situation in Gaza should be a cause for concern.  Thankfully this country has a record of church and state mainly (but not always eg House of Lords) being separated.  Whilst not like a constitutional requirement as in America our fumbling way through such matters and others similar seemed to be effective........until now.  The banking arrangements between Tesco and Barclays Bank should be a matter only for the companies concerned.  For these Islamists who can be described as political Muslims our society should be re-aligned to their long term desire for sharia.  These and other early signs of political Islam unfortunately are not being faced by the government or perhaps Keir Starmer hopes that the public is blind to such matters. With a population now of 3.4 million Muslims he might be correct but with a projected population of 13 million in 2050 the chickens will be coming home thick and fast to do their roosting. 


All too often from TV to Twitter [X] we are being informed of the remarks in the workplace or elsewhere that are taboo and worthy of legal action.  Another reference can now be added to the plethora currently classified as verboten.  Calling a man "baldie" is now to be viewed as sexual harassment. Truly this country is in wonderland, down the rabbit hole or through the looking glass. Whatever you might choose we are at a period in our history when George Orwell has adopted Alice.  

Tuesday, 15 October 2024

THE END OF THE ROAD FOR MAGISTRATES?



For centuries magistrates were chosen from a small select group of local worthies to adjudicate over a local population generally when the crimes committed did not require an indictment.  Defendants were tried summarily.  By the late nineteenth century the summary courts were dealing with twenty times as many cases as the jury courts. This included an increasing use of pre-trial hearings - a kind of pseudo-trial in which magistrates evaluated the evidence in cases that strictly speaking should have been forwarded to the jury courts without review.  In 1166 King Henry II issued the Assize of Clarendon which required non-King's Bench judges to travel the country to hear cases. This established the system of judges sitting in London while others traveled the country, known as the "assizes system".  It has been within the magistracy that the concept of local justice has survived and even that concept is being whittled away with  non local District Judges being now a common and necessary fixture of the magistrates courts system.  And yet the MOJ still propagates that notion of "local justice for local people".  It could be argued that as it was when I was appointed, a magistrate`s jurisdiction was limited to the area in which s/he resided.  All that changed a decade or more ago when the whole country was deemed an individual`s jurisdiction thus allowing, if and when needed, out of county JPs to fill sittings.  The professional judiciary have no such locality requirements for appointment. 


Since Covid and following on from the closure of half the country`s magistrates courts JPs` numbers have fallen from a peak of 30,000 20 years ago to around 14,000 currently.  Now as with decimated police numbers the MOJ is trying desperately to recruit more members of the lay bench.  Millions of pounds are spent on advertising and much more in investigating the dozens of facts about each applicant`s background, parenthood, religion, occupation and what they have for breakfast.  Is it any wonder that so few people are willing to put themselves through such filters for up to two years just to give of their free time 13 days annually on the bench and almost as many in training. As an example the recruiting organisation for the South East of England has published this standardised recruitment advertisement.    


Towards the end of the last century an academic study [of which sadly I can now find no trace] estimated that if District Judges sat without a legal advisor or clerk instead of  lay benches the costs would be about equal to the cost of magistrates` expenses and training.  Many criminal lawyers would welcome such a change.  Whether the public would be equally receptive is another matter.  Nobody has ever bothered to inquire.  


Last week I commented on the case of His Honour Judge (HHJ) Martin Davis who was castigated by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.  Reading the first few statements of that office`s October`s findings I find it difficult to understand how those JPs were able to be appointed in the first place.  Whatever the findings they seem to have had underlying traits which should have been teased out much earlier in the process.  Perhaps they were appointed long before the current fine tuning which is in place although that details on who and what they have been and are now. 


It seems obvious that all the supposed brains at Petty France don`t know what to do with lay magistrates.  As I have posted here in times past, they have treated them like the Grand Old Duke of York treated his soldiers; he marched them up to the top of the hill and marched them down again except the hill involved is that of making 12 months custody for a single offence available.  "Yes it is but then no it isn`t".  My sentiments on this subject have crystalised in the last few years. The more desperate the demand for Justices of the Peace the more the likelihood of the quality of applicants reducing.  Whether they will wither on the vine as increasing numbers of DJs are appointed or become add ons to a new form of lower courts system is unknown.  But the current situation is surely that sign of a system`s eventual demise. 



Tuesday, 8 October 2024

THE DAUGHTERS OF THE ME TOO MOVEMENT



Like many of my generation I am subject to annual blood tests which serve to pacify any anxiety I might have on my general well being [so far so good] and allow the NHS the earliest opportunity at the cheapest cost to right that which might seem wrong.  It does this by analysing and classifying blood tests according to an "average".  I had recent cause to study some of my results over the last decade or so and noticed that the "average" figure against which my personal result was normal or abnormal was not a constant; inquiries informed me that some of those figures were a local population average. As an example in August 2023 my serum potassium reading was "normal" between 3.5- 5.1.  In April this year the "normal range" was 3.5- 5.3.  Has the error allowed in analysis been subtly  altered?  Has the population`s blood been contaminated? Has the measurement system developed inaccuracies?  In other words is our being medically out of step mathematically a cause for concern or an attempt by the state to allow greater variation to pass unquestioned? 


And so to the world of woke folk.  In 2006 a wonderful German film Lives of Others exposed the system by which the communist government of the then East Germany kept dissidence and dissidents under control by their secret police the Stasi.  That was then, this is now.  The judiciary from the lowest level magistrates to the members of the Supreme Court is arguably the most tightly controlled group of  professionals not only on the public payroll but amongst all the professions.  Their every attribute or profile is in the public domain but they are appointed in secret.  Almost their every public statement is subject to oversight.  And now a combination of so called progressive thinking and a fear of accusations of being unfair or bias in their behind the scenes activities has led to iniquities of which a Parisienne concierge of 1789 would recognise as not merely intrusive but in their own way, deadly. 


THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE ostensibly is the fairest and most open of supervisory authorities which plague this nation.  It is a classic example of  an organisation seeing all the trees and unable to recognise the wood.  It follows {or has led} a pattern seen in numerous cases of maladministration in health authorities, children`s care and uncorrected injustices within the legal system to name but a few.  


The latest fly to be ensnared by the secretive soundings of the JCIO spider is His Honour Judge (HHJ) Martin Davis.  Rather than re-stating his encounter readers should read for themselves the published conclusion or verdict   on his supposed wrong doing. 


There is a single line within that apology of a report which bears thinking about above all others; "the complainant, a female member of staff who was subordinate to him, and therefore unable to object to anything said, and who did not know him." 


I find this extraordinary.  Such an apparent mouse of a woman yet apparently sensible enough to be employed by HMCTS....... 


The bottom line is that an unknown accuser has left a black mark on the career of an honourable man and this action has been justified by fellow judges.  This is the lives of others being played in real time in England in 2024.  Is misconduct a product of our times?  As with my blood tests how far does "fashion", average or wokeness play in such decisions. Is today`s street protester tomorrow`s fascist rabble rouser? Just as the virus of #antisemitism in the guise of being pro Palestinian or anti Zionist has infiltrated all corners of society it seems the daughters of the Me Too fanatics have found a new home within the English justice system. 








Tuesday, 1 October 2024

KNIFE CRIME WILL NEVER BE "UNDER CONTROL"

 


Posts involving offences of the use of a bladed article or knife have been amongst the most frequent to have occupied these pages in the last 11 years.  Indeed my first post on the subject was published in 2014.  The French language best sums up the repeated attempts by His Majesty`s Governments to contain this scourge; PLUS ÇA CHANGE, PLUS C'EST LA MÊME CHOSE.  


A society doesn`t disintegrate  from the top down.  Certainly those in control have a lot to answer for.  Failures in policies conceived by incompetents and carried out by those in hoc to their masters to put bread in the mouths of their starving children have been a blight on the face of civilisation for millenia.  Today`s government and society are little different from those of medieval England except the errors and miscalculations are magnified in their effects.  Indeed in his new book published this week Boris Johnson likens Richi Sunak`s betrayal as Brutus`s was to Caesar.  


When it suits the moment governments will laud the reduction in crime overall or those parts which will gain sympathetic momentum in the media.  In doing so like a driver whose speed is breaking the limit, the foot will lift from the accelerator and the car allowed to slow.  If it`s judged still to be going too fast the brake will be applied.  In a financially crippled justice system such crime reduction will be an excuse to reduce the appropriate budget.  So now we have a stop start policy on knife crime.  Stop and search effectiveness varies according to the politics of the observer; or so it seems.  Albert Einstein also had noted that an observer can change the facts in his theory of general relativity causing him to publish his theory of special relativity a decade later.  


The Sentencing Guidelines on bladed articles and knives is IMHO taking a sledge hammer to crack the nuts of the angels dancing on a pinhead.  Common sense has been left behind it seems in an effort to ensure that every associated fact or action can be incorporated in what it thinks is an appropriate sentence.  There is no doubt in my mind that within a decade these guidelines will be replaced by algorithms with the bench left to decide on what manual interventions would be justifiable to make the particular circumstances of each case fit the crime.  Meanwhile with the courts and prisons in chaos, reduced court reporting in local print media and serious knife offending being news headlines almost daily I have gathered below just a few recent cases where the hot air of politicians on and off the hustings can be seen for what it really is; bluster and deceit to fool the British public and especially the parents of teenage boys that there is active control to reduce knife crime. 



Kai Kiernan Nanpean, St Austell Age: 19

On or about July 7 at Leamingston Spa had with him, without good reason or lawful authority, in a public place Victoria Terrace an article which had a blade or was sharply pointed, namely a machete.

On August 1, at Queen's Crescent, Bodmin, had an article which had a blade or was sharply pointed, namely a kitchen knife with a blade exceeding three inches.

Suspended sentence order: two months, suspended for 12 months. Mental health treatment: 12 days. Rehabilitation activity: 20 days.

                 -----------------------------------------------

A woman was found hiding in bushes near a pre-school in Bridport with a large knife, a court has heard.

Rebecca Wilson, aged 41, pleaded guilty in Weymouth Magistrates Court to possessing a knife blade/sharp pointed article in a public place in Bridport.

This related to an incident which happened in St Andrews Road on June 21, 2024.

Christina Norgan, prosecuting, told the court that at 9.10pm, police received a 999 call from a member of the public that a woman was seen in possession of a large knife in the bushes next to St Andrew’s pre-school in Bridport.

When she was detained, Wilson told police officers “I’ve got a knife.”

A kitchen knife was subsequently retrieved from her waistband and she was taken into custody.  

Wilson was previously convicted in 2012 for wounding.

Simon Lacey, mitigating, presented a mental health form on Wilson’s behalf to the magistrates’ bench and asked for it to be taken into consideration before sentencing.

Stephen Takel, chair of the magistrates' bench told the defendant: “The reason these sorts of offences are treated in this way is because of the risk of knife crime.

“We noticed in the interview report you were confused why it was taken so seriously. The reason is that knife crime is very serious and people die. The authorities don’t know what a person’s intention is.

“If you are in possession of a knife in public, you are considered a risk to others.

“My recommendation would be to not go out of your house with a bladed article full stop to avoid future offending in this way.”

The defendant was given a 12-month community order.

Wilson, of Dorchester Road, Weymouth, must also attend 12 sessions of mental health treatment with a clinical psychologist to understand her triggers and trauma.

She must also complete 15 days of rehabilitation activity requirement days.

She was fined £120 and must pay courts cost of £85 and £114 surcharge.

                                 ----------------------------------------------------------------------


 A 43-year-old east Suffolk man has been handed a suspended sentence after being caught in the street with a knife.

Jamie Buckenham, who is of Bloomsbury Close in Lowestoft, admitted having a flick knife in Seago Street in the coastal town when he appeared at Great Yarmouth Magistrates’ Court.

He was given a three-month prison sentence that was suspended for 18 months when he was sentenced by magistrates for a single charge of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.

The flick knife was taken by police and the defendant must complete a 40-day rehabilitation programme.

The incident happened on September 22 last year, a court listing confirmed.

As well as the suspended sentence, Buckenham was also ordered to pay £85 in costs to the Crown Prosecution Service told to pay a surcharge of £154 and complete 100 hours of unpaid work.

A collection order was made for the sums.

The defendant's guilty plea was taken into account when magistrates decided on his sentence.
                 --------------------------------------------------------

 A man begged magistrates not to send him to jail after he was caught with a banned knife, having already been convicted of numerous offences of violence. 

Several members of the public had called 999 to report that Kieran Eames, 26, was in Loughborough town centre with a folding butterfly knife.

At Leicester Magistrates' Court on Monday he admitted possessing a blade in public.

Eames, of King Street, Loughborough, had to be repeatedly asked to keep quiet after entering the courtroom. He apologised and told the magistrates: "I'm just really worried.

"I don't want to go back to prison. I'm begging you."

Prosecutor Peter Bettany told the magistrates Eames had previously been convicted of various offences of violence - including assault by beating of a police officer in May 2022 - but had never been convicted of having a knife before.

Eames's solicitor, Rachel Gaffney, told the magistrates: "He made no attempt to conceal it. He didn't brandish the weapon at anyone and he said in his police interview he didn't know it was a criminal offence to have such a weapon on his person in a public place."

Probation officer David Charlton told the court Eames had issues with drink and drugs, but had refused to speak to probation to give them more information. He added that Eames was "extremely vulnerable" and that prison would be a "dangerous place for him to be".

The chair of the bench, Elizabeth Needham, told Eames they would be giving him a suspended sentence instead of sending him to prison. She said: "You need to keep yourself out of trouble."

Eames replied: "Thank you. You won't see me again. I've been petrified for months thinking I'll be going back to jail."

Eames was given a 20-week sentence, suspended for 12 months, and was ordered to pay a £154 victim surcharge.