PUTTING THE WORLD TO RIGHTS

Put the world to rights; that phrase is often used to describe conversations in the pub where Joe Everyman gives his opinion on what he would do to change the world between downing his pint and opening another packet of crisps.  It is a derogatory way that the elite of this country describe the opinions of the plebs.  There are, however, some situations where the elite have failed us, are failing us and will continue to fail us. Nowhere is this disdain for acting for the common good more apparent than in the panoply of our justice system.  I have posted, perhaps too often, on the failure of government to divert addicts from the criminal justice system to the health services.  The active removal of legal safeguards for defendants in our courts by the withdrawal of legal aid for those most in need is nothing short of a disgrace. The removal similarly of that benefit to parents in the family courts as demonstrated by the tragic matter of baby Charlie whose parents were able to seek justice whatever the outcome only by pro bono work of unselfish lawyers is as clear a demonstration as could be manufactured of the total disregard of the realities of life for most people. It is not unlikely that this case will lead to a review of legal aid provision in the family court where hundreds if not thousands of parents have had to be litigants in person; a situation not to their advantage nor to the courts where time is costed by a team of accountants at HMCTS. 

In the last twenty years begging and vagrancy have become more apparent in larger towns and cities and with the accession of the East European states to the EU and thus to our shores the problem has increased. The Victorians had a simple way of dealing with the down and outs of society 150 years ago; the workhouse where basic provision was made to shelter and feed such unfortunates until such time they could find their feet in a winner takes nearly all society.  The unenlightened attitudes of local councils since the turn of the millennium have been brought into the spotlight by the tragic events at Grenfell Tower. The revelations still to be made will demonstrate the inadequacy of local government.  The unadulterated rottenness of elected and employed individuals exposed in Rochdale and other northern towns when confronted by  Muslim scum whose heinous activities were allowed to prosper by the ineptitude at the best and politically correct tolerance at worst  will long be remembered as a carbuncle on the face of these councils. In Oxford the Labour controlled council has decreed that homeless people "who keep possessions in doorways could face fines of up to £2,500 for being ‘detrimental’ to the area". As magistrates a guiding light on sentencing has always been that offenders should not be set up to fail by the imposition of impossible to fulfil  requirements. The burghers of Oxford are deserving of public disgrace. They should be pilloried and showered with rotten tomatoes. To threaten vagrants with what appears to be a form of locally approved ASBOs the breaching of which will not be able to be funded is a recipe for failure.  This country was made great during the Victorian era in spirit as well as in prosperity.  There is no doubt that a modern form of the workhouse with compulsory attendance under some form of supervision combined with medical assistance to cure a drug habit would be beneficial to all with lives saved, criminality reduced and in the long run financial expenditure reduced. But we are plebs; who cares what we think. It`s just more pub talk putting the world to rights.

PUBLIC DISUNITY//WHY THERESA MAY MUST GO NOW

It seems to this distant observer that a form of mob rule is gradually taking over certain areas or our lives.  On a political level Big Chief Corbyn and his indian braves have asserted that one way to achieve power is by having a 1,000,000 protesters on the streets. This should not be a surprise.  That he is an avowed Marxist who has made no secret of his intentions is clear from this speech in 2012.  As is their historical profile those of similar philosophy have been involved (allegedly) when local groups have had and are having real concerns about decisions affecting their lives made by socially and politically distant often state connected organisations. The issues surrounding the Grenfell fire, genuine and perhaps criminal, are being used to undermine the fabric of the state and it is not unlikely that a few years down the line results of inquiries and prosecutions whatever the results  will be used as stick to beat all authorities however involved.

Actions of police are under the microscope of public opinion at a wholly different level. They used to be literally a law unto themselves. Not a week goes by when that attitude is revealed still to be motivating a not inconsiderable number of police officers. Last year 108 police officers were dismissed for misconduct. The bar for sacking is set very high.  Much of the Policing and Crime Bill`s sections on police discipline became law a few months ago in the corresponding Act.  The amount of criminality within the police is quite shocking for the layman to comprehend the Met Police being the cheerleader.

As a result of public policy by the Home Office led by a certain Mrs T. May police were instructed to reduce "stop & search" and the pursuit of those using vehicles to evade arrest or questioning.  The unintended consequences have been an unholy increase in knife crime and an explosion in criminals evading arrest by using mopeds as getaway vehicles. There is considerable controversy over the numbers within these topics. That controversy is both political and statistical in quantity and quality.

What is not in doubt is the increase in mob behaviour generally when disputed matters go public epitomised by the situation of the baby Charlie and that surrounding areas where permission has been granted for fracking. Decisions by legally authorised public bodies are being challenged by no less than mob rule.  There are many definitions of "mob" but they all have a similar underlying theme of the possibility of violence resulting; "a large or disorderly crowd; especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action". 

One essential requirement for a democratic society to exist or even flourish is the freedom to demonstrate on the streets of our towns and cities and where such peaceful protest is sanctioned by police. Such freedom to protest is itself never far from dispute eg the flying of the flags of a terrorist organisation recently in London where the police did not intervene on the basis that they considered that the non military part of the organisation was indicated on the flags.   

With Brexit negotiations in effect, a left wing take over of Labour in the offing, a Tory Party in disarray, little indication of large numbers of Muslims willing to adapt to a British society and to accept their minority status, pork barrel politics to bribe the DUP and Scots Nats still howling independance, reduced public confidence in our institutions bodes ill for a harmonious future.  All those however loosely described as The Establishment must react to the twitching antennae of public mores and do their utmost to unite where there is currently disunity. Such decisiveness must come from the top. Theresa May must go NOW.

COURT CLOSURES

All you need to know about court closures.

BENCHES ARE NOT HANGERS AND FLOGGERS

There are single issue lobbyists financed often by wealthy individuals whose purpose in life, in addition to their salaries, is to discredit the benefit of short custodial sentences whilst at the same time to manipulate statistics to indicate that such sentences are failing, expensive and no deterrent to offenders. In addition magistrates are often accused of being too ready to sentence recidivists to immediate custody notwithstanding guidelines being followed. This case earlier this week before Swindon magistrates is an example of what really happens at every similar court every day countrywide. Benches go out of their way, sometimes in defiance of guidelines, to avoid sending offenders to immediate custody.  Indeed such decisions often bring unwelcome criticism from members of the public insofar as they are seen to be "too soft".  With the latest report on the utterly appalling conditions in our prisons a prison sentence must be a test of strength, mental and physical, for many in order to have a chance of rehabilitation. The absolute incompetence of successive Justice Secretaries since 2010 with the possible exemption of Michael Gove, has been a prime cause.  Predictable problems with interpreters, legal aid, probation service, prison officers, police have all contributed to the current position with Theresa May`s six years at the Home Office as much a failure as her colleagues` debacle at Petty France. There`s austerity and there`s foolhardiness.

When a population loses confidence in all that comprises a justice system black clouds on the horizon are just a pre cursor to a storm ahead.

DIVERSITY IN THE JUDICIARY

Latest judicial diversity statistics are published today.

ACCUSATIONS OF VERBAL ABUSE CAN BE AN ABUSE OF FREE SPEECH

“Verbal abuse is the use of words to cause harm to the person being spoken to. It is difficult to define and may take many forms. Similarly, the harm caused is often difficult to measure. The most commonly understood form is name-calling. Verbal abuse may consist of shouting, insulting, intimidating, threatening, shaming, demeaning, or derogatory language, among other forms of communication.”

It was brought home to me over twenty years ago in a fairly crowded retail unit in a town with the dubious reputation at the time of being just about the most racist place in England when two rather large tattooed white shaven headed gentlemen about forty years old remonstrated with a group of white teenage boys who were foully verbally abusing a middle aged South Asian man and his wife, that some sort of social self censorship was taking place as to just what was acceptable or unacceptable in a public place. For a few reasons perhaps we have reached a situation where many are simply too afraid of speaking openly; afraid that in effect recourse to s.5 Public Order Act will be taken by a self certificating aggrieved party.

Some years ago I was in the large entrance hall of a general hospital waiting for the return of a relative from a consultation in a room in nearby corridor. My mobile phone rang and almost immediately there was a shout, “Get that off; didn`t you see the sign?” In truth I hadn`t. Almost before I could retrieve it from deep in a pocket that individual behind a nearby desk screamed, “If you don`t put that off now I`ll get security!” By then I had reached the exit. 

A few years ago I was with an elderly relative at her G.P. requesting a copy of recent blood tests which should have been e-mailed to her by the practice. When the practice manager demanded £20 to produce a copy my relative said firmly that that was outrageous and it should not be charged for. Her language was polite and precise but perhaps her volume was a touch raised. The doctor emerged (a locum unknown to my relative) and confirmed she could not have the test results unless she paid but in the circumstances offered a reduced fee of £10.00. With great reluctance I handed over said fee on her behalf and we left with the copy. Two weeks later she was told in writing that she had been removed from the doctor`s list because her language and behaviour and general verbal abusing of him and the staff had put them (there were no patients) in fear of violence. As an aside, efforts by my relative`s nearest and dearest had the G.P. reprimanded and the £10 refunded. The expulsion was cancelled but of course she had since made other arrangements for her medical care. The point remains that by the definition above the perpetrator of any verbal abuse could arguably have been the doctor and his manager.

A few months ago at one of the major supermarkets as I was placing about £180 worth of groceries on the conveyor belt the cashier told me there were no large bags available and began opening bags each just about big enough to place a lettuce. I told him that they were unacceptable and unless he found large bags the goods would remain in the trolley or on the belt and I would go to the competition. He replied that the store had run out of normal sized bags and continued that he would tolerate no abuse from me. He refused to continue. His colleague on the adjoining till suggested he seek some bags. In the end I spoke to a nearby manager who conjured up enough bags to serve my requirements and reminded the cashier of his position.

Four simple anecdotes separated by twenty years but by an eon in public attitudes. Anywhere and everywhere are notices where public and employees converge that have the message that “abuse to staff will not be tolerated” or some such similar wording. “Verbal abuse” is a term that would have been unfamiliar in the swinging sixties. There is remarkably little evidence of its origin but I would venture it arose around the same time as the feminist lobby began to agitate for equal rights in employment etc and became a term commonly used to describe dysfunctional intimate relationships between men and women. Be that as it may the circumscription around many forms of disagreement especially when police are involved under s.5 using the pretext “verbal abuse” is one that magistrates must openly confront. The current trends to stifling free speech are singularly wafer thin but put those slices of self censorship in a bundle and it can be more easily recognised how far from the free speech of the 1950s we have travelled. Magistrates  must administer the law as it stands; not as they might wish it to be but they can and should take a broad look at any individual circumstance.

PROHIBITION UK STYLE

From their very inception I was concerned at the implications of that wonderful, so they said, innovation; the ASBO.  Having to impose such I did my judicial duty but without enthusiasm. ASBO was but the first of many so called exclusion notices. For the last ten years constables have had the authority to issue a written exclusion notice to anyone considered to represent a "risk of disorder", even if they are not drunk or have committed no offence. The aim is to enable the police to stop violence escalating by immediately removing potential troublemakers from the scene. As a matter of interest David Davis, the shadow home secretary at the time,  said the Conservatives would consider backing the proposals but said Labour "has form for making headline-grabbing announcements only to fail to follow them up"; another politician`s words coming back to haunt him.......as if they care; it`s happening all the time. Soon to follow was the CRASBO; criminal anti-social behaviour order.  I sat on the very first hearing in this country where such was brought.  It was a shambles and we threw it out.  Notices can be issued to those whose presence "is likely, in all the circumstances, to cause or contribute to the occurrence or continuance in that locality of alcohol-related crime or disorder". Magistrates' courts are able to issue civil orders banning persistent drunks and binge drinkers from all pubs and clubs in designated areas for up to two years and  operate on a similar basis to Asbos which have been condemned by a European human rights group  These were designated Drinking Banning Orders with criminal sanctions if breached.  Their effect was to displace the offence to another locality or to set up an order for him/her to fail when such orders referred to the whole county or even the whole country. And these orders sometimes without due process don`t stop.  Domestic Violence Protection Notices allow police to exclude a householder from his/her own home on the say so of a senior officer. 

Nationwide it seems there has been a steady increase in begging whether through increased poverty and/or straightened circumstances owing to addiction(s). The problem local authorities have is, of course, what to do about it. Leamington Magistrates Court on behalf of the local council has issued one such vagrant with the ubiquitous CRASBO.  This will solve nothing except that the offender will be before another court sooner or later on a criminal charge for which he will probably be imprisoned.

This little story is typical of so much that this and previous governments do in order to paper over deep problems in our society.  Today`s announcement by the Home Secretary that she seeks to introduce new legislation on banning knives is just another pathetic attempt to remedy what are thought to be intractable problems.  They are not. They require only honesty, money and a sincere wish to get to grip with one of society`s problems.  If that requires authoritarian means so be it I say. 

PS Last month on 21st June I predicted legislation on knives by the new Justice Secretary.  I didn`t think it would come so soon. Seems I had the wrong department in mind but the right idea. 

A NEW MAGISTRATE`S OPINIONS

It would seem that MOJ has decided that more Justices of the Peace need to be appointed. The article in this local newspaper is one of many similar I have read over the last few months.  What does strike me, however, is the quote of a new magistrate when commenting on a decision of custody, "There were long discussions about whether it was the right thing to do, what purpose it would serve and the impact on both the defendant, and of course the wider community and the victim". 

He does not mention Guidelines or public protection except for "impact". I also consider it questionable if "the right thing to do" is part of a structured sentencing exercise.  As far as I am aware the victims` considerations should not inform sentencing. But then having been appointed 20 years ago my attitudes, training and experience might now be considered anti deluvian if I were still active. 

ONLY IN AMERICA

Some might have heard of this case but if you haven`t I have to tell you I have seen and heard of it from two sources so it must be true……..mustn`t it??????? For those who have served on jury...this one is something to think about...Just when you think you have heard everything!! Do you like to read a good murder mystery? Not even Law and Order would attempt to capture this mess. This is an unbelievable twist of fate!!! Are you sitting comfortably boys and girls and then I`ll begin.

At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, (AAFS) President Dr. Don Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal complications of a bizarre death. Here is the story:

On March 23, 1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a 10-story building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to the effect indicating his despondency. As he fell past the ninth floor, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window, which killed him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the deceased was aware that a safety net had been installed just below the eighth floor level to protect some building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned.

The room on the ninth floor, where the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun! The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window, striking Mr. Opus. When one intends to kill subject 'A' but kills subject 'B' in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject 'B.'

When confronted with the murder charge, the old man and his wife were both adamant, and both said that they thought the shotgun was not loaded. The old man said it was a long- standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore, the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, assuming the gun had been accidentally loaded.

The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun about 6 weeks prior to the fatal accident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother. Since the loader of the gun was aware of this, he was guilty of the murder even though he didn't actually pull the trigger. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.

Now for the exquisite twist... Further investigation revealed that the son was, in fact, Ronald Opus. He had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump off the 10 story building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a shotgun blast passing through the ninth story window. The son, Ronald Opus, had actually murdered himself. So the medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.

BENCH CHAIRMAN OUT OF ORDER

Earlier this week I posted on the advantage of having in England as is the choice in Scotland of a third verdict after trial; namely not proven. Before discussing this further let me make plain the main disadvantage antagonists offer on this subject; the possibility of an innocent defendant being smeared by the underlying assumption that he was really guilty but proof was lacking. I suppose that is a form of an oxymoronic argument.  The advantages on the other hand are seemingly quite apparent. Benjamin Franklin inventor of bifocals and a signatory to the American Constitution in 1776 is quoted as saying, "that it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved".  Its basic concept has been repeated many times.  My opinion is that that reasoning would be better served by the availability of a verdict of not proven.  Indeed the tale of woe in the last twenty years where the verdicts in high profile trials have been overturned on appeal often after many years in jail for alleged offenders is a stain on the so called high standards of British justice.

Notwithstanding the above I am indebted to a commenter for bringing to my attention this case.  After a verdict of not guilty had been announced the bench chairman Dr Ian Haffenden is quoted in the penultimate paragraph as saying, “although we think that the defendant may have taken the items, the prosecution has not proved it so”. If this were in a Scottish courtroom the verdict would have been not proven and would have been respected as such.  In England, however, it is an absolute disgrace.  The chairman has cast aspersions on a woman his bench found to be not guilty because they applied the test; beyond reasonable doubt.  To confirm their doubt is beyond belief. There is a tradition, I know no better, that even if a decision is split 2:1 a bench must not make that public. This bench chairman should be held to account before the appropriate authority. He was out of order.  However it is unlikely that the defendant will have the wherewithal intellectually or financially to pursue that option.   Indeed it is possible that her relief in being found not guilty will in itself be enough satisfaction for her.

Before I was appointed a chairman I sat often enough to observe not a few occupants of the middle chair who liked the sound of their own voice too much for their own good. I took note to put a five second mental delay before a major input to proceedings and to make that input as pithy as possible whilst ensuring my meaning and intention were clear to all.  That, in my opinion,  is common sense; a requirement for appointment 20 years ago but sadly no longer so.

FREE PRESS AND DIFFERENCES OF OPINION

From time to time threats, some overt and others surreptitiously, are made to the freedom of the press. I stumbled across two current reports on the state of the forensic service in Scotland.  On reading them it was sometimes difficult to recognise that they were describing the same events. See for yourself....."Police Professional" and "Holyrood" magazine.

ETHNIC DIVERSITY//THE FAKE NEWS ON THE MAGISTRACY

Quite frankly I am sick and tired of, in effect, being part or having been a part of an aged ethnic majority imposing sentences on ethnic minority offenders in excess of similarly guilty white offenders: sick and tired not to say disappointed with the continual implication that the magistracy is unfit to represent the society within which its members have been appointed to serve. Let me make one thing quite clear:- the idea propagated by these critics that local benches should represent local societies no longer holds water. Government by its actions in amalgamating courts and greatly  increasing numbers of District Judges(MC) with no local affiliation and specifically authorising JPs to sit nationwide if theoretically required  should put that argument to rest. Unfortunately it does not.  The same old untruth, or to use current terminology, FAKE NEWS, continues to be used to undermine what used to be an unequalled expression of a voluntary giving back to society of experience, time and knowledge by members of the public with a communal spirit increasingly rare in current life. The quote below is from yesterday`s Guardian.

Penelope Gibbs, a former magistrate and director of the organisation Transform Justice, says: “However good they are, we need magistrates to be truly representative of the communities they serve if trust in the criminal justice system is to be maintained. We don’t have enough BAME magistrates, and those we have are overwhelmingly middle-class and middle-aged. Where are the magistrates from the Somali, Roma and Romanian communities? Nowhere to be seen.”

The pusillanimous final two sentences sum up quite elegantly the type of reasoning put forward to pursue this so called argument.  In order to serve judgement upon one`s fellow man [for the politically correct baggage followers the term embraces woman] for a start a high quality of use and understanding of the English language is required.  Arabic speaking Somalis who are here have generally been refugees from a brutal dictatorship over the last two decades. Perhaps the second generation might emerge in the next decade who would be able to satisfy the requirements of appointment.  They would be treated by appointment committees on their merits just as every would be magistrate has been, is and will be  without regard to ethnicity.  Roma by their very culture are not citizens living in a fixed locality although there are exceptions of course. The writer quoted above has nothing but invective to shout about in line with her political cause.  Romanians in this country are by study generally manual workers with ultimate intentions to return to their country of origin. I am, incidentally, of the opinion that the current rules on appointment to the magistracy which do not require British citizenship, require re-assessment.

Be careful what you wish for.  That hackneyed phrase could come back to haunt Penelope Gibbs, her acolytes and those funding her.  There is no doubt in my mind that government generally would be happy to see the function of lay magistrates reduced to only presiding over simple offending eg TV licensing sitting in a back office a hundred miles removed from any courtroom.  The day is not so far away when non locally affiliated single district judges will rule supreme in every courtroom.  Perhaps after so called ethnicity comparisons of their middle aged white composition leads to some disquiet she will rue the time bemoaning a dearth of a bench which reflected, warts and all, the population of towns and boroughs in England.  I personally think warts should be removed from the face of justice  not excluding judges, lawyers, police when warts include those unfit irrespective of race, creed, religion, colour perceptions or so called ethnic diversity. If positive discrimination is at the heart of the argument let it be made openly. That would be an honest subject of debate.

The table below might be of some interest

EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP IS NO LONGER EXCEPTIONAL

With regard to the possibility of being banned from driving as a "totter" there is no legal definition of "exceptional hardship"; a plea for a substitute sentence being imposed without a disqualification.  Many solicitors publish their own opinions on line as a marketing tool. This is just one example from many.  My general thinking processes when listening to such a plea were that if the offender was of such means that s/he could afford to employ a driver for the six month disqualification sentence then the exceptional hardship plea would not have been made out.  I clearly recollect two cases where very wealthy businessmen tried to make the argument: they failed. I do not know the circumstances of the offender in this case but if the bench did not consider whether or not he could afford a driver then they failed in their duty.  My impression over the years is that too many totters escape their deserts by weak benches being too easily persuaded by silver tongued lawyers.

WHY NOT A "NOT PROVEN" VERDICT?

I have long argued that English courts could take a lesson from the Scots in at least giving consideration to having a third verdict; that of not proven.  The anecdote published recently in the Law Society Gazette would seem to justify such an innovation.

PROBATION//RECIDIVISM//STATISTICS

Chris Grayling barely had time to arrange his desk when taking office at the MOJ when he began planning the selling off of the National Probation Service.  Whether one considers or not that this action has led to more or less so called efficiency ie reduced recidivism at a cheaper price, today figures are published for those interested enough to decide for themselves.

PILLAR OF JUSTICE HAS NO SUPPORT

Commentators of late have been suggesting that the great British public has turned a political corner and would welcome tax increases in order to improve funding for public services. With regard to NHS or social care they would appear to be inviting hell and damnation if there were the slightest hint that just perhaps individual contributions from those with the means available might be a better way out of this financial mess. That a right wing DUP orders Tories to retain benefits to pensioners whose financial position is such that they could happily forgo such largesse, a political position that the Left would have occupied a couple of decades ago,  indicates the paradoxical political world we inhabit.  And so it is with the emasculation of everything associated however remotely with out legal and justice system.

It is estimated that addiction is responsible for about 70% of acquisitive and/or violent crime.  Therefore one would have thought that the intelligent answer to that would be to be "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime" (Tony Blair 1993)  But nay.  Since then we have endured tinkering........no other word seems more appropriate......with the justice system with platitudes and inefficiencies disguised as policy from the MOJ and Home Office. As examples just a few cases this week from magistrates courts illustrate what is really happening below the headlines of murder and terrorism; criminal activity which I would argue affect us all more than those aforesaid headline grabbers.  Please spend a moment or two perusing these four cases of criminal activity driven by addiction. These cases are replicated in every magistrates` court every day of the year. 

And what are we offered?  Court closures by the hundred and severe restrictions on the availability of legal aid even for the poorest in society. And yet, as I wrote Wednesday June 28th the CPS Inspector`s report when noting that absentee defendants are "the biggest single reason why first hearings were ineffective" did not even mention court closures as a possible reason. 

This is the Alice in Wonderland political world that appears to be the norm.  No wonder younger voters with no memories of the Cuba crisis where MAD policy prevented war, the three day weeks  and work by candlelight in the 1970s voted for a would be demagogue who offered a financial holy grail. MOJ and Home Office policies are a microcosm of all that`s wrong in this country financially, practically, morally and socially. There is nothing other than self serving preservation and limited horizons driving many parliamentarians despite that they protest too much.  They voted in their arrogance to hold a referendum without any caveats on requiring a minimum turn out or majority and I write as a Brexiteer.  By those very actions they have produced the biggest crisis since 1956 another date that means nothing to young voters. In its present form the Tory Party has outlived its usefulness where an incompetent Home Secretary with as much appeal as a rotten tomato was chosen as kingpin in order to prevent those more competent to succeed. She failed dismally with appointments to chair the inquiry into child abuse and her appointee into Grenfell has admitted within 24 hours that he will be unable to satisfy the reasonable requirements of residents. The buck has stopped right in her kitchen where she seems to be cladded to withstand the heat.

A country must be supported by a pillar of justice that is respected by all and funded to that end.  That requirement has been forgotten and/or ignored for years.

LEGAL AID NUMBERS TO BE CRUNCHED

What do changes in legal aid availabillity mean for justice?  Here are the latest numbers to be crunched.