LABOUR CALLING FOR SEPARATE “COMMUNITY COURTS” FOR BAME OFFENDERS!

LABOUR IS CALLING FOR SEPARATE “COMMUNITY COURTS” FOR B.A.M.E. OFFENDERS!

Labour “Shadow Justice Secretary”, David Lammy” has called for the creation of “community courts” for the Black, Asian and Minority ethnic offenders to be dealt with according to special segregated procedures.  He compares his vision with the Maori tribal specific courts in New Zealand known as the “Rangatahi”.

Of course in New Zealand those courts are for dealing with the indigenous people, in effect tribal courts applying Maori laws and tribal customs in tribal reservation areas.  Calling for a reverse apartheid court system in England is a very different proposition. 

David Lammy is infamous for is being an extreme spokesman of multi-culturalism. 

If ever you wanted an example of how multi-culturalists aim to break up the unity of England, nothing could more clearly illustrate that aim than the Labour Shadow Justice Secretary, i.e. Labour’s equivalent of the “Lord Chancellor” would be calling for separate courts for their favoured client “communities”! 

Here is the article:-

Labour calls for community courts to tackle BAME disproportionality

Labour has called for ‘community courts’ to tackle the increasingly disproportionate number of black, Asian and minority ethnic people in the criminal justice system.

David Lammy, when he was a backbencher, recommended giving communities a greater role in hearings involving first-time offenders in his government-commissioned race review. Now, as shadow justice secretary, the Tottenham MP has reiterated the need for community courts.

Lammy was speaking at an event hosted by the Centre for Justice Innovation, a legal thinktank, on the state of the youth court.

The event heard that when Lammy completed his review, 41% of the children in prison were black, Asian or minority ethnic in a country where these groups make up only 14% of the population. The prison figure is now 51%.

Lammy said: ‘We have got a lot of young people from BAME communities who have very low trust in the criminal justice system. Their perceptions of magistrates and judges is [that they are] a very long way from the communities they represent. The real issues are where are the working-class magistrates and judges? Where are the BAME magistrates and judges?


There are significant parts of the country, with significant BAME populations, where there is no BAME judge or magistrate in sight.’

The shadow Justice Secretary said a problem-solving approach was needed. ‘We need community courts, particularly for first and second-time offenders.’ He mentioned other countries that have adopted a community-based approach, such as New Zealand’s Rangatahi courts, which feature in his review.

Lammy highlighted another recommendation - to seal criminal records. Pointing out that people may have committed offending behaviour when they were young, he said it was a tragedy that ‘our system condemns young people to a life of crime because they cannot get a job or they have to declare their criminal record to every employer at every single stage of the process. I do not understand why our system is doing this.’

Here is a link to the original article>>>

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/labour-calls-for-community-courts-to-tackle-bame-disproportionality/5104914.article

WAS THE SHORT SENTENCE OF DISGRACED LABOUR MP, FIONA ONASANYA, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION?

 

WAS THE SHORT SENTENCE OF DISGRACED LABOUR MP, FIONA ONASANYA, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION?

 

It used to be regularly claimed that the Criminal Justice system discriminated against Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants and imposed heavier sentences on them than they would do for “White” Defendants.  Although the statistics on the face of it looked disproportionate, most sensible commentators thought the difference was actually about the level of criminality in the different “ethnic minority” communities. 

 

That was until the not so bright Labour MP, David Lammy, made his 35 recommendations to reform the Criminal Justice system to give a bias in favour of Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants. 

 

Although the Judge’s reasoning has not been published, it seems likely that the Government’s politically correct adoption of David Lammy’s recommendations has led to the discrepancy. When the Liberal Democrat MP and Cabinet Minister, Chris Huhne and his wife were convicted of their much less serious case of Perverting the Course of Justice than Ms Onasanya’s, they got more than double the jail time that Ms Onasanya got. 

 

Any reasonable and objective commentator would have thought that Ms Onasanya would have got a stiffer sentence. 

 

It seems that we now live in a country where Whites, even if they are not English, like Chris Huhne and his wife, get stiffer sentences than Black and Minority Ethnic Defendants!  Such is the joy of diversity!

 

Here is a BBC article about David Lammy’s report >>>  

Bias against ethnic minorities 'needs to be tackled' in justice system

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41191311

 

Here is the Government’s press release on David Lammy’s report in which the Notes to Editors should be particularly instructive saying as follows:-

 

“In January 2016, the former Prime Minister David Cameron asked David Lammy to lead a review of the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales, to investigate evidence of possible bias against black defendants and other ethnic minorities.

 

His successor, Theresa May, said on the steps of Downing Street that: “If you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white”.

 

The Lammy Review was supported by the Ministry of Justice and a panel of expert advisers. The review considered evidence from the point of arrest onwards.”

 

Click here for the original  >>>  

Press release: Lammy publishes historic review

 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lammy-publishes-historic-review

 

Here is a report on an approach that is being adopted >>> 

Prosecutions in London could be dropped or deferred as ministers respond to David Lammy report on legal treatment of BAME people

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/19/london-prosecutions-could-be-dropped-or-delayed-in-pilot-scheme

What do you think?

Is David Lammy the supreme Remainiac clown?

Is David Lammy the supreme Remainiac clown?

David Lammy has recently written about his idea that Brexit being the Will of the People is “bollocks”.  Here is what he posted on the 27^th July:-

David Lammy

27 July at 16:36 ·

Why the government's "will of the people" Brexit mantra is bollocks:

1. Vote Leave cheated.
2. It was based on lies e.g. £350m for NHS.
3. Only 37% of the electorate voted for it.
4. Scotland & London voted against.
5. 69% say Brexit is going badly.
6. Public supports a #PeoplesVote.
7. Brexit threatens peace in Northern Ireland, which also voted against.
8. Russia interfered and influenced the result.
9. The referendum was advisory and non-binding.
10. The government has no mandate for Chequers or No Deal - the only options left on the table.

Here is what I have to say in reply to him:-

1. “Vote Leave cheated” – No they didn’t.  The fact of the matter is that the main “cheat” was by Remain, as the Electoral Commission has recently reported, with the £9m mailshot by the Government of their dodgy leaflet. 

The system of controls on spending are in any case politically motivated and amorally illegitimate attempt to stitch up the result.  Any minor breaches of the expenses rules are of no significance as regards the outcome.  Personally I think Remain’s concerted campaign between the various entities that were campaigning for Remain are a much clearer instance of breaking the spending rules than the piffling instances that have been brought against the Leave campaigns by an Electoral Commission that is rapidly becoming a byword for bias.  See >>> https://brexitcentral.com/priti-patel-dossier/

2. “It was based on lies e.g. £360m for NHS” – For any Remain campaigner to claim that the Leave campaign based itself on lies is a breath-taking hypocrisy, given the absolute blatant nonsense that the Remainers talked about the catastrophe that would be Brexit and misusing the machinery of government in order to produce such nonsense.  In fact the £360m a week for the NHS is a good political figure to use because it is justifiable and it usefully triggered idiots like David Lammy into arguing about the exact number of pounds that was going to the EU, whilst revealing to the public that even the Remain campaign accepted that it was a vast number of millions.

The political usefulness of the claim was to trigger Remainers to argue about the detail. The factual defensibility is that the £360million is the total going to the EU per week. The rebate comes back with strings attached so it couldn't be spent on the NHS. The NHS point is therefore key to the defensibility of this claim.  So far as England is concerned the rebate goes almost all to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in what is known as the EU 'Conduit Effect' so an English Nationalist could remove the NHS element of the claim and just add the expense of belonging to the EU to the £49 billion plus per year cost to English taxpayers of being in the Union of the UK.

3. “Only 37% of the electorate voted for it” – For David Lammy to make anything of that when no elected government has ever received the votes of 37% of the electorate, just shows the extent of his idiocy.  Since Parliament voted, including David Lammy, for a referendum in which this result would be decisive, his argument is not so much boll@cks as bullsh1t!

4. “Scotland and London voted against” – Is there any relevance to this comment?  So far as London is concerned London remains part of England which voted overwhelmingly to leave.   

So far as Scotland is concerned I am more than happy for them to make something of it and become independent.  The only relevance to his comment might be a definition of who the “People” are?  So far as I am concerned the only “People” that I am interested in are the English nation. England was and remains overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit. 

5.  “69% say Brexit is going badly” – Given the ridiculous incompetence, dishonest and lack of patriotism of the Conservative Government I agree they are making a mess.  If you follow my blog then you will have seen that I am rather licking my lips at the prospect of seeing the dying body of the Conservative Party circled by hungry vultures! 

6. “Public supports a #peoplesvote” – No they don’t.  We have already had a People’s Vote and that is it.

7.  “Brexit threatens peace in Northern Ireland, which also voted against” – I don’t believe that Brexit does threaten any peace in Northern Ireland.  One of Theresa May’s many mistakes was to get involved in commitments over Northern Ireland which she was never going to be able to deliver, given that she is dependent upon the DUP following her ludicrous decision to have a General Election when she didn’t need it. 

As an English nationalist I am more than happy for Northern Ireland to either become a separate independent state or to join with Southern Ireland.  In any case what opinion polls do show is that most English people would prefer to lose Northern Ireland rather than lose Brexit.  I would certainly agree with that opinion!

8.  “Russia interfered and influenced results” – Ridiculous nonsense for which there is no evidence of any actual influence.  Given our history it is utter hypercritical of British politicians to complain about outside interference.  Blithering on about this is probably however a measure of Remainer desperation!

For a well written and thoughtful  explanation of the result read >>>> https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/

9.  “The referendum was advisory and not binding” – Given the way that the British constitution is fitted together that remark, from a legalistic point of view, would have to be true of almost any democratic input. The issue is about legitimacy of the Establishment.  If the mask drops and the Establishment proves that voting doesn’t achieve anything, the only sensible future recourse is to the natural way of settling disputes i.e. force. 

10. “The Government has no mandate for Chequers or no deal – the only options left on the table” – I agree that the Government has no mandate for Chequers but it certainly has a mandate for “no deal”.  The mandate is, and it is a mandate from both political parties which also campaigned on this at the last General Election, to implement Brexit in full and unequivocally.  Personally I will be very happy with a “no deal” outcome. 

More generally I think David Lammy falls into the category of the type of Leftist that is simply not a democrat and therefore rather likes the internationalist, multi-culturalist, statist elitism of the EU.  So I am not surprised that he is on the side of remaining in the EU at all costs and of welshing on the Labour Party’s manifesto in the last election previous commitments to an in/out referendum.  David Lammy is not only thick but also dishonest. 

The perfect illustration of David Lammy’s intellectual initiative is shown in his staged appearance on Celebrity Mastermind where he was thrown as many soft balls as possible to try and build him up but he still flunked it! 

Here is the priceless link to Lammy's lamentable Mastermind performance. 

The 13-Point Mastermind:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWwyVQ2IQuE▶

Enjoy!