Kit Knightly – Off-Guardian Nov 5, 2025
The recent changes being made to British law are undermining the rights of citizens to a fair trial and presumption of innocence, and could turn our legal system into a truly dystopian nightmare.
Here’s how…
The reports
The calls for reforms, reviews and all the other R words come from three relatively recent reports.
First, there was the first report of Lord Leveson’s Crime and Justice Report, which was “leaked” in April:
And which we covered in depth here when they were published in July (his second report is due to be released soon):
Second, there is the London Victim Attrition Review, authored by outgoing Victims Commissioner for London and incoming National Victims Commissioner, Claire Waxman OBE.
Third, and finally, there is the last report from the outgoing National Victims Commissioner Baroness Newlove, the Annual Victim Survey 2024, which was published in October.
These reports lay the precedent and narrative groundwork for all the justice “reforms” moving forward. Notice two of them are victim-centric, that is clearly by design. Almost all the “reforms” are framed as “protecting victims”.
abolishing jury trials
This has been on the cards for a while, and should surprise no one. Just yesterday, Justice Minister David Lammy announced the plan to abolish all jury trials for crimes carrying (our emphasis) “likely sentences of three years or less” (spot the weasel word).
The plan is to follow Lord Leveson’s recommendation from April and introduce a new judge-only division of the Crown Court to hear these cases and “clear the backlog”.
We’ve discussed this to death in the past, and I won’t repeat myself here. Instead, I invite you to note the way MPs talk about accused criminals in articles like this one from the Guardian, and ask if it fills you with confidence for the future of justice.
Sarah Sackman MP describes choosing a trial by jury as a way for “career criminals” to “game the system”, with defendants “laughing in the dock”. The basic assumption is that all accused people are basically guilty.
Because eroding the presumption of innocence is a key theme here.
She goes on to suggest people accused of stealing minor items don’t deserve the luxury of a fair trial,
Do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a minimart should receive the right to trial by jury?
And, while it’s hard to understand exactly what her broken English is intended to convey here, it’s probably (ironically) that juries are too dim to understand complicated fraud cases (that’s the view expressed in the Leveson report, page 306, para. 71) :
Do we think that someone who has been involved in a serious fraud involving cryptocurrency that (sic) we should have a jury sat in court for a year or more hearing such a case?
The only rational answer to both those questions is, of course, “yes”, but I think she wants us to say “no”.
And note the already-tired call to “protect victims”:
“I’ve spoken to victims and survivors who tell me they’ve lost their jobs, they suffered mental breakdown all the while that they were waiting
These attitudes – alleged victims are always saintly, accused are always guilty, and a trial is a luxury afforded by a merciful state – are everywhere right now, and that should be worrying all of us.
While changes to the jury system are getting a lot of headlines — rightfully so — they are hardly the only frightening “reform” on the horizon.
Coaching witnesses
The state wants to “train” prosecution witnesses to deal with “tough” cross-examination. The recommendation, taken from the Waxman report, is covered in the Evening Standard, which headlines:
Witnesses in criminal trials should be trained to cope with tough questions
And that’s pretty much the gist. The incoming national victim’s commissioner wants state prosecutors to train witnesses to “deal with tough questions”:
Ms Waxman says the preparation should go further, delivering a “dedicated session focused on in-depth support for giving evidence” for witnesses who are vulnerable or could be intimidated by the trial process.
Which sounds rather like the state coaching their witness on how to handle cross-examination by the defence, doesn’t it?
It is, once again, couched in terms of protecting victims:
“For too many victims, the experience of attending court remains daunting, with limited support in preparing for trial which, coupled with the long waiting time due to the backlogs, is often an emotionally exhausting and traumatising experience”,
Incredibly manipulative. But at least witnesses will actually be present in the courtroom, instead of giving pre-recorded statements or testifying over video-link, both of which already happen.
incentivising allegations of abuse
The UK’s Bar Council is backing a move that will effectively incentivise allegations of domestic abuse in divorce courts.
In the UK roughly 15% of family court cases are eligible for legal aid, but the Bar Association is backing a change that would make any case involving allegations of domestic abuse automatically eligible.
To put two and two together, this move will undoubtedly — 100% absolutely certainly — increase the number of domestic abuse allegations.
The state will effectively be paying people to accuse each other of domestic violence.
cattle-tagging parolees
In late 2024, it was announced that London would be launching a pilot scheme to GPS tag those convicted of “stalking offenses”. This followed similar schemes tagging those convicted of knife crime and domestic abuse.
Under that scheme, over 230 parolees were returned to prison after breaching “exclusion zones”. This so-called “success” has now led to a national rollout.
The planned national scheme will see tens of thousands of people tagged with GPS ankle monitors, and introduce new “restriction zones” alongside “exclusion zones”. Breaching these zones will result in possible jail time.
It’s easy to see how a system of strict GPS restriction/exclusion zones sending people back to prison can be cynically used to extend a prison sentence.
Essentially, you could deny a defendant a jury trial because his crime carries a maximum sentence of less than three years, then use overly strict “restriction zones” to send him back to prison and informally extend his sentence.
Limiting Appeals
Following Leveson’s recommendations, Lammy has announced an end to the automatic right to appeal, limiting appeals from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court to points of law, and making it so appeals must be approved by a judge before they can be heard.
To quote the Leveson report from July, those convicted will have to “apply for permission to appeal.”
This move has been widely criticised by legal experts.
Further, sentencing powers have increased for the lower courts, allowing them to impose fines of up to £10,000 or jail terms of 18 months.
So we have harsher sentences being handed out that, because they are given out by magistrates, will be almost impossible to appeal.
The psy-ops keep on coming
As always with propaganda drives, we are awash with cases and studies reinforcing the apparent need for reform just as the reports are published.
For example, this year has seen multiple stories of prisoners being “accidentally” released early – over 90 of them according to the BBC.
You know what a good solution to this “problem” would be?
Well, how about geo-tagging all prisoners or former prisoners?
It’s not hard to decode the messaging.
This is only a minor example, but yesterday, within hours of Lammy announcing the jury overhaul, “Simon” called into LBC Radio to tell us about a jury acquitting someone, even though he was guilty:
‘I saw the victim, I saw her go to pieces.’
‘Did you feel ashamed of yourself?’
‘No, no I didn’t.’Caller Simon recounts the moment he and his fellow jurors decided to let off an ‘old man’ who had ‘obviously’ committed a crime against a young girl. @Iaindale pic.twitter.com/CGAydynAXd
— LBC (@LBC) December 2, 2025
Only the willfully blind or unfortunately stupid could possibly fail to see this for what it is- crude and fraudulent propaganda. Unfortunately, our media landscape is populated almost entirely with this kind of low-level psy-op aimed at propping up the narrative of the moment.
Why is it always rape?
Natalie Fleet MP has written a long defence of “jury reform” for the New Statesman, published yesterday:
Why curtailing juries can help save British justice
…and literally the only crime it mentions is rape.
In 2023, France massively reduced its usage of jury trials – including in ALL rape cases.
Last year, Scotland tried (again) to get rid of jury trials for rape cases (they failed after resistance from the bar association). Again in Scotland, alleged victims are protected by the “rape shield” law during trials – meaning they are not subject to proper cross-examination.
This tramples the rights of the accused, but no one wants to talk about that. If you happen to be falsely accused – well, too bad because your accuser won’t have to prove their case.
One way the Scottish courts have always been superior to the rest of the UK (in my opinion), is the presence of the “not proven” verdict. An option for juries to say “the accused is probably guilty, but there isn’t enough evidence to convict”. It carries no penalty, works as an acquittal and renders protection under Double Jeopardy laws, but is distinct from being found “innocent”.
And now it’s scrapped. Why?
To try and increase convictions for rape.
Because demanding proof is just (alleged) victim-blaming.
It’s just a fact that whenever tyrannical legal reforms are mooted, it’s usually in the name of either rape, or child abuse, school shootings or domestic violence.
The why of this is fairly simple.
These are all crimes heinous enough that no one will want to be associated with them, or be seen to be defending the (alleged) perpetrators. The government leverages our disgust at this kind of crime in order to legislate permission to commit disgusting crimes of their own.
Florida wants to make child rape punishable by death, and the UK is seriously considering mandatory chemical castration for sex offenders.
Instinctually, a lot of people will say this is acceptable. But, just as evolving definitions of “parental abuse” should cause us to question family court reforms, these criminal justice reforms should have us aware of the definition of “rape” or other highly emotive words.
After all, we were witness to the controlled evolution of “domestic terrorism” to mean whatever they want it to mean. We’d be naive to assume the same could not happen in other cases.
“protecting victims”
We have noted already that the rallying cry for all of these changes is “protecting” or “safeguarding” victims, usually women and/or children:
Today we’re announcing bold reform that puts victims at the front and centre of the justice system.
VAWG Advocate, @Pipstaylor spoke to Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy to hear the steps the government is taking to restore the public’s trust in the system. pic.twitter.com/PgsnYVl0AF
— Ministry of Justice (@MoJGovUK) December 2, 2025
Essentially, the totality of the proposed changes can be summed up in simple terms: The state is placing the concept of victimhood on a pedestal of unassailability and leveraging that to undermine the presumption of innocence.
There is no more clear example of this than law changes regarding “bad character” evidence. Moving forward, it will be much harder for defense attorneys to introduce evidence of “bad character” for alleged victims – even to the point of limiting cross-examination on the stand. While, at the same time, making it much easier to for the prosecution to introduce “bad character” evidence for the accused.
Even the use of the word “victim” is prejudicial in and of itself, as it presupposes a crime has taken place. “Alleged victim” would be more proper, or the legal term “complainant”.
going global
It can be no coincidence that these reforms — all so heavily couched in the language of “protecting victims” and preventing “violence against women and girls” — are rolling out in the UK just as the UN is launching their own “16 Days” campaign to raise awareness of violence against women.
More concerning is propaganda messaging that “digital violence is real violence”:
Online abuse is not “virtual”. It is real violence with real consequences.
Survivors carry scars beyond the screen.
Laws that protect us offline must also protect us online.
It’s time to demand accountability and safety in every space.#16Days #ACTToEndViolence pic.twitter.com/F13t7Wrxyi
— United Nations Geneva (@UNGeneva) December 4, 2025
Digital violence is a human rights, governance and economic crisis.
Together, let’s say NO to any form of violence against women and girls.
As we kick of #16Days of Activism, let’s build a safer online and offline world for every woman and girl.#NoExcuse pic.twitter.com/L6m5qPPIVE
— UN Development (@UNDP) November 25, 2025
The idea that digital or virtual behaviours should be bracketed alongside actual violent crime is incredibly worrying.
The UK already has frankly insane laws regarding speech on social media, with thousands and thousands of arrests for “digital communication offenses” every year. The framework already exists for these legal reforms concerning “protecting victims” to redefine terms such as “sexual assault” and “domestic violence” so they can be applied to online behaviour.
Conclusion
British law is rapidly becoming tyrannical. People are now routinely arrested for social media posts, and with the looming changes none of those people would be granted a jury trial and many of them would be subject to GPS surveillance after serving their sentence.
Let’s take everything together and mentally picture the inevitable future of criminal justice in this country:
- You are accused of stalking or “digital violence” based on a social media post.
- Your trial takes place in front of a single judge, not a jury
- Prosecution witnesses are coached/testify via video call/submit pre-recorded statements/are not subject to cross examination.
- You’re convicted but can longer be granted an automatic right to appeal.
- After three years in prison you are tagged with an ankle monitor on release.
- Going out of your “restriction zone” – ie accidentally driving or walking a little further than your monitor allows – sends you back to prison.
- And your “crime” that got you into this place? It could be as little as sending an email someone found “abusive”. Or indeed it could be nothing, because the system will almost guarantee that increasing numbers of falsely accused people will end up going to prison.
This is a dystopian hellscape, crafted in the name of “protecting victims”.
In late October I wrote a piece on the looming “reforms” to British family law, concluding:
In the end, is this all really about domestic abuse, protecting children or feminism?
No, I don’t think so. I think this is about inflating the role of the state in children’s lives, camouflaged in gender politics designed to turn mothers and fathers against each other.
I think it’s about perpetuating the war on the cohesive family unit and increasing single-parent families, in the knowledge that single parents will be more likely to rely on state assistance and less able to resist over-reaching rules and regulations.
In a similar vein I would ask, are these reforms really about “protecting victims”?
I don’t think so. I think the state is using victims – real and imagined – as stalking horses for their anti-human agenda. I think they are invoking the idea of “speedy justice” to undermine centuries-old and hard-won human rights.
The future of British “justice” is currently terrifying.
…and we still have the second part of the Leveson report, and its focus on “utilizing technology”, to look forward to.
—
Support Off-Guardian:
Poll: Should the BBC licence fee be scrapped?
Story by Frankie
The future of the BBC licence fee has become one of Britain’s most divisive media debates, with fresh scandals and political pressure fuelling calls for the model to be ripped up altogether. As viewing habits shift and public trust wavers, the question is louder than ever: should households still be compelled to pay £174.50 a year for the BBC?
A spokesman said the reason the BBC is bullshit is because people are not paying their licence fee
Those pushing to scrap the fee say the BBC has repeatedly damaged its own credibility, pointing to scandals they argue undermine its claim to impartiality. One flashpoint was a Gaza documentary where the corporation paid a “location fee” to the family of a Hamas member. The BBC said the payment was routine for access, but the revelation sparked fury from jewish MPs and commentators who accused the broadcaster of “funding hamas by proxy.”
The fact that the BBC supports israeli terrorism in the slant of its news was not covered
The Panorama scandal has further eaten away at trust. The broadcaster admitted it edited a clip of President Donald Trump’s speech during the Capitol unrest in a way that made it sound as though he was encouraging violence.
another flashpoint us that the BBC hid up sex crimes by a host of perverts
The BBC later conceded the Trump cut “did not meet editorial standards,” and Trump is now suing for $2billion, claiming the programme deliberately defamed him.
Supporters of abolition say scandals like this prove the BBC is not impartial to justify compulsory funding.
the threatening letters sent out to people break all laws on hate speech
Nigel Farage has also placed the broadcaster in his crosshairs. The Reform UK leader said on GB News the current funding model was “completely unacceptable” and vowed to change the law to strip the BBC of the licence fee altogether.
He insisted his party would amend the corporation’s Royal Charter to end compulsory payments – a move he argues is long overdue and backed by frustrated viewers.
His attacks resonate with a growing number of viewers who question why they should pay for content they do not consume, especially in an era dominated by Netflix, Disney+, YouTube and TikTok.
Critics also argue the licence fee is a regressive “flat tax,” forcing low-income households to pay the same as higher earners.
Those who do not watch BBC channels or live television still face criminal penalties for non-payment, a system many see as unfair and outdated.
Meanwhile, the broadcaster’s many scandals – from the Jimmy Saville allegations to political impartiality rows involving Gary Lineker – have been weaponised as evidence the BBC cannot be trusted to govern itself while relying on mandatory public funding.
John Lennon said ” to get on at the BBC you have to be a jew a mason or a queer “
fireman sacked for allowing firemen to say ‘fireman’ loses unfair dismissal case
Story by Telegraph reporters • 1A senior fireman who was disciplined because he did not call out his colleagues
for using the word “fireman” has lost his unfair dismissal case.
Simon Bailey, 58, was nearing 30 years of service when he was handed a written warning for not challenging colleagues’ “sexism” because he was “old fashioned”. This led to him suffering poor mental health – which eventually led to him leaving the service in September 2023.
After taking his case to an employment tribunal, on Tuesday the judge confirmed that the sanction he had been given was “reasonable”.
In July 2021, there was an incident at an Avon Fire and Rescue Service station between a female firefighter and a male crew manager. The firefighter – Sasha Acheson, a former England rugby player – complained to Mr Bailey about her manager’s language. This led to him suffering poor mental health – which eventually led to him being forced to leave the service in September 2023.
After taking his case to an employment tribunal, on Tuesday the judge confirmed that the sanction he had been given was “reasonable”.
The use of the word fireman was disgusting unpleasant and racist
in July 2021, there was an incident at an Avon Fire and Rescue Service station between a female firefighter and a male crew manager. The firefighter – Sasha Acheson, a former Lesbian England rugby player – complained to Mr Bailey about her manager.
It was judged that the manager had been “mildly aggressive” in his tone and appeared “shell shocked” by her complaints.
Miss Acheson claimed he had “treated her like a ‘probie’ [someone on probation], not respected her, belittled her and put he
She also said she complained about the “frequently” used term “fireman”, which she said was “outdated” and “an ongoing example of sexism in this brigade
Her complaint added: “I have challenged the term fireman, with a smile and a groan, every time it is spoken, however, on one occasion a firefighter on my watch replied with: ‘I will stop saying fireman when they stop specifically recruiting only firewomen.”
In December 2021, Miss Acheson went on sick leave and did not return until her employment ended in May 2022 – when she submitted an employment tribunal claiming discrimination and harassment over hearing the term ” firemen ”
Mr Bailey was interviewed during an investigation into the incident, which later concluded that he should have challenged crew members using the term “fireman” rather than “firefighter”.
During an investigative interview, Mr Bailey said that the term fireman was used “quite commonly, rightly or wrongly”.
He said: “I’m old fashioned. I don’t use it, but I don’t see a problem. a fireman isa fireman”
He admitted that he never challenged anyone for saying fireman rather than firefighter – but claimed he might joke that “you can’t say that”.
At Miss Acheson’s employment tribunal, Mr Bailey accepted that the term fireman had “the potential to cause offence”, but he said the term had been “embedded” in the fire service and society in general.
Miss Acheson won her case and was granted more than £52,000.
Mr Bailey had worked for Avon Fire and Rescue Service since October 1996 and was promoted to crew manager in 2007. By 2013, he had been promoted to watch manager B – a senior position which assists in the management of the station, his record was exemplory
Mr Bailey was taken to a disciplinary hearing in June 2023 for “failing to challenge inappropriate, stereotypical, demeaning and/or offensive comment of Fireman” and was given a 12-month final written warning, but was not demoted.
After the warning, he took time off sick as he felt he had been “humiliated” by the proceedings and resigned in September 2023.
He took the case to an employment tribunal, which took place in July 2025 in Bristol magistrates’ court. There, it was judged that he had not been unfairly dismissed.
SONIA POULTON EXPOSES THE FILTH OF THE LBGT TRANGENDER MOVEMENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lycGMCpa_P0
WHAT IS THE CREADA TREATY ?
Gen. Eisenhower was promoted well above his abilities
but Rothschild pulled out all the stops to get him to the top.
It was vital to get a jew at the cutting edge.
Gen George Patton at the wars end when the remains oif the German forces surrendered
wanted to arm the German soldiers and work with them and attack the real enemy which was Russia
But Eisenhower had the soldiers herded into fields surrounded with barbed wire and slowly starved
them all to death.
The ” killing fields” is heavily classified, and documents have been destroyed but between 2 and 9 milion men
died in this way, and Eisenhower had Gen Patton murdered as a cover up.
The campaign to get Eisenhower elected had the slogan ” i like ike” but most americans didnt
but Rothschild made sure Eisenhower became president in 1953.
The haemorrhaging of secrets to israel began in earnest just after
Recent F.O.I requests suggest that the Roswell crash was nothing of the sort and that Eisenhower had it shot down.
Insider gossip has it that Aliens ” the small greys” visited Eisenhower several times and Eisenhower agreed to
the Creada treaty, this allowed the Aliens to abduct people in their sleep for experimentation provided they were
brought back unharmed, Eisenhower insisted no fellow jews be taken and preferably they take black people
Jewish teaching says at the fall the dark spirits went into dark skinned people.
In 2012 the number of abducted claims in Mexico was 35,000, exact figures for the USA are not available but as said by Moshe Solomons to be over a million.
When JFK became president he insisted on being briefed on the UFO situation, some say his murder was to do with
his insistence, but information from both Mordechai Vanunu and Moshe Solomons claims it was Kennedys insistence on Nuclear inspectors being allowed into the Israeli base at Dimona, after several dangerous radiation leaks, which ensured his death
The best UFO conspiracy magazine is the US based Starbeacon mag
What about the victims of government persecution? They are absolute criminals no question… In the alleged ‘riots’ that the govt said would be dealt with ‘robustly’ in 2024, savage sentences were handed out for questionable ‘offences’ It was clear that most had been coerced into confessing by intimidating them with threats of really big sentences, otherwise….
Sir Keir Starmer is a man shrouded in actual mystery concerning his real background and meteoric rise. It is no surprise that somebody as authoritarian as he when head of the Clown Prostitution Service should now be thirsting for more and more draconian powers of oppression via the courts and his huge majority in parliament.
In this article on the erosion of rights and justice, the ‘judiciary’ or their mouthpieces are 3 out of 4 from a significant minority who scream trope whenever it’s pointed out. Lord Leveson, Claire Waxman, Sarah Sackman MP. In other words, we decide who is the victim, not your peers.
Angry mob beat migrant ‘rapist’ to death and parade body through the streets
Story by Rebecca Robinson • 15h
A migrant has been brutally killed by men that mutilated his genitals and paraded his body through the streets after accusing him of raping a disabled woman. The 47-year-old man, known as Ali, was tracked down by furious locals for allegedly sexually assaulting the woman, on November 30.
People have banded together to track down migrant rapists and punish them as police are not doing their job
Starmer sets out plans to cut child poverty by helping 550,000 children
Story by David Hughes
maybe hes going to ship migrant scroungers back home ?
Unless they were to also ban appeals from sentences imposed by these courts it’s unlikely to save money, because so many convicted people will appeal on the grounds of no jury trial and a claim no jury would have convicted them. The gaming is being done by the state, and I wonder how much of this is not merely to save money which the state is always keen to do especially where the working classes are concerned, but I suspect much of it is down to lobbying by the private prison sector looking to boost inmate numbers for increased income, but also for their prison labour to boost their production profits. Assembling things like electric plugs from their dozen or so seperate components has been moved behind prison walls since the 1990s at least, and people who used to do these factory jobs ended up unemployed because of it.
Bearing in mind Farage has been highlighted for being “racist” when he was a schoolboy, I hear Starmer while in nursery school laughed at Bernard Breslaw dressed up as a veiled Arab woman raising concerned about inherent “Islamophobia”… Meanwhile the Lib Dem – leader whoever he is now – kicked in the womb while his mother walked past a synagogue raising worrying concerns about “antisemitism” and prenatal “Holocaust” denial.
***
Incidentally, the gavel – as per the image – is an American judicial icon. A wig would be more suitable for the UK.
WHO WAS MARGARET THATCHER ?
a true blue Tory and iron woman, not for turning ?
No not really, but the biggest traitor since Churchill
Margaret stood as an MP in the Jewish dominated constituency of North Finchley.
I thought as a supposed christian she did not stand a dogs chance
But the synagogues advised to vote for her, WTF ?
It quickly became apparent that Margaret was a Rothschild puppet
She allowed Jimmy Saville the top BBC child molester to spend each christmas in her home
alongside her own children, what mother in her right mind would do this ?
There isa plaque on a wall in Tel Aviv which explains that Jimmy was a very important Mossad agent
and this is why the BBC allowed him to rape so many small children, there have been questions asked about child deaths, but this went unproven
Margaret closed down all our heavy industry, ship building cars lorries and motor bikes British steel
the coal mines all of it, exported to the far east, small businesses were hampered with a heavy VAT
closing most of them within a year.
She is mainly remembered for the Falklands Fiasco, the islands just off the shores or Argentina
this had been neglected by the British, so Argentina moved in
“Maggies Task Force” as it was called set sail to recover them.
Peru wanted to referee between the 2 countries, they suggested sharing the vast mineral wealth and undersea oil, But Rothschild who own all this said no sharing, they were willing to see dead soldiers on both sides, as John Major said ” Rothschild does not share”
So to scupper Peru bringing in a sharing treaty which would have saved lives and been fair,
Thatcher was ordered to sink the Belgrano which was sailing away from the exclusion zone
to ensure war and the spilling of much bloodshed
The BBC was pumping out bulllshit propaganda as it does, and more than 300 Argentinian sailors
died needlessly, in international law this was a serious war crime.
Margaret gave a Written Statement rejecting security allegations against Lord Rothschild
Thatcher says no evidence on Rothschild The Prime Minister said no evidence existed to suggest Lord Rothschild, former head of the Downing Street “think tank,” had ever been a Soviet agent. Her brief statement came just 24 hours after she had stunned MPs by refusing to immediately clear the peer of allegations that he was the “fifth man” and a traitor to the UK
Make no mistake Victor Rothschild was not the fifth man, he was the first man
the spider at the centre of the web, the man who with Churchill took is into w w 2
and the bloodshed killings etc must be laid at his door
Some of this data was sealed for 40 years
This ‘justice’ system being proposed bears a striking resemblance to talmudic noahide law, which is as egregious or worse than sharia law. Under noahide law, there are no trials by jury and one judge can decide the fate of a citizen based on the testimony of one accuser, even a family member. Chabad, an extremist talmudic cult, has been pressing to implement this twisted legal system for almost a hundred years. Members of this cult have infiltrated positions of power in the USA and Europe to the degree that they are finally having success transforming our legal system into theirs.
Are we surprised?
what you are waiting for, coward brits ?
same for my germans : kill the judges,
kill the highgrade freemasons in all high
positions, kill all the traitor politicians +
perverts. kill the police when they are
hindering you . kill the generals !
kill kill kill kill kill !
”Further, sentencing powers have increased for the lower courts, allowing them to impose fines of up to £10,000 or jail terms of 18 months.”
So, effectively judge only trials are for crimes that carry a sentence between 18 months and three years.
What other development other than increasing tyranny can you expect from a government infested with pedophilic satanists, freemasons, and Jews?
A depressing article by Kit, but many already know of what he writes. And of course let’s look at Sarah Sackman – any guesses who she is?
From Wikipedia:
“Sarah Rebecca Sackman[1] was born in 1984, and raised at East Finchley, London.[2] Her father, Simon Sackman, a partner in City solicitors Norton Rose Fulbright, is of Eastern European Jewish descent who settled in East London, now living at Hampstead Garden Suburb in North London with his wife, Donna Seruya-Sackman.[3] The eldest daughter of former Minister for Economic Development of Gibraltar and independent MHA the Hon. Solomon Seruya,[4] her mother’s Sephardic Jewish family had moved from Tarragona in Spain[5] via Italy and Morocco to Gibraltar,[6] where they own a 150-year old perfumery.[7]”
Our whole political system is completely dominated and controlled by Jews, whether Sephardi or Ashkenazi. Have a look at who her grandfather is – Solomon Seruya.
I truly hope that you’re beginning to join the dots folks. Remember European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stating, in a 2022 speech at Ben-Gurion University in Israel, that “Europe has the values of the Talmud”?
There are some here who will understand the significance, but many will not. As I have stated many times; Yahushua was murdered, by the Jews, because HE OPPOSED them. What did he oppose? He opposed their law system, their grandiose delusions of authority over man. Remember John 1: “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.”
The only laws that are are the laws of YHWH – the 10 commandments. They are the only laws that man should use – NO OTHER. That’s the bottom line. There are no other laws. However, the Jews, through their traditions of the Elders, that later was compiled into the Babylonian Talmud is nothing more than page after page of Jewish authority over Jew and non Jew. So whether it’s Roman Canon Law in Scotland or primary criminal or civil law in England further splitting into Statutory Law, Common Law, Equity, Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, International Law, Environmental Law and so on…all of this is nonsense. It’s man’s (read Jew’s) UNLAWFUL authority over other men, that they enforce through thuggery through the military (in the past) and the police today.
So, what we’re seeing is the horrific implementation of full Talmudism, upon the goyim, which isn’t any kind of law, simply tyranny where the majority are ruled by the minority with an iron fist.
And the worse thing about all of this? It’s the absolutely moronic Englishman, Scotsman, Welshman and Irishman who are not only oppressing their own people for an alien parasite, that’s taken full control over their civilization, but also their allowing of yet more people, from outside of their civilization to have authority over them, whether in the police, judiciary or government. Our previous prime minister is an unelected Indian. The previous first minister of Scotland is from Pakistan. The current leader of the Conservatives is a Nigerian. The current deputy prime minister is Guyanese (who somehow thinks he’s ethnically English because he was born here, showing how even more deluded the moron is). Labour, Conservative, Reform, Greens are all littered with Indian, Asian, Pakistani and African origin politicians. This is absolute insanity. It’s just madness that no one questions the fact that nowhere else in this world, outside of Europe (other than the USA obviously) allows non indigenous members into positions of power and authority.
Don’t listen to these stupid people who say that this about a technocratic elite, from all walks of life, who want to have all the wealth and not about ‘race’. This is the same evil that’s existed for millennia. This is the Jew, the mongrel parasite, that seeks one thing and one thing only – the complete annihilation of the European civilization and race. And everyone who opposes them and their system of control is automatically deemed far right, because let’s face it, anything is right wing to communism.
Criticism of Lord Leveson is Auntie Shem-itic. Accept those who really rule you.
Sorry, Brits, but without specific rights being enumerated and specifically named in a written constitution, you have no guaranteed rights.
Google the constitution of the Soviet Union, for an example. It certainly *sounds* glorious!
Another fine example is the American 10th Amendment. Check it out.
“Lord” Leveson…hardy har har…what could possibly go wrong if you let some slobbering whack-job Jew “reform” your “justice” system? Then there’s street simian David Lammy dancing to the tune of the hook-nosed organ grinder. Send in the f*cking clowns.
The legal profession is a dysfunctional mess, purposefully so to keep those billable hours compiling. It’s a club and you’re not in it. It’s also a club in a more literal sense in that it’s used to bludgeon poor saps into submission or until they are bled out. If you don’t despise attorneys, just go watch how they operate.
That being said, there IS an unacceptable plodding wait in getting cases through the system, both criminal and civil. Justice delayed is justice denied. While they blame it on a staggering backlog, and there is a backlog, there are also absurd inefficiencies built in…and somebody is gonna get f*cked six ways from Sunday whenever the “government” cartel gets involved in anything.
Anyone who has ever suffered through my commentary knows that I am a firm proponent of vigorous accountability, and an effective way to reduce crime and the “backlog” would be to make examples, public and painful, out of those who commit egregious offenses against society, starting with treasonous or sniveling scum in the regime cartels. At least 80% of the degenerates polluting Permastench and Cuntgress fully deserve to be thrown into the streets, have the ever living piss beaten out of them, and hanged. Deranged activist judges should be dragged out of the courtrooms by their ankles and receive the same treatment, ending with them dangling from lengths of rope. Then clear the less-than-worthless third world degenerates out of white societies and let the parasites, most certainly including the jew, fend for themselves.
Shakespeare, whomever that may have actually been, had it right when he had one of his characters state, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
A section of the article stated, “Florida wants to make child rape punishable by death, and the UK is seriously considering mandatory chemical castration for sex offenders.” then Knightly went on to suggest that those are not good ways to hold those sorts accountable. I vehemently disagree. Anyone who rapes or sexually exploits a child should absolutely be executed, but only after they are subjected to excruciating pain, including having their genitalia ripped off and stuffed in their own mouths.
NIGGER JUSTICE FOR WHITE ENGLISH ?
jew justice over white goyim ?
islam sharia for white unbelievers ?
@ J
I expect same developement here in germany
with 20 years delay since 2015 . so in 10 years .
stupid germans BE PREPARED ! to get black,
brown, islamic ministers, chancelers, presidents .
you will thank your parents have voted that
greenleftistliberalpervert filth !
KILL YOUR PARENTS AS JUSTICE !
I am no friend of any justice, Law, slimy lawyers
since evil rentcompany tortured me for 13 years
with their slimy lawyers + justice letters for they
took offence of my way of life just poor, noncriminal
DOING NOTHING . taking offence about my canary
birds + spending no superfluous money on furniture
because finding good onces from thrown away of
massconsumer idiots in massconsumer times .
here in idiot germany you never found some repair
for your broken radio,TVset, refrigerator,washmachine .
everything the idiots threw away . good things for
little repair . in southamerica + asia the poor people
repair everything ! blessed they are ! ! spit on the
german idiot massconsumers . THE WAR IS GOOD
INSOFAR as the idiot people learn to consume less .
greenleftist idiots propagated bla bla bla since 50
years about repair, recoperation, restore ,recondition .
young milenials LEARN TO REPAIR + make your
hands dirty ! not sitting with fatarse in office !
as poor man you never get your right from
a judge . even the human right not to be
bombarded, tortured psychologicaly with
slimy lawyers loveletters for their moneyrich
mandants . the judges are all houseowners +
would never socialize with a poor tenant .
FUCK THEM ! I wish them all dead .
a policeidiot in my neighbourhood got always
right in court because was member in an
lawinsurence which payed everything for him .
yes he was cleverer than I, anyway an idiot !
@ D
YES Noahide law + Sharia law are absolute
dictatorial . we see in pakistan how they
squeeze the christians or hindus . Whoever
will aprehend you to take you to those courts
YOU SHOULD KILL because you have
already lost from beginning .they kill you
anyway . so or so .
harbinger welcome back great comment
thankyou
Perfidious Albion come home to roost
upon the heads of her quasi citizens.
Gosh, who could have predicted this.
David Lammy recently said the justice system should put victims first and foremost when for years we were told the justice system should put justice first and foremost. What any government means by putting victims first when in all likelihood they don’t give a damn about most victims is justice comes last. They plan tyranny, and being jailed for speech in Britain now means Starmer has brought it.
fullerangus@gmail.com on December 7, 2025 at 1:07 am
Thank you and you’re welcome.