Judges or political komissars?

Monday blog

The London restaurant arson attack

You might remember that there was an arson attack on an Indian restaurant in London about a week ago. Two people have been arrested. We don’t know who they are, nor do we know the reason for the attack. But I noticed that next door to the attacked restaurant was the “Shalom Hot Bagels” shop. That made me wonder if the arsonists hit their intended target – the Indian restaurant – or whether they were idiots and mistakenly attacked the Indian restaurant rather than their real target – the “Shalom Hot Bagels” shop.

Britain’s political komissars

I’m not a lawyer so I’m confused at the judgement allowing illegal migrants to remain in the Bell Hotel in Epping.

In accepting the Government’s appeal, the three ‘judges’ blethered on about the consequences of forcing the illegal migrants to be moved. For example, the three appeal judges ruled that forcing the illegal migrants out of the hotel could:

• encourage many other councils to take action to empty their migrant hotels
• cause massive disruption to the Government’s immigration policy
• increase the risk of civil disorder

But I had understood that it’s not for courts to read the mood of the public, nor is it for courts to consider the consequences of their decisions. Courts must apply the law as written and if that causes political problems then it is up to Parliament to change the law.

For esample: in rejecting the initial judge’s decision to have the illegal migrants moved out of the hotel, Lord Justice Bean said: “The judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system”. But there is no requirement stipulated in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that a court must take into consideration wider political issues in applying the law. If the Government wishes such consideration to be included in planning decisions, then it is up to the Government, not the courts, to change the law.

But we should perhaps not be surprised that the three appeal court ‘judges’ ruled in favour of the Government and against the initial decision to move the migrants. Some degree of ‘personal animus’ against the original judge could seem inevitable when you have an ex-chair of the Fabian Society, leading member of ‘Lawyers for Labour’, or some such, and co-creator of Matrix Chambers, pronouncing on the judgement of another judge who stood as a Tory candidate.

The Appeal court seems to be a matter of Labour members and friends helping out their mates in government. The only good thing is this debacle has kept the issues of illegal immigration, excess crime by illegals and ECHR firmly in the public eye and they are streaming to Reform as a result. Yet another own goal from the most incompetent and most hated government in British history

By giving an interpretation to the Country Planning Act 1990 which isn’t included in the Act, the three appeal court ‘judges’ have proved what we all suspected – our courts are no longer interested in justce, and our ‘judges’ are just political komissars carrying out the wishes of their political masters.

Just another example, not that one was needed, of Two-Tier Keir’s two-tier justice system.