GeekLawyer’s Blog

The latest row over Home Office policy has put another question over Stalinist bully boy John Reid’s future and the Government’s whole push to eradicate the judiciary.

He insists that when he wrote to known serious offenders and asked them not to commit serious crimes, like bank robbery or fiddling with little girls, he was merely reiterating long standing government policy to reduce the workload of the overburdened judiciary. He emphatically denied attempting to reduce crime:

“that isn’t and has never been our job. We simply don’t care and it’s down to the individual discretion of the criminal. We merely pointed out to them, as we have done periodically for many years now, that the judiciary are a pointless anachronism who serve no purpose, and that society would be safer and better off if they were replaced by democratically accountable Home Office sentencing officials.

I simply told them, in line with a policy that has existed under a number of previous governments, that by continuing to provide work for these so called ‘Judges’ they were spoiling my chances of becoming Prime Minister one day.”

“In my Stirling University days, of course, I’d simply have wrapped the Widow Maker round my fist and paid them a late night visit in the halls of residence.”

Quite what this latest spat between the Home Office and serious criminals means for the judiciary is unclear. The Home Office claims to be building record numbers of Courts to keep the judiciary busy but Conservative shadow Home Secretary David Davis said that;

“the chronic refusal of the government to address issues such as judges skiving off to play golf on a Friday afternoon has exacerbated the situation. There are legions of small time high street solicitors dying to become district judges in their local county courts & who’d love to deal with small claims; just so they can boast at the Rotarians about being a judge. But will the government make such meretricious appointments? Will it fuck. No wonder the systems is collapsing”