Where we Stand on Law and Justice

Policy 2 
We are determined  that England and Wales should continue to use their Common Law System, with judicial precedent and its adversarial form of trial. Scotland and Northern Ireland would remain free to continue to use their own systems that are guaranteed by law.
 
The strength of our criminal justice system lies in regulated police procedure, an independent prosecution service and trial by jury.
The civil actions  for the recovery of debts by individuals and small and medium sized business must be made more efficient. Small businesses must be protected from vexatious claims.
 
Our criminal law must provide strong deterrent and preventative sentences for repeat offenders and those convicted of the worst crimes. Whilst some first time offenders react favourably to rehabilitative sentences, there are others who require strong specific deterrent sentences to dissuade them from committing further offences. Furthermore, it is necessary to have dissuasive general deterrent sentences for potential offenders. A significant minority of offenders are irredeemable recidivists from whom society needs protection for a long, indefinite period.
 
The question of whether or not a sentence of capital punishment should be available to the courts for people convicted on conclusive evidence of the worst categories of murder should be decided by a referendum.
 
-Reproduced from our Policy leaflet
 
 

17 thoughts on “Where we Stand on Law and Justice

  1. Both the Tories (the so-called ‘party of law and order’) and UKIP (to a lesser extent) are soft on crime. We should be Britain’s premier and REAL party of ‘law and order’. I especially like the promise to have an national referendum on the subject of capital punishment. I know many nationalists support hanging but others do not and I think taking that into account and also that the penalty was abolished by politicians running ahead of public opinion it is an appropriate subject for a referendum after having a full and frank national discussion on the matter.. We should also as Marine Le Pen’s Front National party does in France not be afraid to have a policy of building more prison capacity. As Michael Howard once said in a Tory conference speech, “prison works” for some of the worst criminals as whilst they are in prison they can’t harm people on the outside.

    1. This will necessitate getting out of the EU as the EU undemocratically bans any member state from restoring the death penalty.

  2. I have long regarded the Lib-Lab-Con conspiracy to flood Britain with unassimilable immigrants a criminal act. In my opinion the leading functionaries of these organizations, past and present, should be put on trial for treason and their private and their parties, assets sequestrated to help finance the restoration of this country to what it once was. No surprise then that I favour the return of the death penalty for treason.

    1. High Treason and piracy with violence were the last two offences for which somebody could be hanged in Britain even after the abolition of the penalty for murder in 1965. These capital crimes remained on the statute book untill 1998 when Bliar's government abolished them in the Crime and Disorder Act of that year. He obviously didn't want a future government to have any possiblity of using that remaining legislation to hang him for his criminal immigration policies and his government's DELIBERATE (and with MALICE) 'rubbing the Right's noses in diversity'.

  3. The trouble is common law is ignored except murder
    99% of our laws are statute laws written by lawyers with gaping holes they then exploit. Freedom of speech and association are common law. But the new hate speech ( anything our governance doesn’t like ) make freedoms once held dear a crime. But usually only if spoken by an indigenous white person. Hoteliers prosecuted for refusing sodomites use of their facilities. Even the chance of prosecution of an individual of racist words . if the complainant isn’t the victim of the verbiage and not bothered. These are not common law .but constructs of the Grand Marxist plan

    1. We need to have a British Bil of Rights guaranteeing freedom of speech (except for speech intended to stir-up violence against the person) and freedom from discrimination in the provision of goods and services from businessness. Most people in Britain would be ok with that, I think.

      1. ( Party Member ) I am sure we would scrap all discrimination laws. Even Ukip want to do this. You only need to remember those poor Christian bed and breakfast owners who were targetted by Gay Rights Activists, then prosecuted for not wanting Sodomites in their home. The laws were used to destroy decent people who had standards. All part of the Marxist plan.

        1. I have no sympathy for people who set themselves up in business (presumably knowing they will therefore have many kinds of people using their business) and then complain afterwards that that is indeed the case. They were rightfully prosecuted and shouldn't have been surprised the law took its course. UKIP are silly if this is their policy. This will prevent them gaining many votes which would otherwise be theirs. Christians have every right to their viewpoints but they can't complain if they the law doesn't allow them to impose their viewpoints and restrict the rights of others who don't share it on what is now a mostly secular society (with the exception of a new religion imported by mass immigration)

          1. Christan fundamentalism is just as bad as Islamism. Britain is a mostly secular society nowdays (certainly with regard to the law of the land) and it should stay that way.

          2. ( Party Member ) Steven, your views are totally at odds with British Democratic Party Policy. We are the Party of ' Family Values ' and are on record as being such. Also we do not ' pander to minorities '.

        2. I think you, John, don't understand credible politics and it is YOU  and not I that 'panders to minorities' – a minority in this country who have no conception of basic civil and human rights.

          1. Most people in Britain are now secular and want the LAWS of the STATE to be secular as many people in Britain today are not religious. Relgion should be a private matter for the individual to believe in or not. Certainly, religion shouldn't be used as a cloack to undermine or destroy the rights of those who are not religious. I have respect for people of faith provided they also respect the rights of others who don't share it. Freedom FROM religion is just as important as freedom FOR religion. Family values are perfectly compatible with this.

          2. Stephen, your statement, “most people in Britain are now secular and want the laws of the state to be secular as many people in Britain today are not religious” is incorrect.   

            If being a secular state means keeping religion out of public life and out of education then quite clearly Britain is not a secular state.  

            On the other hand, in the 2011 census, 60% of the population declared themselves Christian with another 7% declaring themselves of ‘other denominations’ and only 29,267 people specifically described themselves as atheist.  

            Clearly, Britain is predominantly a Christian country and governments should NOT pass laws which are at variance with the Christian values and especially the teachings of the Christian majority.  

            The British Democrats are essentially a party with Christian values and have a policy of introducing Christian education into all state schools which includes an option for parents to opt out if they wish.

          3. Perhaps, I haven't expressed myself well here? What I meant is that the state shouldn't treat its citizens less favourably or discriminate against them just because there are 'Christians'  in society or other faiths who have the same opinions who would wish the state to do this.  Basically, religion should not be used as an excuse to discriminate against people.

             

            I certainly agree with the option for parents to 'opt-out' of religious education.

          4. 60% of the population is not Christain the majority only listed that as they are unware of what the term Atheist means. In real and practical term the majority of the UK are either Atheist or Agnostic. If people wish to be religious they should keep it to themselves and not force it onto others whether that be Christainity, Judism or Islam or and other religious view for that matter.

             

             

          5. Stephen, no one has said the State is treating its citizens less favourably because the Christians in society have asked for that!! Nor has anyone advocated using religion as an excuse to discriminate against people. These accusations are coming from you and I am therefore at a loss as to what you are attempting to express.
            What has been said is that the STATE should NOT legislate to compel Christians (a majority in our society) to accept and encompass minority views which are fundamentally opposed to their religious beliefs. You might extrapolate this to say the STATE, and thus the minorities, are discriminating against the Christian population.
            This, I believe, is what John Shaw was alluding to when he said “We are the Party of ‘ Family Values ‘ and are on record as being such. Also we do not ‘ pander to minorities”
            I note you agree with optional ‘opt-out’ of religious education in schools for parents.

          6. Paul, I was not aware that    "60% of the population is not Christain the majority only listed that as they are unware of what the term Atheist means."  I only used the facts on and numbers published in the 2011 census which say that 60% of the population are Christain.  My apologies.

Leave a Reply