New Justice System that fast-tracks Guilty Verdict makes everything lovely

by Steve Cook

The government today announced forthcoming sweeping changes to the British Justice System.

The changes are designed to eliminate slows and occasioned by the current need for unnecessary inconveniences such as so-called “proof” or “evidence” and will enable HMG to fast-track a guilty verdict without anyone having to think too much, which as you know can be quite tiring.



A government spokesperson from the Ministry of Fibs explained: “When you talk about evidence or proof, you are asking Her Majesty’s Government to resort to facts. Facts as you know can be used to prove anything, especially the truth, and there is no room, for that kind of extremism in the modern justice system – or indeed in anything we have anything to do with.”

The changes were inspired by successful innovations piloted in the field of international relations, particularly two recent scenarios in which Russia, then Syria were found guilty without anyone having to do any thinking or, indeed make much effort at all – except the effort to make things up. Making things up is well known to be quite therapeutic and can mollify the world’s raving psychopaths and other politicians.

In this system - which HMG is convinced will help its much-vaunted initiative, the so-called "War on Peace" - justice proceeds as follows:

Someone is chosen to be guilty of an undesirable event.

The undesirable event occurs.

The selected person, persons – or country – is declared guilty.

The inherent genius of this system becomes immediately apparent as it is easy to see how much time and effort has been saved.

Proof that the guilty person might possibly have done something - unless somebody else in fact did it - is presented, mixed with some helpful speculation that they could have done it if they had been guilty of it, which they fairly probably were.

Experts are bought in to prove that (a) something occurred – or probably occurred unless it turns out it hadn’t occurred at all. If nothing occurred experts are similarly brought in to convince everybody something occurred even when it didn’t and (b) there is some confusion/speculation as to what exactly occurred,

Facts are avoided or, indeed unavailable unless made up but under the new, streamlined system, they are not needed so nobody need bother looking for them.

Government officials are brought in to rant hysterically, mouth platitudes, moralise and display glaring hypocrisy without any sense of embarrassment.

After all the speculation, hearsay, photos of something-or-other that might be nothing and don’t prove anything are carefully mixed into a bewildering mishmash. A guilty verdict is declared with complete conviction by parties that wanted a guilty verdict in the first place.

By a remarkable coincidence the person found to be guilty is the very same person it was decided would be guilty before the event even took place! And yet again we see the bizarre, almost supernatural phenomenon is which only governments our governments don’t like or which are sitting on large oil fields (or both) are guilty of any wrongdoing. Luckily they are almost always take very little trouble to hide it or are quite keen to be found out and thus bombed or otherwise inconvenienced.

The guilty verdict is advertised in the media, which, although good at therapeutically making things up, due to a debilitating cocaine addiction leading to a mental age of 12, becomes hysterical and unconvincing.

The guilty verdict is nevertheless returned and millions of people who, on account of having only been born yesterday, believe everything they are told by their politicians and the media, despite these two groups being known for being the biggest liars in the history of . . . um, the universe.

The aforementioned politicians and press, being right out of any sensible ideas, resort to the only idea they have left: “bomb somebody.”

The “bomb somebody” option has been used as the sole stock in trade of international relations by the US, UK, France and other criminal organisations since the invention of gunpowder.

The US, UK and France then proceed to bomb somebody, punishing the government they had decided from the outset were guilty of doing something by killing loads of other people who had little or nothing to do with the alleged yet unproven thing that was done in the first place.

This exercise of JUSTICE makes the world safe for disadvantaged bankers and oligarchs the world over as well as raising funds for “Help a Needy Arms Dealer”, “The Mass Murderers Benevolent Fund” and other worthy causes.

Confused? I’m not surprised. It’s what you get for associating with politicians, reporters and other mentally ill people.

Anyway, this translates into mainstream jurisprudence as follows.

The intelligence services henceforth are empowered to decide who is guilty of (say) robbing the Post Office in the High Street. This is so that everybody can feel safe to sleep in their beds. For the purposes of illustration, we’ll call the chosen guilty party ,“Joe”.

The post office is then robbed by persons unknown/isn’t robbed at all but someone says it was/was robbed by persons in the employ of the intelligence agencies as a robbery was needed for the purposes of establishing an orderly town.

Joe is publicly accused of having robbed the post office.

A trial is held to which Joe is not invited as secret intelligence reports not viewable by the public, suggest he cannot be trusted to tell the truth, unlike his accusers who are all completely worthy of trust and would NEVER lie to us except in an emergency (such as the urgent need to hide the truth).

At the trial, damning and convincing conjecture is presented that strongly suggests Joe might have done it. Experts witnesses are called to provide evidence that Joe is probably the sort of person who might have robbed a post office, therefore most certainly probably did – or might have done. It is proven beyond reasonable thought that Joe looks like someone who could rob a post office and so must be locked up to prevent him ever doing it if he hasn’t actually done already (which he probably has).

While 147 other people have a more convincing motives for robbing the post office than Joe, this evidence is dismissed on the grounds that none of it points the finger at Joe.

Joe is found guilty after five minutes of a trial held at the offices of the local tabloid held under the stern and watchful eye of the Ministry of Threats.

The evidence is pretty damning that he could have done it, almost definitely might have done it and just looks guilty in a photograph that catches him squinting and is therefore guilty.

The judge sentences Joe to be beaten up as punishment, his house burned down and his friends and neighbours rounded up and put into concentration camps run by the UN.

A day later the state punishes Joe severely and issues a warning to anyone else who might be thinking of rubbing it up the wrong way by bombing the street in which Joe lives, killing or rounding up his family and neighbours etc etc. . . .

I think that’s enough justice for one day

No comments: