Justice Can’t Just Be Blind – She Must Be A Deaf Black Lesbian Now, Too…

A more diverse judiciary is needed in England and Wales, the House of Lords Constitution Committee has said.

Peers said targets may be needed to recruit more ethnic minority and female judges if the judiciary did not better reflect society within five years, but said such a move was not needed yet.


The report by peers suggested greater diversity also meant a need to boost the numbers of gay and disabled judges.


They said judges had to understand the “array of concerns and experiences” of those who appeared before them.

NO! Judges have to understand THE LAW.

Sod ‘understanding the concerns and experiences’ of people, that’s got nothing to do with the law! Or rather, it never mattered before. But thanks to the progressives, it does now.

And hello, positive discrimination!

It said that where two candidates were of equal merit, the need for diversity should tip the balance.

Great! I wonder when we’ll see the first case of deliberate mutilation in order to get on the bench, rather than keep invalidity benefits?

Committee chairwoman Baroness Jay said it was “vital that the public have confidence in our judiciary”.

And you think this’ll help..?

When they can see someone who looks a bit like them under the robes, are they going to feel better about blood-crazed savages freed to stalk the streets, or someone who was unpleasant about a footballer getting jail time while someone who mowed down a woman on a pedestrian crossing goes free?

11 comments for “Justice Can’t Just Be Blind – She Must Be A Deaf Black Lesbian Now, Too…

  1. ivan
    March 29, 2012 at 9:59 am

    As you say, they must understand THE LAW. Their trying to understand anything else is the problem – you know, the one where, unless you are tried for the same thing twice you get off with a tap on the wrist and that’s it.

    Until they start APPLYING the LAW they will never have the confidence of the vast majority of the white British population.

    • March 30, 2012 at 5:51 am

      With the news of Galloway’s taking of Bradford West, that just got even further away…

  2. Furor Teutonicus
    March 29, 2012 at 10:00 am

    Unless they start assigning judges like a fire chief decides which appliance is best for which fire, then what purpose does it serve?

    Someone gets fifteen to life for double parking “cus it only cus`I`s black mooslim innit.” and the only judge with space in his calander was the one for white, queer, (Leather fetish)Jews?

    (Note white, queer (Lace and boiler suits fetish) Jews have their OWN judge. The two should not be confussed.)

    Just HOW many judges, for HOW many “niches” do they envisage to employ?

  3. March 29, 2012 at 10:43 am

    The report by peers suggested greater diversity also meant a need to boost the numbers of gay and disabled judges.


  4. Able
    March 29, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    “better reflect society”

    Oh yes please! So we’ll have an absolute majority of white, working class, christian, heterosexual judges shall we.

    Or is their intent to have a greater number of ethnic, lesbian and gay and disabled judges than their actual percentage in society?

    I guess that was a rhetorical question as we already have more ethnic and minority judges and magistrates (not to forget councillors, Mps, civil servants, public sector managers etc. etc) than that don’t we.

    I wish, just for once they’d employ someone who was best for the job instead of ticking all the right PC boxes.

  5. Tattyfalarr
    March 29, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    Think of the plus side here. Having been employed by, treated medically by and arrested, judged and sentenced by “their own kind” any and all accusation of Prejudice will be dismissed in the first instance.

    Mass unemployment in the Diversity Sector will ensue.

    The Human Rights Act can be abolished.

    The Equality Commission can be disbanded.

    Common Purpose will implode.

    No one will have anything to complain about ever again.

    This (and more) will all come to pass, right ?

  6. sams
    March 29, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    And what about getting some INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY ?


  7. john malpas
    March 30, 2012 at 12:03 am

    With rarity as a special need will there be a space for a white, sadistic , racist, literate, scar faced misogynist .
    Thought I’d ask. ❓

  8. March 30, 2012 at 2:44 am

    Seems y’all in Old Blighty are taking a page from across the Pond – I mean, we now have a “wise Latina” ❓ and an undetermined-sexual-preferences ‘woman’ {who, BTW, was SUPPOSED to recuse herself from the ØbamaCare hearings/deliberations} …………………. ISN’T “diversity” FUN?? 🙄 😥

    Semper Fi’

    • March 30, 2012 at 5:53 am

      Oh, we always get what America has a few weeks/months later – weather, TV shows, barmy ideas… 🙄

  9. elaine
    March 30, 2012 at 10:07 am

    Whenever has it been seen as a requirement of the job that Judges have to be a reflection of society? Justices of the Peace were supposed to deal with local issues as they were lay, local people. Trained Judges in other courts are expected to deal with some very complex issues, and not be swayed by emotion, deciding on the facts of the case before them. Is there an issue of the competence of Judges? If not, then why are they meddling? They already opened up the Judiciary a few years ago to make it fairer as far as I understand..

Comments are closed.