Judicial corruption and inconsistent sentencing are under scrutiny in the UK.
It is becoming apparent that the British legal system is serving its own interests and those of the state rather than delivering justice for the public, as the biblical standard demands.
In the Bible, justice is about putting things right, but recent cases suggest that British courts are more focused on defending their own patch rather than protecting the rights and safety of citizens.
Turning a blind a eye
A glaring example of of the two-tier system disparity is seen in the way certain crimes, such as burglary and shoplifting, are handled. Despite the emotional and financial toll these offences take on victims, the government make reassuring noises but the police stand accused of turning a blind eye to them.
Policies have emerged suggesting that unless the value of what’s stolen is deemed significant, pursuing these cases is considered a waste of police time. The police are also reluctant to chase after perpetrators who could be dangerous.
This approach has left many feeling vulnerable. Criminals face minimal consequences, and communities are left without the assurance that justice will be served.
The leniency in these cases stands in contrast to harsher sentences handed down for less direct threats to public safety.
Sentences for ‘rioters’
Following the murders of three little girls in Southport on 29th July 2024, demonstrations took place across England in the following month. It would appear that stories circulated on social media claiming the suspect was an illegal migrant. He wasn’t. He was of Rwandan descent and was born in Cardiff.
Some of the protests turned violent, with items thrown at the police. However, during one incident in Whitehall, it appears that angry protestors merely confronted the police with shoving and verbal abuse.
The case of one of them, David Spring, 61, of Sutton in South London, stands out. Mr Spring’s role in the disorder was shown on police body worn camera footage in court. He was seen making threatening and hostile gestures towards police, calling officers “c****” and joining in chants of “you’re not English anymore” and “who the f*** is Allah”.
The local paper reported that Judge Kelleher said a custodial sentence was appropriate ‘in order to deter others from engaging in similar behaviour’. David Spring was advised by barrister Piers Kiss-Wilson to plead guilty to violent disorder. He was sentenced to 18 months.
There was no report that we have seen associating Mr Spring with actual violence. In essence, he received 18 months for calling policemen part of the female anatomy, questioning their patriotism and asking, in robust language, what jurisdiction has the god of the Muslims over this United Kingdom.
State protecting its dignity
Burglaries, shoplifting, knife crime, affect ordinary people. What the August protestors did was challenge the immigration policy of the State. So it appears we now have a legal system more interested in maintaining its own standing with expedited procedural efficiency than in administering justice for the people.
This inconsistency raises questions about the integrity of the judicial system and whether it is meeting its fundamental biblical role: to right wrongs and protect the public. Without a commitment to equitable justice, the trust in our institutions of law and order will continue to erode. Two-tier policing, two-tier justice and two-tier politics are stoking up resentment. The system is no longer serving those it is meant to protect.
The Bible says,
Leviticus 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
The rise of shoplifting
The number of shoplifting offences recorded by police in England and Wales has risen to a new 20-year high. A total of 443,995 offences were logged by forces in the year to March 2024, up 30% on the 342,428 recorded in the previous 12 months.
The figure is the highest since current records began in the year to March 2003, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Meanwhile, one of the UK’s largest grocery chains has told a parliamentary inquiry that organised criminals are behind the recent rise in shoplifting and violence against shop workers rather than people stealing to survive,
Paul Gerrard, the public affairs director at the Co-op, told the House of Lords justice and home affairs committee into shoplifting that a 44% rise in retail crime it experienced last year was mostly down to gangs stealing to order at scale – clearing shelves in some cases.
The Bible says,
Job 11:14 If iniquity be in thine hand, put it far away, and let not wickedness dwell in thy tabernacles.
Uphold Christian freedom
and repeal ‘woke’ laws →
Huw Edwards
The case of Huw Edwards, coming at this time, also appeared to illustrate inconsistencies in the UK’s justice system.
Mr. Edwards, a former BBC presenter, was convicted of possessing 41 indecent images, including the most serious category, yet he received a suspended sentence, allowing him to avoid prison.
Nevertheless, legal commentators pointed to mitigating factors like his mental health and early guilty plea as well as the exact circumstances and the legal definitions as reasons for the apparent lenient outcome. It is worth reading the judge’s sentencing remarks (and the discussion between John and Stephen in the comments below).
However, it remains that others have received much harsher penalties for far less serious offences. For example, Julie Sweeney from Cheshire was sentenced to 15 months in prison for making an offensive online comment.
This disparity again raises important questions about the justice system’s priorities, where serious offenses, and not just that of Mr Edwards, are met with leniency, while lesser actions lead to significant punishment.
The Bible says,
Zephaniah 3:5 The just Lord is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame.
Ask us to come and speak at your church →
Domestic abusers released from prison
Violent domestic abusers were among the offenders released from prison in Augusr after serving just forty per cent of their sentences, in a bid to free up prison spaces for protestors.
In an interview with LBC, former Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk accused ministers of not being ‘frank with the British people’ about what releasing people early from prison would mean.
Mr. Chalk stated that a man who committed common assault by ‘thumping’ his partner, or causing actual or grievous bodily harm, would be eligible for release under the scheme unless he had been sentenced to four years or more in prison.
He also warned that plans to release prisoners up to 20 per cent of the way through their sentences would be a ‘mockery of justice’ and ‘affront to rule of law.’
This applies to offenders who are under an electronic tagging scheme that allows them to spend up to six months under curfew in their homes that they would otherwise have spent in jail.
They are currently entitled to be released on tags as little as 25 per cent of the way through their sentences but, because of the early release scheme due to start on Sept 10, it has been recalculated down to 20 per cent.
The Bible says,
Proverbs 11:21 Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.
Return to the UK’s Christian Constitution →
Release of Steven Ling
Among prisoners freed was Steven Ling, a convicted murderer.
Ling, now 49, was granted parole in July and has been released after serving 26 years of a life sentence. He was convicted in 1998 for the brutal Christmas Day murder of 29-year-old Joanne Tulip in 1997. Ling violated and stabbed Miss Tulip 60 times, in what the presiding judge described as a horrific act of violence. During his sentencing, the judge declared that Ling would remain in prison for as long as he posed a danger to women.
Despite these warnings, Ling is now a free man. His release, at a time when prison spaces are being prioritised for those involved in recent protests or social media controversies, has sparked outrage. We argue here that Steven Ling should have faced the death penalty:
The justice system’s priorities have shifted away from protecting the public, focusing instead on individuals whose offences lie more in speech than in violent crimes.
The release of such a one as Steven Ling underscores growing concerns about whether the safety of citizens is being compromised by a government intent on managing overcrowded prisons and responding to current political trends. Albeit that justice was never done for Joanne Tulip.
The Bible says,
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Police persecute ex-Muslim
The state is also keen to protect its ideas and ideology, not least that of multi-culturalism. That helps explain what Tim Dieppe has described as the Metropolitan Police’s ‘outrageous persecution’ of Hatun Tash.
The ex-Muslim turned Christian preacher has been repeatedly arrested at the behest of her Muslim tormentors. She carries a Koran with holes in it, to illustrate its shaky provenance. Yet when Muslim activists at Speakers’ Corner stole it from her, the Police arrested her, not them.
With the assistance of the Christian Legal Centre, Hatun Tash has now been awarded not just one, but two payouts of £10,000 from the Met for unlawful arrest at Speakers’ Corner.
More serious crimes
The recent arrest of a man in Greater Manchester highlights the increasing neglect of public safety.
A viral video shows a Muslim couple being chased by a man wielding a hedge trimmer after an altercation at a petrol station.
The footage captures the man retrieving the tool from his vehicle and charging toward the couple’s car as they quickly fled.
This incident, while shocking, underscores the troubling trend where serious threats to citizens’ safety are deprioritised, as the system diverts its focus to less critical offences. Such cases reflect how the balance between protecting the public and catering to political or social agendas is becoming increasingly skewed.
Muslim given suspended sentence for assault
In Bradford, a Muslim man berated three Muslim women, whom he knew, at a petrol station for not wearing Islamic dress and for wearing make-up. He then violently attacked them, a court heard.
The local paper reported that Muhammad Hassan, 26, grabbed the driver and slammed her head on to the dashboard of her vehicle. He then grabbed the second woman’s hair and punched her in the head before hitting the third woman.
Judge Colin Burn said: “Whatever the motivation was for this, it’s still utterly inadequate to justify the violence that you perpetrated against [the victims] when they were sitting in a car effectively cowering from you.
“The three people on the receiving end of your violence were women who were in a vulnerable situation. This was an extremely abusive, controlling and violent incident.”
Given such a summing up, we should expect a custodial sentence. But no. Hassan, from Bradford, was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years. Compare that leniency to the sentences given to the Southport protestors.
Where is the duty of care?
As prisons in England and Wales near maximum capacity, the early release of inmates by Labour ‘to address the shortage of space’ is sparking concerns about the government’s duty of care.
There are concerns that without adequate measures to vet who is being released, the plan risks allowing violent offenders back into society prematurely. Questions are being raised about whether sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent potential harm, or if the focus is more on managing prison numbers than ensuring community safety.
Even more, there fear growing concerns that the Labour government may be prioritising freeing criminals over maintaining stringent protections, leading to heightened anxiety over public security.
This follows a stark warning from Charlie Taylor, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, who warned the ‘high risk of harm’ posed by the early release of violent criminals
He told the Telegraph that there was a danger former criminals may be let out to offend again.
‘The biggest risk would be a released offender slipping through the cracks” and going on to commit a serious crime because of rushed work.’
Read and pray
READ: Lev 19:35; Job 5:16; Job 11:14; Psa 37:9-10; Prov 13:23; Prov 22:8; Isa 28:9; Ezek 3:20; Hosea 10:13; Zeph 3:5; Rom 9:14.
PRAY: For the repeal of woke laws.
Pray for safety of everyone in the UK
Pray for victims of domestic violence, and other crimes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Let us know what YOU think in the comments below.
Support us!
We appreciate your support; it enables our research and helps us inform your prayers.
So click below to support Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings
Or fill in the form below to keep in touch:
Click on the social media links below to share this post:
Before condemning the judge who sentenced Huw Edwards for excessive leniency as many do in ignorance, it would be appropriate for readers to read the judge’s sentencing remarks, which are published here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/rex-v-huw-edwards-2/
After reading the sentencing remarks, my reaction was to say that if Edwards had pleaded not guilty and elected for trial by jury and I had been on that jury, and assuming that I had reached the same conclusions as the judge had said in the sentencing remarks that he’d reached about what did and didn’t happen, I would have voted to acquit Edwards. His offence of “making” images consisted entirely of merely opening WhatsApp when, unbeknownst to him, images he didn’t want, hadn’t asked for, and didn’t appreciate, use for his gratification, pay for, or keep, were waiting for him, having been sent by a criminal, unsolicited. The “making” of images refers only to the WhatsApp’s automatic displaying of the images when the conversation containing them was opened.
In general, I try always to read the sentencing remarks before expressing any opinion about a sentence passed.
I do not deny that there may be inconsistencies between sentences, or disappointing values given effect in sentencing guidelines and their application. I think it is too simplistic, though, to use the slogan “two-tier” in criticism of sentences.
Edwards has acknowledged that he sinned grievously in that dark period of his life. If he committed the crime of “making” images, then I do not know how to protect myself from committing the same offence, as automatically and unintentionally as Edwards is implied to have committed the offence in the sentencing remarks, if somebody one day sends me an illegal image, unsolicited and unexpected.
This is a good point, IMHO. Doesn’t negate the rest of the article, but it’s a warning to us to check more thoroughly.
Thank you.
My experience after having made that very point on Twitter/X was of being deluged by verbal abuse, as (it was said repeatedly, often, and by many) a “nonce apologist” and a “defender of paedophiles”, who ought to keep away from children, and whose hard drive needed “checking” by the police. Yet the Judge in R v Edwards found that Huw Edwards wasn’t somebody with a sexual interest in young children. I suspect he might have had some hebephilic or ephebephilic tendencies – a sexual interest in young or older adolescents.
OK, for the benefit of our readers: Google’s AI says:
‘Paedophilia. a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child.’
‘Hebephilia is a sexual preference for children who are in the early stages of adolescence, usually between the ages of 11 and 14. The term comes from the Greek words Hebe, the goddess of youth, and philia, which means love.’
‘Ephebophilia is a sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents, typically those between the ages of 15 and 19.’
Many homosexual men, between perhaps a third and a half, fit into the Hebe and Epheho categories, which tend to blur somewhat, with a much smaller number being actual paedophiles. Ian Dunn, the Scottish homosexual who set up the Paedophile Information Exchange in 1974, was caught on audio tape confessing to an attraction to 14-year-old boys. So he was not, psychiatrically-speaking, a paedophile (although he was prepared to associate with them).
The distinction is of course lost on the public, for whom any man, and they are usually men, and usually homosexual, who is attracted to children of either sex under the age of consent, is a paedophile. Which is precisely what you found on Twitter.
I’m not saying men attracted to prepubescent girls are heterosexual, of course. Heterosexuality is sexual attraction to adults of the opposite sex. But with homosexuality, which is itself a developmental disorder, or used to be until the gays turned up in sequins to disrupt meetings of psychiatric professionals in the 1970s, it’s more fluid. As you might expect.