Britain: Two-Tier Justice Enshrined into Law

Equality before the law (the only form of equality worth entertaining) has long been a bad joke in Britain. Whether it’s Jews interfering with the latest jihad march by looking ‘openly Jewish’, fathers arrested for objecting to the multicultural gang rape of their daughters, or the policing disparity between the BLM and Brexit, Covid, Tommy Robinson marches, anyone with a pulse realises that the likelihood of getting your collar felt in 2025 rests largely on your ability to identify as anything other than a white male.

Up till now, the powers that be have at least pretended this is something they do not approve of. Even as he emptied the prisons of rapists and murderers to make room for native Brits who tweeted things he disapproves of, Keir Starmer told us categorically: “There is no two-tier policing. There is policing without fear or favour – exactly as it should be, exactly what I would expect and require.”

We all enjoy a giggle now and then, which is presumably why The Sentencing Council for England and Wales has chosen April 1st to enact its overhaul of the sentencing guidelines - the principles that magistrates and judges must follow when imposing community orders and custodial sentences.

The primary focus of the revision is the additional emphasis it places on pre-sentence reports – those compiled by the Probation Service, in order to assist the court in fully understanding the background in certain cases. Here is an excerpt from the Council’s statement on pre-sentence reports:

The guideline emphasises the crucial role played by pre-sentence reports (PSRs) in this process and identifies particular cohorts for whom evidence suggests PSRs might be of particular value to the court. The reasons for including groups vary but include evidence of disparities in sentencing outcomes, disadvantages faced within the criminal justice system and complexities in circumstances of individual offenders that can only be understood through an assessment.

Reading between the lines, the increased emphasis is little more than a cover for identity politics (‘disparities in sentencing outcomes’); increasing the likelihood of an offender avoiding punishment – provided he (or she) is determinedly neither white nor male:

In other words, only white men deserve to feel the full force of the law.

Of course, this is not exactly news. The European Conservative covered this back at the beginning of 2024 when it was first proposed. What is news however, is that this would legalise the two-tier justice we are told does not exist. Moreover, the ideological drivel used to justify such inequality indicates just how low Britain has fallen of late.

Here for example is Sentencing Council Chairman, Lord Justice William Davis, explaining the procedural changes:

The Imposition guideline is one of the most important of all the Sentencing Council’s guidelines. It is fundamental to judicial decision-making. A sentence properly tailored to the individual circumstances of the offender and the offence, that makes full use of the range of sentencing options available and is based on evidence, has the greatest likelihood of being effectively completed, while still fulfilling the purposes of sentencing.

The revised Imposition guideline updates and extends the current guidance and puts before the courts research and evidence to inform their sentencing decisions. It will ensure that the principles for imposing community and custodial sentences continue to be consistently and transparently applied by the courts and that such sentences are the most suitable and appropriate for the offender and offence before them.

I had to read that through a few times to check I wasn’t imagining things. Certainly, we can have the debate as to whether punishment or rehabilitation is the goal of the penal system, and naturally rates of recidivism are important. But it’s hard to read Davis’s words as anything other than confirmation that the justice system exists to suit the perpetrator rather than the victim and society as a whole.

The best joke however, was the addendum to the pre-sentence reports section: “Courts should refer to the Equal Treatment Bench Book for more guidance on how to ensure fair treatment and avoid disparity of outcomes for different groups.”

Absolutely: ‘fair treatment’ and the avoidance of ‘disparity’, by inculcating bias and disparity at the heart of the system!

While much has been made of The Sentencing Council’s lack of accountability to parliament (required merely to ‘consult’ the government), this ideological quango is, if anything, behind the times. The anti-white, anti-male takeover of Britain is all but complete. If you’re a toxic white male, you’re unwelcome in the police force, denied access to extra school classes, refused government internships, blocked from the military, unwelcome in STEM fields, despised in the NHS, and ‘hate speech’ against you is ignored. The judiciary is merely giving what already exists their seal of approval.

Having finally got what it always wanted, the Labour government now has a problem on its hands. If it publicly welcomes the guidelines (as I suspect it is doing behind closed doors), it will embolden the ‘far-right’, who have a ridiculously old-fashioned belief in equality before the law. If they pretend to be non-plussed, they run the ‘risk’ of looking incompetent and ineffectual.

Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has opted for the latter; writing to the Sentencing Council to express her ‘displeasure’, and insisting that if necessary she would block its decision. But this doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Mahmood cannot have been unaware of these changes, as it is literally her brief. Furthermore, not only have Labour been angling for this for years, the revised guidelines are actually based on David Lammy’s 2017 review of discrimination in the criminal justice system (wherein he argues that criminals should be allowed to hide their convictions, incidentally).

Commenting on the Sentencing Council’s decision, Mahmood had this to say:

Today’s updated guidelines do not represent my views or the views of this government. As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind. There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch.

Undoubtedly, she forgot the word ‘officially’.

Naturally, the Conservative Party has gone on the offensive. Shadow Justice Secretary, Robert Jenrick, opined that the new guidance was “anti-white”, “anti-Christian”, and amounted to “nothing short of an inversion of the rule of law”. He’s right of course, but neither he nor his party are entitled to carp with any degree of honesty. Not only were the new rules drafted under the last Conservative government, but the last 14 years of Tory rule were anti-white in everything but name only.

The irony of enshrining anti-white, anti-male bias into law, is that it is likely to backfire. Why spoil a perfectly good con-trick by admitting to it? If the guidance changes go ahead, Starmer et al will no longer be able to deny the existence of two-tier justice, and the outrage will likely push Reform UK to 30% in the opinion polls.

There are however, more sinister implications. Legalising a two-tier society means that playing the victim is now not only sensible, but mandatory; it means a criminal amnesty in all but name for non-whites; and for Starmer personally, it means those ‘boots on the ground’ that he has so foolishly promised are even less likely to materialise.

Until such time as the government is able to impose criminal quotas, the sensible thing would be to accept that there are those who monopolise the marketplace; an overenthusiasm for which there are, deservedly, consequences. For white criminals however after April 1st, it may be worth outsourcing your crimes to those with less skin in the game.

Frank Haviland is the Editor of The New Conservative, and the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West.

If you enjoy my work, please consider buying me a coffee - it would really help to keep me going. Thank you!

This piece first appeared in The European Conservative, and is reproduced by kind permission.