The UR Boss Young People's Manifesto

The UR Boss Manifesto has been created by Young People about how the Criminal Justice System needs to change. You can view it here. 

There are many aspects to the manifesto such as education, housing and relationships, but for this blog post I am going to focus on two of the sections: LEGAL AID and IT'S DIFFERENT FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS. 

The Legal Aid section says...*

I think this definitely shows perfectly everything I am standing for; I believe that children need to be educated and know their own rights and all about fair treatment within the law. Legal assistance needs to be provided more, as does support: more goes on about children than we really see, and we do need the support! And, yes, we DEFINITELY need more support. 

I can speak from a kinda experience. My dad and my mum had issues when they were splitting up, and we [My mum] used Legal Aid because she didn't know what else she could do and, for want of a better term, she was skint. And now, I am trying to decide whether to change my surname to my stepdad's, which my mum and siblings have. It's hard, and we need the support and the access; justice is something with a really wide definition and people only see the "oh justice means if they're guilty or not in court" side of it sometimes. 

It is a massive assault on justice, the MoJ's plans, as we know; and for young people in prison it is absolutely no different. 


YES! Again. I'm a feminist, and I'm not ashamed of it, and this shows what needs to happen for women in criminal justice and in society in general. On the first point, I can definitely say it's true. Things like this aren't built for girls or women, particularly in pregnancy etc etc. It's VERY different to criminal justice, but I'm going to use a simile of Scouting here. Scouting went unisex in 2007/8 or so, and I love it. We're respected, if teased (I was the first and only girl in my GROUP, and now there is a ratio of 3 of us girls to about 20 of the boys), but little things like some of the activities and the uniform just aren't built for us as, well, young women! 

There is definitely a lack of respect and equality for women in our justice systems, and it's horrible. It needs to change. 

And so, I wholely agree with these parts and the rest of the manifesto created by UR Boss. You should read it, and I'm sure you will also agree. 


*screenshots directly from the manifesto. It does not belong to me. 


My Second Consultation Response

Hi guys! Today I'm going to share my second consultation response with you... I don't have the highest confidence in it, but it's all open to interpretation. At least read the last paragraph, it may amuse you. 

Side note: I'm in a national debating competition this weekend! :D 

Concerning: Mrs. Annette Cowell
Dear Mrs. Cowell and the Ministry of Justice,
My name is Charli. I did respond to the first consultation, and a few things have changed since then, both in my life, and in yours. I am now 13 years old, I have decided I want to be a barrister, and I, as I did before, run my political/law/campaign blog, Little Girl With The Big Mouth, which you can find at thatgirlwholikespolitics.blogspot.com. As before, I can’t say that I fully understand all of the questions in the consultation, and perhaps my answers may come across slightly immature, but please bare in mind the fact that I am 13 years old, and it’s rather impressive that I can campaign for such a topic and write a consultation response (if I do say so myself).
Naturally, I still don’t agree fully with the proposed model. I’ve written so many posts, so many opinions, that I don’t see the proposals through rose-tinted glasses, though I can’t say I ever did.
This would retain the same level of choice for clients seeking criminal legal aid as now”. I can’t say that this is particularly correct. Shouldn’t there be more? Perhaps it is ok now, perhaps the earlier proposals may have made it worse, but maybe there should be more. I believe that every client should have true freedom of choice in their own rights. Perhaps I am wrong.

The fact that you’ve suddenly changed your tune on prices is funny, though good. I’m being fair here, because naturally, you’ll never be right, because you don’t actually listen to what the people who know best, the lawyers, solicitors etc of the country, say. No matter what you do or say, you at the MoJ are not lawyers. Maybe you know the law back to front, maybe you think you know what people want. But you are not in the law profession… You are in politics. They are linked, but they are not the same. And, no, I am not a lawyer, neither, but I don’t dispute not understanding what is going on within the profession. If anything, I appear to understand more.

I don’t agree with this “determining” how many contracts for Duty Provider Work go out. We go back to what we said only a few months ago- It. Is. Not. Fair. Granted, I may have misunderstood you slightly, but the terms you propose really don’t appear fair. In all honesty, it doesn’t look like you look at statistics of how many people use legal aid and what is needed for this country to function!

I definitely don’t agree that you have “correctly identified the extent of impact under these proposals”! Did you even read the first set of responses? We’ve written about the impact; all of us: barristers, solicitors, judges… schoolgirls, badgers! We’ve said so much about how much these proposals will affect us, but it doesn’t appear that you have realised that. If you had, the proposals wouldn’t even exist. I, naturally, am mainly fighting for the next generation- my generation- because what you want to introduce could, and will, ruin justice and legal aid for those who need it, in the current and next generations, as well as many to come.

Following on from my next point, I will reference to something that will come across as slightly strange, to you. Apart from being an academic, law/politics blogger, I am also a book worm and book blogger. One trend, that I rather enjoy, in the YA (Young Adult) book world is dystopia. Dystopia- if you didn’t know- is a term for a book talking about a horrific future because of something that has happened. Examples you may have heard of are The Hunger Games and Divergent. The Hunger Games is because of fights. Divergent is because of disagreements in society. Now, I don’t want to live in a slightly dystopic world because there is no justice, no legal aid. Because, let’s all be grown up here, there isn’t really a Batman, Superman or Spiderman. We can’t click our fingers and come to justice. That just isn’t how it works. And, as an individual, as a young girl, I am honestly scared for what impact your proposals could really have on the UK.

A lot of this may seem like rubbish. A lot of it may be my misunderstanding and will be wrong. But maybe it isn’t. Maybe, you should see your own proposals through others’ eyes, perhaps a young girl’s who is concerned for her generation. And who am I kidding; you probably won’t even read this, you’ll pass over it as a young girl being silly, thinking she understands something. I am also sorry that I come across as slightly sarcastic throughout my response; I am not normally like this to my elders, but within the circumstances of this response, of this fight, I think that it is fine for me to get my point across in such a fashion.

Should you want to ask me about anything to do with this response, you may contact me at charli-toanotherworld(at)outlook(dot)com, but depending, you may or may not receive an answer.

Thank you for reading my views, if you actually did.

The Little Girl With The Big Mouth (Currently campaigning with Save UK Justice)


Comments would be welcome guys! You can now comment without a google profile :) 



What Has Grayling Done For The Good? (SAVEUKJUSTICE)

I know you'll all look at that title and think, ha, nothing! But... That's not quite true... 

Firstly, a few opinions from a few people around the Save UK Justice sphere... 

I'm trying to be objective but struggling. I can't think of anything. The difficulty is because of his reputation as a government 'attack dog' he is put into jobs to push through unpopular policies. So finding something that might be good is difficult. It's not helped by the fact he is arrogant and behaves like a petulant child when somebody presents logical argument against his actions.
- Colin Mardell 

For me, Grayling is a pure ideologue posing as a technocrat. A la NHS, idea is to break, as unlikely will ever be rebuilt in public hands
- Paul Anders

  He's helped keep unemployment down by giving his wife a job and making us pay her.
- Phil Colbourne

How about out-sourcing public services like legal aid lawyers interpreters prisoner transport etc, they don't do it well. costs of getting it wrong fall on tax payer so not cheaper. it feels like corruption.
- Colin Mardell


 Ok... There you go, a few people's ideas. Now, see, I don't quite agree with these. [just to say, these are my own opinions, they are not be used unless asked and I am not to be hated or asked to change these opinions. Not that I would be asked...]

 1. Joining solicitors, barristers, the public... 

This is a pretty obvious one in itself and was suggested by Pam Loftus. It speaks for itself, look at what this campaign has done. Technically, if Grayling hadn't even started this whole thing, the campaign wouldn't have happened (obviously). Look at all those new friends you've made through this, the pride, the belonging...

2. They're actually changing some things for the better now, too. They've realised faults within the justice system, and many other things.

3. It's educated thousands of people about what ACTUALLY happens around the world... LIKE ME! 

4. The slightly conceited one I had to include... I've set down my dream of politics, which I since realised was never really going to be right for me, even though I have debating skills, and decided I want to be a family law solicitor. I've seeked advice within this community and know what paths I should take, and ultimately, why. I thank each and every one of you for that; you've all helped so much and I love being a part of it. 

5. We've outed so many things people were too scared to tell people about within not just the justice system,  but in politics, businesses, emergency services... (refer to 2). 

A bit of food for thought. None of that would have happened if Grayling hadn't actually started the whole thing. Maybe not directly, but... Yeah. 

OK, a few bits of housekeeping while I'm here: School has obviously re-started and I am struggling slightly with everything, but I've got a few ideas and will be posted hopefully at least once a week. 

Second: If any of you, lawyers, non-lawyers, anyone within the community would like to write me a short guest post (talking about the campaign, thoughts, anything) or even do a mini-interview (I email questions, send back, etc) please don't hesitate to contact me! 

Lastly... Thanks for all my lovely birthday wishes on the 4th! I am now 13! 



The Novelty of Going Into Law

I was recently reading a book, Ketchup Clouds by Annabel Pitcher, where the main character's mum wants her to go into law. In many YA (Young Adult) books, a character or their parents want them to go into law. They never specify which bit, or whether a solicitor, barrister, judge, etc, they just say "I want to go into law". This got me thinking that many teens, and children, perhaps want to go into law for reasons other than passion.

I personally want to go into law because I want to help people get their justice and help people when they need help. My family had to use Legal Aid when I was a very young child and it helped them, and I feel like I want to give that back. I also feel that my qualities (and flaws) are what are needed for this sort of thing. I consider myself to be intellectual, emotional and mentally mature, caring and articulate.

Why Teens Want a Law Profession If They Are Just a Young Version of a Fat Cat (Possibly)

1) Money. As far as the media and stereotypes are concerned, law pays well. And in some parts, it does. In Legal Aid, I have learnt, they are not fat cats and are not paid much! Ha, there are many jokes about heating, cramped spaces and many things amongst those lines. Which, personally, I'm fine with knowing and still have a passion. Many others would probably turn away!

2) It sounds good. People are impressed if someone says "Oh, I'm a [insert solicitor/barrister/judge/any other law job here]"! Many will do it for glory and pride.

3) Media. This one may sound funny, but it's true! Some want to get into the news.

Why Teens Want A Law Profession If They Actually Want To Seriously Have a Law Profession (Possibly)

Well, the main reasons I can see here are passion, opportunity and to help. I mean, personally, I obviously want a good job, as will many others, but that's not the main reason!

I can't vouch for everyone in this.

If I'm wrong, remember these are my opinions, and I am talking specifically about some people of my own age and generation. I have many friends who fit into the first category, and when I was thinking about this subject I just wanted to work out why teens these days want to go into law if they have no interest!



Mr. Grayling's Holiday and Government's Stupidity

Hi! So, I'm back. This time, it's quite a short one.

Firstly: Mr Grayling appears to have disappeared! In all the commotion of Save UK Justice, all these debates and fights, he seems to have fully disapparated (sorry... bad Harry Potter joke...) from the Media- except in a short to-and-against argument in one paper with Michael Turner QC (I think...).

Is this because he doesn't want anything else to happen? Or is he simply taking a short holiday? I'll be interested to find out what's been going on when he gets back on the press, though! I'm a nosy person like that.

ALSO: This bedroom "tax" thing. People in rented properties have their benefits cut to try and make them move to a smaller home. It's stupid! What if they can't move, been in the house for decades, need extra space for disabled people or a partner who can't share a room? *

In all honesty, I think the Govn. are just desperate for money. They are taking money off everyone for everything, whether through slashing benefits or taking tax. We've seen it before- two words. PASTY TAX. Now THAT was the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I sat there in my room with the pages on the new budget, including the full page mocking the new "pasty tax". It confuzzled me completely: how were they going to measure how much VAT you pay on your quick sausage roll from Greggs, or that lamb and mint pasty from that local bakery on holiday in Cornwall? (My stepdad had one of those in Cornwall, apparently quite nice. Just saying!) It made me laugh so hard as I imagined a guy in a suit sticking thermometers into something at a bakery everytime it was ordered. I mean, obviously this isn't how it would have worked. But it was a hilarious vision.

That's all for today. Hopefully some more thought-provoking and less stupid posts when I get back home...

*Help from Colin Mardell with this concept


In Which I Talk About Franklin Sinclair, Maturity, Respect and Coffee.

So, it's been a while since I've actually done a post. Haven't really had an idea, except that I need to do the next #justiceinbooks review, Jane Eyre, but I didn't have much enthusiasm for it... So there will be a review of it, but not till I can decide what I actually thought of it. Anyhow. I decided to do another rant.It's not really a rant. Still. Read on!

My first bit is on a man named Franklin Sinclair. I never knew much about him, but Borsok and Betsy talked about him a bit; I wasn't sure whether good or bad, though, it was always stupid stuff like shirts to wear in court and stuff like that. Bit weird. So, about a week or so ago, he sent a tweet saying he didn't give a BEEP-insert-expletive-here about justice, or anyone else, it was all abou survival. I was away at the point, and came back to see much outrage. I joined in, I admit, as he had also said "what's the point? The gov. isn't listening!" (These aren't quite direct quotes, just the bits I needed. However, I have not used only bits that show half the story.) I asked him why he felt this; maybe the government aren't listening, but if we stop fighting, it's not like they will stop! I personally think you should never say anything like this on social media, why would you? It can cause outrage (cough cough) or lose you a job, for instance that girl that got that job with the police then suffered as many saw her Tweets. Of course, Mr. Sinclair is the head of his firm, Tuckers, so this won't happen, but still. For most of the next week, he had to reply to many many many people. He never replied to me... I guess a 12year old, no matter how mature, was below him and he didn't think I needed a reply. I don't care particularly, apart from the fact that he replied to most others...

Which brings me nicely onto my next point. In the last few weeks, a lot of people have  either commented on my maturity or brushed me off, seeming to think that I'm just too young and won't understand. I'm mature. Extremely. That's not me boasting. I have been told that many times, and I know it! How else would I understand all this. But what annoys me is when I debate with someone and are then told to be quiet as I obviously don't understand. Perhaps it's because they are losing the debate. But still! Honestly, most of the time I forget that I'm 12, very almost 13. I blog for this campaign, I read adult books, I talk about mature subjects with adults. I know some people have read my blog or consultation response and asked if I'm really 12. No one around here does that, but still. Point stands. 

Next is a slightly nicer bit that I wanted to do, mentioning some of the people I respect most in the campaign. I have really high respect for Rachael and Gemma the most, probably. Then everyone like Colin, Helga, "wonderperson", Borsok and Betsy, Guy Gozem, ilegal, KGS, DefenceGirl, The Criminal Bar, those at Crimeline and of course, the guy behind @NoToPCT, who showed me the campaign in the first place. I have MASSIVE respect for all of these guys, because... Well, they've done so much and supported me to!

Lastly... Yeah. Coffee. Basically, I was in town today, and there were loads of men in suits around, and I was like I wonder where all of these guys work, which then got me wondering whether there was a court close to where we were. Probably not. BUT then I saw this guy that obviously worked in the Costa there, because he had "BARISTA" written on the back of his apron. It got me thinking about the difference between a barisTA and a barRisTER. Turned out to be a lot. Qualifications, what they do, how useful they are, awesomeness, ability to wear a wig and gown, stuff like that. 

And on that rather strange note...



Justice is Crucial: Linked To Everyday Life

Tonight at youth club we heard the parable of the Rich Fool. Basically, there is a rich farmer, and he gets a lot of profit from his crops. So, he decided to sit down, and eat, drink and be merry. So God tells him he is a fool, and says he will die the very next day.

I’m actually eclectic (that means you take bits from different religions and piece together your own sort of faith). So, I’m part Christian, part Buddhist and part Pagan, if you want to think of it as parts. And possibly part Potterhead, cuz Potterism can be counted as a faith.
ANYWAY: WHY IS THIS LINKED TO SAVEUKJUSTICE AND NOTOPCT? I think we can link everything we do, everything we hear, to justice. Because, what I get from this story is not to be greedy, of course, but also, that we need to think about what we do. God gave him his shot at life, so I guess a chance to redeem himself by donating his money or crops, but he didn’t. Let’s call that indirect justice. Like, justice without some-one hearing you out. The farmer had a chance. But he did bad, and was a fool, so God had him die the next day.

My actual point of this post is that we can see justice in everything we do, whether we are schoolgirls, solicitors, teachers, members of the public, badgers or something like actors and singers. Justice is everywhere. That’s why it’s so crucial; if there was no justice, a lot of things would be different. Because even auditions could be counted as justice; the one who deserves it the most gets the role. In court, the one who wins gets the justice. At school, the one who argues could win if they are right or lie, or could lose for answering back. I’ve been in 2 of those 3 situations. I haven’t been in court, of course, but I’ve auditioned and been in situations at school.

So, we need justice just for this world to process. In everything we do, there is justice somewhere. It could be anything, but it’s somewhere. And we can’t deny it. So, Mr. Grayling, why don’t you just destroy the worlds’ systems. You do that. Not that it’s gonna happen, because #saveukjustice is gonna win. Yep. GONNA. Not COULD.

And on that rather childish note, goodnight. Stay tuned for a longer post on Sunday!



More Stuff On The Magna Carta- Magna Carta Day- SaveUKJustice

Today is Magna Carta Day. The Magna Carta ws signed 800yrs ago today. So I figured I'd look into it further. 

I've touched on the Magna Carta a few times. 

In one post, I look at one of the clauses:-
  "So, I know that Mr. Grayling has breached a part of the Magna Carta. At school we did the Magna Carta, in History, but only studied the very main points. One of the bits we looked at was "justice will be given without delays or bribes". This isn't the exact part Mr. Grayling has breached, but this links in. Justice should always be given to a person who deserves it, with no delays, and justice should not be given to those who are guilty. That's not a complicated thing, is it? But if these big companies like Stobart take over, they will probably give justice unfairly. Mr. Grayling doesn't seem to have thought about this. I say probably, because we don’t know. But that’s just one point, right?" - Another clause was "we will not deny any man either Justice or Right" which goes to show that Mr. Grayling is literally undoing history. If he gets this proposal introduced, he will not only destroy justice, he will unravel 800 years worth of history. 

Because, the Magna Carta changed justice and society forever. If King John had refused to sign it, there probably wouldn't be any justice. There would be no need for lawyers or solicitors. Royal officials would make all the decisions for us. Favouritism, biasty, call it what you want That's what would happen. There could be bribery, too (shown in other para). No fairness. It seems that Mr. Grayling wants this to happen. I don't think he's thought out the long-term effects, personally. 

Last post, I wrote this...

"During this time period, the Magna Carta was also introduced. This says a lot about justice because King John wasn't giving anyone justice without delays or bribes, or with a fair trial. So when the Magna Carta was put together, they made sure to put a lot about justice into it. It is said that King John didn't actually READ the Magna Carta properly, which would explain why he actually signed it. Though, if he'd read it and not signed it, there would be no justice now. But wait! Oh yes, Mr. Grayling could throw the Magna Carta out of the window, couldn't he."- This seems to have reigned true, for Mr Grayling doesn't seem to want to amend anything. I mean, why wouldn't he want to be the one to go back on 800 odd years of history? Who wouldn't want to be hated throughout children's history books for years to come?

Actually, side thought: maybe Mr. Grayling is doing this to be in history. He breaks down history, then changes it. I think there should be a new version of the story about this, you know. Mr Grayling the evil lion....?

Back to the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta also says things about taxes and the church. Half of which have possibly already been broken. One is: taxes will not be changed without the barons and bishops agreeing so (not these exact words). This has basically been broken, but not in the same way; we no longer have barons, and bishops are placed differently in society now, so technically it has not been broken; it has been changed around due to a change in society. 

(The Magna Carta is one of my favourite bits of history, it really interests me, so I have written quite a bit on it throughout these last posts, sorry if that annoys anyone)

I actually feel for Mr. Grayling, in an odd sort of way. If this all goes through, in kid words, he's gonna get hated on. And look at we at #saveukjustice and #notopct are doing to him! He must feel so small, like a little slug when they get salted. Weird analogy. Sorry. 

So there we are. Happy Magna Carta Day, even though it's not like a holiday or anything, like Christmas. Ah well. Whatever. 



Justice: Slight Rant From a 12YO's Perspective... (SaveUKJustice)

I'm gonna rant in this post.Just a warning. About many, many things to do with justice.

To start of with, no, I'm not a lawyer. Nor a solicitor. I barely know ANYTHING compared to most people involved with this. BUT you know what? I am a very, very mature and passionate girl. So that's the first point STRAIGHT OFF: I might not know a lot, but when I know something, I know something. 

So, History is one of my favourite subjects. I'm doing a new project, about how life differed between the start of the Middle Ages to the end. I've been looking into the Feudal System as a part of this. When we did it earlier this year, we didn't explore it too much, only what happened, not what it affected. I realised that part of it was sort of justice, because the peasants didn't get a lot, whereas the barons did. Was this fair? Not really. For those of you who don't know, the feudal system said that the barons had to supply the king with the knights for 40 days a year, the knights had to serve those 40 days and the peasants had to do whatever anyone told them to do, in short. The barons got the most land, the knights less, and the peasants the least. The king's own promise was to God. So, there wasn't a lot of justice in this system. Justice is more about fair trial to me, I guess, but no-one had any choice, and if they didn't fulfil their promise they were consequenced.
During this time period, the Magna Carta was also introduced. This says a lot about justice because King John wasn't giving anyone justice without delays or bribes, or with a fair trial. So when the Magna Carta was put together, they made sure to put a lot about justice into it. It is said that King John didn't actually READ the Magna Carta properly, which would explain why he actually signed it. Though, if he'd read it and not signed it, there would be no justice now. But wait! Oh yes, Mr. Grayling could throw the Magna Carta out of the window, couldn't he. 

Which brings me to my next point: The Ministry of Justice. Why the heck is Mr. Grayling the Lord Chancellor? He doesn't really seem to have thought this out much. I mean, the proposal is messed up, and very obviously isn't needed. I mean, it's pretty badly written. Then, the MoJ in general. Just look at the response they sent when we got enough signatures that they were forced to reply to us. But enough on thay response, if you want to read about my take on that, read it here.  

So, next, remember I was saying what JUSTICE means to me? It naturally means different stuff to different people, but some people's thoughts are completely bi-polar. I can't say bi-polar to the actual definition, cuz technically there isn't an ACTUAL  definition, it's one of those things that's on opinion, but when I have some-one tell me it's being accused for something, I know they either 1) don't understand what I'm talking about or 2) are a Mr. Chris Grayling. 

Another one of my various points is the fact that the MoJ doesn't seem to be doing a lot. They put the consultation out. Released a few documents and a response paper. THEN, loads of people, lawyers, solicitors, some badgers and me, send out letters, tweet to death, rally, and I don't even want to count the amount of blog posts there are on #saveukjustice out there. I mean, I don't expect them to come out when 1000 odd people are protesting, but you think they would do something. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they shouldn't. Don't look at me, I'm only 12, like I say, I don't know everything. I would think Mr. Grayling would be quaking in his boots by now, we're at 88k. Only 12k to go and we get into Parliament. 

Next up is my theory on CHILDHOOD. Mr. Grayling must have had a different childhood to how I've grown up. I, and I'm sure many others, have grown up learning that there should always be justice, no racism, rights, free speech, no sexism. You shouldn't judge, and people are innocent before proven guilty. I was bought up like that, and I'm proud of that. Look where that's gotten me. But Mr. Grayling's parents obviously had very diverse views or they didn't teach him well enough. I wonder if they know that their son could reverse 800 years of history and destroy justice. 
   Cuz personally, I think a person's childhood affects their life. Education, upbringing, environment, religion, opinions, and things like this. Me, I'm going to be a very passionate, opinionated woman that fights for what she wants, and wants to give back to the world what's it's given me. Others, such as Mr. Grayling, must have not grown up like that, or just have forgotten all of the simple stuff. 

I also think that Mr. Grayling must be quite independent. I wonder how much input others had on this, or if he just decided on it without thinking about the common sense factors first. I put in a Tweet a while ago: "I wonder how many staff in the MoJ actually disagree with Grayling but can't say anything in fear of losing their job" and I seriously do think there will be staff inside of the MoJ that think Mr. Grayling is off his rocker (which, frankly, he is...) and has no sense, common or otherwise. 

In my response, I wrote:

"Justice should be given according to necessary times when it is needed, urgent or less urgent, not according to who is first on the register due to when their birthday is or their surname. In school, the person first on the register gets the "best sweets" or something because they are lucky to have the first spot on the register. This is the same principle- a person shouldn't get justice before another due to name. Therefore cases should be on their urgency, not due to the provider, name or birthday. I understand that when I reference to schooling here I sound childish, but I am a child, though mature, and this is how I understand this part of the proposal- it is a very similar situation." 
      Like I say within this small piece of my response, I do sound childish, but when doing something like this, I, like many others, relate to the situation. The questions on the consultation response paper were hard for me to understand, I answered what I could. The situation is similar; I personally cannot believe the consultation even thinks about putting people before others because of their surname or birthday, it should be on urgency. 

I found this quote online:
I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against. -Malcolm X (who I study next year!)
      This quote says it all for me, really. That's my opinion in a nutshell. Truth and justice are very important to me. Obviously not to Mr. Grayling.  

I think Mr. Grayling's main problem is thinking about the future. I'm not a psychic, and I don't think he is either, but I can see that it's gonna affect the future  A LOT. It could be BEDLAM! I mean come on, people could get away from something, some-one might need a restraining order who doesn't get one, a lot could happen. Because ACTUALLY, legal aid basically makes sure Britain doesn't blow up or anything like that. OK, that's not quite it. But you know, it stops a lot of things from happening again. Parliament? Parliament is more changing stuff as opposed to stopping it. 

That is the end of my rant. I hope it gave you a lot to think about, because I certainly did whilst writing it. My question for you today: WHY is justice important to YOU? Not anyone else. YOU. Cuz if you're a lawyer, your answer will be different to mine. I'll tell you my answer next time. 


P.S This is the longest post I've ever done! Just over 1,300 words!!


What Justice Means To Me (SaveUKJustice)

A few days ago, we were in a lesson, and someone said something wasn't fair. One of the girls said "that's justice, stupid". Ignoring the "stupid" bit, I put some thought into this statement. To me, it wasn't exactly justice; because she got punished for something she didn't do, and didn't get a fair trial. Well, at school it's less of a fair trial than trying to concede to the teacher in question. But then, to be completely honest, with most teachers you keep quiet and take it. 

Back to the whole justice thing. This girl that said it was justice was wrong, to me. Because there was no justice for this girl. So, it was more of false accusation. 

1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
Personal (/mixed from others) definition... It's about being able to fight your corner when falsely accused of something, so right to a fair trial, and that it should be given when deserved. People should be able to be free, able to know that they didn't do something. And others should believe them! To me, justice should always be there for those who deserve it. If a person doesn't deserve it, them they shouldn't get it. Like, those who plead guilty in court know they don't deserve it. Sometimes it's for different reasons, of course. But even if it is for a different reason, they probably have that reason somewhere in their head. 

So therefore, just getting punished for what you haven't done and not being able to fight for your corner isn't justice. Justice is about fair trial.