Latest news with #JackRankin
Daily Mail
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: 'All rise, if able'... yet another confected attack on our language by the grievance seekers who gave us 'chest feeders' and 'birth people'
Since mouldiest days it has been the command heard in our courts of law: 'All rise!' The judge or judges would enter. Lawyers, witnesses and occupants of the public gallery would cease chattering and clamber to their feet, bringing focus to the legal tasks ahead. For centuries those crisp two words, rasped by a court usher, were deemed sufficient for the commencement of judicial proceedings and a show of respect for the so-called majesty of the law. Until now. Instruction has gone out from faceless central officialdom that 'all rise!' is no longer adequate. Allegedly it could offend those who are unable to stand. And so the cry is to be altered in the courts of England and Wales. 'All rise!' will become 'all rise, if able'. Insufferable wetness? Or a harmless tweak in an obscure area of state activity? We are only talking about two extra words. A mere six letters. If their addition is going to make disabled or elderly people feel more welcome in courts, is that not a good thing? Or is 'inclusivity' once again frying our Middle England brains, mocking us for being so tolerant of an official class that imposes change merely to score career points and demonstrate, grindingly, who is in charge? When the change was reported last week, political trout rose to the fly. Jack Rankin, a Conservative MP, called the move 'unnecessary virtue-signalling' and suggested that the time and effort involved in the change could have been used better in reducing the post-Covid backlog of trials. Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK, averred that another tradition was being 'trashed to the god of wokery'. His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, which is run by a bearded career civil servant called Nick Goodwin, claimed that the change would 'ensure that everyone can access and take part in court proceedings, helping to create a more inclusive and accessible justice system for all'. Blimey. Two words can do that? The politics of language is not always rooted in reality. Bureaucratic souls sometimes get it into their heads that new terminology will bring cultural changes. Look at the NHS, which in a job advertisement last year referred to pregnant women as 'birthing people '. This was allegedly done to be kind to transgender people. Well, being kind is a commendable aim. Few will argue otherwise. Yet the public thought 'birthing people' was a ridiculous phrase. Ensuing protests – scornful laughter and angry denunciations of the 'gender police' – outweighed any happy vibes that may have been generated among trans people. As with the term 'chest-feeder', women felt the NHS was behaving politically and trying to erase their gender. Given the torrent of opprobrium, it might have been better to leave things as they were. Likewise Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, announced a £6.3 million renaming of the city's Overground railway. The new names included the Windrush line (after West Indian Windrush immigrants), the Weaver line (celebrating London's 'diverse migrant communities' who worked in textiles), the Mildmay line (Mildmay hospital was important at the height of the HIV/Aids crisis) and the Lioness line (after England's female footballers). What a busy box-ticker Mr Khan was. The only surprise was that there was no 'Sadiq line'. Give him time, folks. The Mayor was actually being just as outrageous as his old enemy Donald Trump, who has renamed the Gulf of Mexico, which he now calls 'the Gulf of America '. Yet Mr Khan chose his names artfully. Anyone expressing irritation at his tinkering was going to look a curmudgeon. Who, after all, could gainsay showing some generosity to Aids victims or hard-working West Indians or immigrant weavers, or even the England women's football XI, who seem a perfectly decent lot? As with 'all rise, if able', anyone grumbling would look the most frightful kvetch, to use a fine Yiddish expression. Mayor Khan was setting his opponents a trap: if they attacked him, they would look like crosspatches. Voters generally do not like misanthropes. The nakedness of that calculation, however, sticks in the throat. It is as sly as the deployment by some Right-wingers of exaggerated patriotism. I am a royalist and a patriot and a supporter of Remembrance Sunday, but I am seldom persuaded when the Right tries to stir trouble about Lefties not showing sufficient respect to the Union flag or Royal Family or Poppy Day. It just feels like grievance inflation – an attempt to wrap themselves in nationalism. Equally, 'all rise, if able', along with Sadiq Khan's look-at-me renaming of the London Overground, tastes overdone, like burnt toast. They are crying wolf. The Law Society Gazette, hardly a reactionary publication, said it was 'not sure if the words 'all rise' had ever actually prevented access to court proceedings'. We may be talking, in other words, about confected offence. Was any trans person seriously upset by the terms 'breast-feeding' or 'pregnant women'? Even if some said they were, did their distress withstand serious scrutiny? Is it not fair, before imposing uncongenial new words on society, to ensure that complainants are sane, sensible and honest? Was any female cricketer ever so distressed by BBC Radio Test Match Special commentators using the term 'batsman' that they gave up playing the game? Yet 'batsman' has been dropped in favour of the ugly term 'batter', which sounds like something from a fish and chip shop. You can sense the programme's producer radiating political pleasure every time the new, gender-blind word is employed. No doubt it has done his BBC career some good but it makes plenty of the rest of us quietly seethe and turn off his damn programme. In a move by inclusivity staff, the 2,000 House of Commons employees have been told not to use terms such as 'ladies and gentlemen', 'manpower' and 'guys'. These, too, are apparently offensive. Said who? Were they being serious or were they being paid to claim so by some pressure group? English is not the only language affected. The Latin used at Oxford University's degree ceremonies will now be stripped of masculine nouns such as 'magistri' and 'domini' in order to 'represent better those graduates who identify as non-binary'. How many people actually understood the Latin and paid attention to it and then felt a stabbing pain of societal rejection? Or is this a case of one or two activists thinking 'we can make a name for ourselves by kicking up a fuss', and knowing that feeble governance bodies will cave in pronto? Is it a case of the grievance industry justifying its existence? And a case of them, and the institutional decision-makers they pressure, wishing to assert their right to impose change? 'Look at us,' they are saying. 'We are the boss class. We have the power to pronounce, the clout to make Middle England quietly fume. And you lot can't complain because if you do, you'll look mean and you'll probably be cancelled on social media. Ha ha ha!' What a petty game. Yet it is not without its dangers. With the introduction of 'all rise, if able', some of us might say we are now so revolted by the politicisation of our courts that it has had a grievous physical effect. A Brexit-hating, Rwanda plan-blocking, Lady Hale-worshipping, two-tier-Keir justice system seems, alas, to have destroyed our mental control of leg and thigh muscles. When the judges come swanning into court, you can forget any sign of respect. If that's how you want to play it, we're going to stay put on our stubborn backsides. And look, the illness has even now made our arms convulse and we now cannot stop flicking two fingers at the beak.
Daily Mail
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Labour's 'tough' punishments for convicts who refuse to face victims at court include... being banned from watching TV for six weeks
Labour's 'tough' sanctions against criminals who refuse to attend their sentencing in court have faced ridicule after it emerged the new punishments will be imposed for mere weeks. The Government unveiled new legislation granting judges the power to impose solitary confinement on offenders who fail to attend. But the measures will impose the penalty for a maximum of three weeks. Other punishments such as having televisions removed from their cells or being denied extra gym sessions can also be withdrawn under the new law – but only for up to six weeks. The measures are meant to provide a deterrent to criminals who know they are already facing very long sentences, and are unlikely to be influenced by the threat of extra jail time. Tory MP Jack Rankin said: 'The idea that taking away TV time or extra gym sessions will deter the country's most dangerous criminals from behaving appallingly is pathetic. This is laughable. 'Labour should stop pretending they're tough on crime and get serious about sentencing.' The powers in the Victims and Courts Bill, published today, come in the wake of a series of high-profile cases where murderers and other criminals refused to leave their cells to be told their fate. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said the Bill's measures meant 'cowardly' offenders 'who attempt to evade justice could be subject to tough sanctions'. The previous Conservative government published a Bill last year which would have introduced similar powers but it was abandoned due to the general election being called. Like the Tories' proposals, the new measures will also allow criminals who refuse to attend sentencing hearings to be handed up to two years extra in jail. Labour's Bill will allow judges to impose the additional punishments on convicted offenders who refuse to leave their cell or whose 'disruptive and disrespectful behaviour results in their removal from the courtroom'. In January Southport killer Axel Rudakubana refused to come into the dock as he was sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court, after previously disrupting proceedings repeatedly with claims he felt ill. He was sentenced to a minimum of 52 years for the 'sadistic' murders of Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, Bebe King, six, and Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, last summer. Likewise, Jordan McSweeney who murdered aspiring lawyer Zara Aleena, 35, in east London in 2022 refused to attend his sentencing hearing. He was handed a minimum tariff of 38 years, later cut to 33 by the Court of Appeal. So, too, did drug dealer Thomas Cashman who murdered nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel when she was caught in crossfire in her home in Liverpool in August 2022. -Cashman was handed a minimum tariff of 42 years. But Farah Naz, Miss Aleena's aunt, said: 'When someone already has a 30-years plus sentence is this going to make much of a difference? Maybe it will, maybe it won't.' Southport victims Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Alice da Silva Aguiar, left to right She urged ministers to consider introducing additional powers to allow sentencing hearings to be broadcast in a criminal's prison cell if they refuse to leave, and for CCTV to be installed so families can watch the offender's reaction to their sentence. Justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said: 'Justice isn't optional – we'll make sure criminals face their victims.' But Robby Potter, one of the most seriously-injured survivors of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing - who was blasted through the heart with shrapnel while waiting to collect his daughter - said: 'It's nowhere near enough. For someone given life, an extra two years is a joke. 'For terrorism, they should have no privileges.' Martin Hibbert, who suffered a spinal cord injury in the same attack, said ministers needed to 'go further' and introduce 'meaningful deterrents' to stop the most serious criminals hiding from victims and their relatives. In 2020 Hashem Abedi – whose suicide bomber brother Salman Abedi detonated the deadly home-made device – was branded a 'coward' when he hid in his cell as he was given a record 55-year minimum term for 22 counts of murder. Mr Hibbert, whose daughter Eve suffered severe brain damage in the atrocity when she was just 14, said: 'While I welcome the Government's attempt to make offenders face up to the consequences of their crimes, I remain concerned that the measures in this Bill don't go far enough — especially for the most serious offenders, like Hashem Abedi, who chose cowardice over accountability. 'I was denied the chance to look Abedi in the eye when he was sentenced — a moment I had waited years for. 'That injustice stays with me, and I know I'm not alone. 'The trauma of losing a loved one, or surviving a terror attack, is only made worse when the person responsible refuses to show up, face the court, and hear the pain they've caused. 'Two extra years in prison may sound tough on paper, but for someone already serving a life sentence or a whole life order, it's meaningless. 'The loss of privileges or being confined to a cell for a few weeks won't undo the damage of them refusing to attend court. 'Victims deserve more than symbolic punishments — we need meaningful deterrents. 'This Bill is a step in the right direction, but I urge the Government to listen to victims and go further. 'The justice system must send a clear message: if you commit the worst crimes, you will not be allowed to hide from justice or from those whose lives you've shattered.'
Daily Mail
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Cowardly cons who refuse to attend their sentencing to be targeted by 'tough' new powers handed to judges - including being banned from watching TV for just six weeks!
Labour's 'tough' sanctions against criminals who refuse to attend their sentencing in court have faced ridicule after it emerged the new punishments will be imposed for mere weeks. The Government unveiled new legislation granting judges the power to impose solitary confinement on offenders who fail to attend. But the measures will impose the penalty for a maximum of three weeks. Other punishments such as having televisions removed from their cells or being denied extra gym sessions can also be withdrawn under the new law – but only for up to six weeks. The measures are meant to provide a deterrent to criminals who know they are already facing very long sentences, and are unlikely to be influenced by the threat of extra jail time. Tory MP Jack Rankin said: 'The idea that taking away TV time or extra gym sessions will deter the country's most dangerous criminals from behaving appallingly is pathetic. This is laughable. 'Labour should stop pretending they're tough on crime and get serious about sentencing.' The powers in the Victims and Courts Bill, published today , come in the wake of a series of high-profile cases where murderers and other criminals refused to leave their cells to be told their fate. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said the Bill's measures meant 'cowardly' offenders 'who attempt to evade justice could be subject to tough sanctions'. The previous Conservative government published a Bill last year which would have introduced similar powers but it was abandoned due to the general election being called. Like the Tories' proposals, the new measures will also allow criminals who refuse to attend sentencing hearings to be handed up to two years extra in jail. Labour's Bill will allow judges to impose the additional punishments on convicted offenders who refuse to leave their cell or whose 'disruptive and disrespectful behaviour results in their removal from the courtroom'. In January Southport killer Axel Rudakubana refused to come into the dock as he was sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court, after previously disrupting proceedings repeatedly with claims he felt ill. He was sentenced to a minimum of 52 years for the 'sadistic' murders of Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, Bebe King, six, and Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, last summer. Likewise, Jordan McSweeney who murdered aspiring lawyer Zara Aleena, 35, in east London in 2022 refused to attend his sentencing hearing. He was handed a minimum tariff of 38 years, later cut to 33 by the Court of Appeal. So, too, did drug dealer Thomas Cashman who murdered nine-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel when she was caught in crossfire in her home in Liverpool in August 2022. -Cashman was handed a minimum tariff of 42 years. But Farah Naz, Miss Aleena's aunt, said: 'When someone already has a 30-years plus sentence is this going to make much of a difference? Maybe it will, maybe it won't.' She urged ministers to consider introducing additional powers to allow sentencing hearings to be broadcast in a criminal's prison cell if they refuse to leave, and for CCTV to be installed so families can watch the offender's reaction to their sentence. Justice minister Alex Davies-Jones said: 'Justice isn't optional – we'll make sure criminals face their victims.' But Robby Potter, one of the most seriously-injured survivors of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing - who was blasted through the heart with shrapnel while waiting to collect his daughter - said: 'It's nowhere near enough. For someone given life, an extra two years is a joke. 'For terrorism, they should have no privileges.' Martin Hibbert, who suffered a spinal cord injury in the same attack, said ministers needed to 'go further' and introduce 'meaningful deterrents' to stop the most serious criminals hiding from victims and their relatives. In 2020 Hashem Abedi – whose suicide bomber brother Salman Abedi detonated the deadly home-made device – was branded a 'coward' when he hid in his cell as he was given a record 55-year minimum term for 22 counts of murder. Mr Hibbert, whose daughter Eve suffered severe brain damage in the atrocity when she was just 14, said: 'While I welcome the Government's attempt to make offenders face up to the consequences of their crimes, I remain concerned that the measures in this Bill don't go far enough — especially for the most serious offenders, like Hashem Abedi, who chose cowardice over accountability. 'I was denied the chance to look Abedi in the eye when he was sentenced — a moment I had waited years for. 'That injustice stays with me, and I know I'm not alone. 'The trauma of losing a loved one, or surviving a terror attack, is only made worse when the person responsible refuses to show up, face the court, and hear the pain they've caused. 'Two extra years in prison may sound tough on paper, but for someone already serving a life sentence or a whole life order, it's meaningless. 'The loss of privileges or being confined to a cell for a few weeks won't undo the damage of them refusing to attend court. 'Victims deserve more than symbolic punishments — we need meaningful deterrents. 'This Bill is a step in the right direction, but I urge the Government to listen to victims and go further. 'The justice system must send a clear message: if you commit the worst crimes, you will not be allowed to hide from justice or from those whose lives you've shattered.'
Daily Mail
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
All rise, if able: Traditional way judges are greeted on entering court to change as courts ditch simple 'all rise' announcement to be more 'inclusive' to disabled people
The centuries-old call of 'all rise' when a judge enters a courtroom is to be replaced with the 'inclusive' modern alternative of 'all rise, if able', it has emerged. The change will be introduced to all courts in England and Wales in the coming weeks to 'promote inclusion' for defendants, witnesses and lawyers who are disabled. The move is thought to be the first change to a tradition dating back to medieval times and the statement will be made even if there are no disabled people present in the courtroom. Internal messages sent out to courts last month reportedly said: 'It will now become standard whenever such an announcement is made at the start of a hearing, regardless of whether it is known that a person who finds it difficult to stand due to a disability or health condition is present.' The move has upset traditionalists, however, who have branded the change 'unnecessary virtue signalling' as there was never previously any expectation that disabled people would have to stand. Tory MP Jack Rankin told the Telegraph: 'Changing a legal convention which dates back to medieval times to be supposedly more inclusive is totally unnecessary virtue-signalling.' He added: 'I worry how much time has been consumed in both proposing and implementing this change, and can't help thinking this would be put to better use in cutting the judicial backlog.' While Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform, told the newspaper: 'Another tradition trashed to the god of wokery. What a ludicrous waste of time and energy reviewing this sort of nonsense.' The tradition of a court official calling 'all rise' when a judge or magistrate enters a courtroom is thought to date back about a 1,000 years, when judges carried bibles and were seen as representatives of the King's or Queen's justice. Standing showed respect for the judge, the Bible, the law and the monarch. The tradition has continued until today as a sign of deference to the court and the judicial system. The change was reportedly proposed by HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to 'demonstrate a willingness to make reasonable adjustments for physical disability'. An internal memo sent to all courts added: 'It will help to create a welcoming environment for all those who attend hearings in courts and tribunals, particularly those who may face challenges on grounds of disability.' The change to 'all rise' has already been included in the Equal Treatment Bench Book for court staff, judges and magistrates, which aims to 'increase awareness and understanding of the different circumstances of people appearing in courts and tribunals'. In a section of the handbook on adjustments courts can make in order to be more accessible, it says: 'At the start of a hearing, a judge or clerk saying, 'all rise if you are able to', to acknowledge a wheelchair user in court.' The 340-page book includes guidance for courts on physical and mental disability including options for remote hearings or even sittings at a person's home should a disabled person not be able to attend. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said the change began at the Royal Courts of Justice and was 'positively received' by court users. Plans to extend it to all courts were then taken forward by the most senior judge in England and Wales, the Lady Chief Justice, and the Judicial Executive Board and this has now been agreed with HMCTS and the judiciary, the MoJ added.
Telegraph
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
‘All rise, if able': Centuries-old court tradition makes way for ‘woke' alternative
The centuries-old tradition where judges enter courts with the request 'All rise' is to be replaced with an 'inclusive' modern alternative of 'All rise, if able'. Officials in charge of courts in England and Wales have decreed that the change will be introduced across all courtrooms in the coming weeks to help to create 'a more welcoming environment' for defendants, witnesses and members of the public who may be disabled. The move, to make hearings 'more inclusive', is believed to be the first change to a tradition dating back to mediaeval times. The statement will be made by court staff, irrespective of whether any disabled people are present in the courtroom. 'It will now become standard whenever such an announcement is made at the start of a hearing, regardless of whether it is known that a person who finds it difficult to stand due to a disability or health condition is present,' according to the internal message sent out to courts last month. It comes after The Telegraph revealed last month that courts had been urged to draw up new rules for 'emotional support animals' in court after warnings that defendants' barking dogs were disrupting proceedings. The new move has, however, upset traditionalists, who described it as 'unnecessary virtue-signalling' when there had never been any anticipation previously that a disabled person would have to stand up. Jack Rankin, a Tory MP, said: 'Changing a legal convention which dates back to mediaeval times to be supposedly more inclusive is totally unnecessary virtue-signalling. 'For centuries, people who are unable to literally rise have been present and partaken fully in the business of Britain's courts. I don't remember this ever being an issue. I worry how much time has been consumed in both proposing and implementing this change, and can't help thinking this would be put to better use in cutting the judicial backlog.' Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform UK, said: 'Another tradition trashed to the god of wokery. What a ludicrous waste of time and energy reviewing this sort of nonsense.' 'Reasonable adjustments' The tradition of saying 'All rise' originated in the royal courts of England some 1,000 years ago, when judges, often carrying a Bible, were seen as representatives of the King's or Queen's justice. Standing showed respect for the judge, the Bible, which represented the law, and the monarch. This tradition has continued until today as a sign of deference to the authority of the court and the judicial system. The change was proposed by HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to 'demonstrate a willingness to make reasonable adjustments for physical disability', according to the internal memo sent to the courts. The memo added: 'It will help to create a welcoming environment for all those who attend hearings in courts and tribunals, particularly those who may face challenges on grounds of disability.' However, the executive note admitted there were cases where those attending were not required to stand. 'In some types of hearing, there is no requirement to stand when the judicial office holder enters, but still on occasions people present in the court or hearing room do stand,' it said. 'In these circumstances, HMCTS staff and judicial office holders are encouraged to use an appropriate version of the above announcement to inform those present that they are not required to stand.' The change to 'All rise' has now been included in the Equal Treatment Bench Book for court staff, judges and magistrates, which aims to 'increase awareness and understanding of the different circumstances of people appearing in courts and tribunals.' The 340-page book includes guidance for courts on physical and mental disability including options for remote hearings or even sittings at a person's home should a disabled person not be able to attend.
