Lammy’s Bonfire of the Liberties

David Lammy, incredibly the Labour Party’s Justice Secretary and self-appointed arbiter of British justice, has unveiled a proposal so brazenly authoritarian that it threatens to unravel the very fabric of our democratic heritage. Under the guise of efficiency, Lammy, obviously far too thick to understand what he’s being led to do, seeks to abolish jury trials for the vast majority of crimes, reserving this ancient right only for the most heinous offenses like murder, rape, and manslaughter. This is not reform; it is revolution, a calculated strike against the people’s voice in the courtroom, designed to consolidate power in the hands of unelected judges beholden to the globalist establishment. We, all of us, regardless of our politics, must condemn and oppose this abomination in the strongest possible terms. It is a betrayal of centuries-old liberties, a stealthy manoeuvre to silence dissent, and a direct path to tyranny. If enacted, it would transform Britain’s courts, already resembling kangaroo tribunals, into rubber stamp show trials where the Establishment always wins and where the accused face the solitary judgment of state-appointed overseers, free from the scrutiny of their peers.

Lammy’s scheme, leaked through ministerial memos and reported widely yesterday, would see judges alone deciding cases for crimes carrying sentences of up to five years—encompassing everything from theft, assault, fraud. public order offenses and, most worryingly, politically charged ‘crimes’ like the sinister hate speech offences and writing posts that offend the Establishment’s pets. Lammy (let’s use him as a shorthand for the whole corrupt Globalist Establishment) arrogantly declares there is “no right” to a jury trial in the UK, dismissing a tradition that predates the Norman Conquest as mere inconvenience. This is the language of despots, not democrats. By stripping away juries, Lammy isn’t streamlining justice; he’s engineering a system where the Establishment can more easily control outcomes, where political dissidents, free speech advocates, ordinary citizens who challenge the status quo are hauled before a single judge, quite possibly controlled and influenced by the prevailing Globalist winds and those who blow them. This isn’t about justice; it’s about control. The globalist elite—those shadowy figures in Davos and Brussels who pull the strings of progressive governments—have long viewed jury trials as an obstacle to their agenda. Juries, composed of everyday people, are unpredictable; they can acquit based on conscience, common sense, or a healthy scepticism of state overreach. Judges, on the other hand, are often, nay usually, career bureaucrats, insulated from the public and aligned with the ideologies of the ruling class.

This proposal is nothing short of a trick to further entrench the power of the globalist establishment. Labour, under Keir Starmer, has already shown its colours: a party that cozies up to multinational corporations, EU bureaucrats, and supranational organisations while trampling on national sovereignty. Lammy himself, with his history of flip-flopping on key issues, embodies this duplicity. In 2020, amid the pandemic, he tweeted passionately that “jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement” and that “criminal trials without juries are a bad idea.” He even urged the government to “pull their finger out” and secure venues for safe trials. Now, as Justice Secretary, he’s spearheading the very policy he once decried. This hypocrisy isn’t accidental; it’s strategic. The globalists need compliant courts to enforce their vision: open borders, speech codes, and economic policies that favour the elite over working people. By abolishing juries, they remove a key check on their power, allowing them to prosecute and convict with minimal resistance. We’ve seen this playbook before—in the EU’s harmonised legal systems that prioritise supranational edicts over local traditions, or in authoritarian regimes where judges serve the state rather than justice.

But let’s expose the central lie at the heart of Lammy’s justification: that this draconian measure is necessary to cut down court waiting times. The crown court backlog stands at nearly 80,000 cases, a crisis exacerbated by years of underfunding, pandemic disruptions, and bureaucratic inefficiency. Lammy claims scrapping juries will speed things up, but this is a transparent falsehood, a smokescreen to hide the true intent. If the government were serious about reducing delays, they would invest in more courts, judges, and staff—not erode fundamental rights. Moreover, they’ve already demonstrated their ability to mobilise resources when it suits their political agenda. Consider the 24-hour courts rolled out in August 2024 to fast-track prosecutions of so-called “far-right” protesters during the summer riots. In the wake of the Southport tragedy, where State misinformation fuelled unrest, the Starmer government activated emergency measures: magistrates’ courts operating around the clock, with police and prosecutors working overtime to haul in hundreds of demonstrators. Over four hundred arrests were made in days, and sentences were handed down swiftly—some as harsh as three years for throwing bricks or looting. This wasn’t about efficiency; it was selective justice, targeting those labelled “right-wing” while ignoring similar violence from other groups.

Take the case of Lucy Connolly, a childminder and wife of a Conservative councillor, as a stark example of this weaponised speed. In the aftermath of the Southport attacks, Connolly posted a tweet saying that she did not care if hotels that were housing asylum seekers to be set on fire, which she deleted after a short while. She was arrested, charged with inciting racial hatred, and sentenced to 31 months in prison within months. Released after serving part of her term, her case exemplifies how the system can move with lightning speed when prosecuting speech that offends the Establishment’s narrative on immigration and multiculturalism. Yet, for the backlog of “ordinary” crimes, the burglaries, assaults, and frauds that plague everyday citizens, the courts drag on interminably. Why? Because the priorities are skewed toward silencing dissent rather than delivering justice. If 24-hour courts can be conjured for protesters deemed politically inconvenient, why not for rape victims waiting years for trials? The answer is clear: the backlog is a convenient excuse, not the real problem.

Furthermore, immense court time could be saved by ending the absurd prosecutions of people who haven’t paid the BBC license fee, a relic of state-mandated media funding that clogs the system with trivial cases. Non-payment of the £169.50 annual fee accounts for around 10% of all prosecutions in magistrates’ courts, with nearly 200,000 people hauled before judges each year. Women make up a disproportionate share of these defendants, often vulnerable individuals struggling with poverty or administrative oversights. These cases represent a massive drain on resources, with fines up to £1,000 imposed weekly on about 3,000 people. Decriminalising license fee evasion, as recommended in various reviews, would free up thousands of hours for serious crimes, without touching core rights like jury trials. But Labour won’t do it, because the BBC is a pillar of the globalist establishment, pumping out propaganda that aligns with their worldview. Protecting the corporation’s coercive funding model takes precedence over genuine reform, revealing the hypocrisy in Lammy’s backlog rhetoric.

Adding insult to injury, there is absolutely no democratic mandate for this assault on jury trials. Labour’s 2024 manifesto made no mention of scrapping juries; instead, it promised to “rebuild the justice system” through investment and technology—not by dismantling constitutional safeguards. Voters elected Starmer on pledges of change, not chains. This proposal emerged post-election, via leaked memos and backroom deals, bypassing public scrutiny. It’s a classic bait-and-switch, where the elite impose radical changes without consent, treating the electorate as mere subjects. In a true democracy, such a fundamental alteration to justice would require a referendum or at least manifesto commitment. Instead, we’re witnessing the arrogance of power, where globalist-aligned politicians like Lammy act as if mandates are optional.

As we approach the climax of this outrage, let us turn to the bedrock of British liberty: the Magna Carta of 1215. This great charter, forged in the fires of rebellion against King John’s tyranny, explicitly protects the right to trial by peers. Clause 39 declares: “No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned… except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land” – and we must not allow the law of the land to become the law of government. This isn’t archaic poetry; it’s the foundation of our legal system, echoed in every jury trial where ordinary citizens judge their fellows. Lammy’s proposal is flatly illegal under this principle, as it substitutes the “judgment of equals” with the solitary decree of a judge, violating the spirit and letter of Magna Carta. Courts have upheld this right repeatedly, recognising jury trials as an inalienable bulwark against state overreach.

Indeed, jury trials stand as the essential defence against tyranny and totalitarianism. History teaches us that when governments control the courts unchecked, freedom dies. From Stalin’s show trials to Mao’s revolutionary tribunals, the absence of peers allows the state to persecute at will. In Britain, juries have acquitted the innocent against overwhelming state pressure—from the Old Bailey’s historic verdicts to modern cases where conscience prevailed over politics. They embody the wisdom of the crowd, diverse and incorruptible, preventing the elite from weaponising justice. Without them, we slide toward a dystopia where thought crimes, like Connolly’s tweet, become routine convictions, and dissent is crushed under the boot of globalist conformity.

In conclusion, David Lammy’s proposal is a monstrous betrayal—a trick to empower the Establishment, cloaked in lies about efficiency, devoid of mandate, and illegal under Magna Carta. We at Free Speech Backlash call on every freedom-loving Briton to rise against it: protest, petition, and vote out these tyrants. Jury trials are not a luxury; they are the shield of liberty. Lose them, and totalitarianism follows. The time to fight is now, before the gavel falls on our rights forever.

Postscript. Nigel Farage must denounce this in the strongest possible terms and say that if he is elected he will repeal this evil legislation.

---

This article (Lammy’s Bonfire of the Liberties) was created and published by Free Speech Backlash and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Tom Armstrong

Lammy’s assault on the jury system is an act of breathtaking constitutional vandalism

DANIEL JUPP

ENGLAND is in chaos. A weak, widely despised man generally considered to be devoid of morality tries to govern with an iron fist. Much of the country is in a state of anarchy, and experts debate about whether the current crisis qualifies as a civil war or if the country will descend into further disunity and violence. More popular figures threaten the leader’s tenuous grip on power, and he is forced to make some concessions to the public mood of simmering discontent, yet at the same time connives to continue with policies that most of the populace do not want.

This is a man known for his shallow indifference to the suffering of his own people, but obsessed with his status, legacy, and avaricious self-interest.

Such was the situation in 1215 when King John was forced by his rebellious barons to sign the first version of Magna Carta at Runnymede. But much of the description, of course, applies just as well to the dying days of 2025, as Sir Keir Starmer, deeply unpopular even in his own party, tries to govern a fragmenting Britain, much of whose troubles can be ascribed to the combination of wilful blindness, obdurate stubbornness and tyrannical overreach he himself possesses.

It is weak men who always are most likely to turn to tyrannical measures in support of their unpopular positions. This was the case with King John, and it remains the case today with much of the Westminster Establishment, our new nobility of constitutional vandals, economic wreckers and social Marxists beholden to foreign powers.

So we come to David Lammy, one of the few individuals in the Labour government capable of rivalling Starmer for sheer ludicrous ineptitude. As Justice Secretary Lammy, God help us, is positioned to enact sweeping changes to our justice system, even more extensive than those previously enacted by the Blair government the last time Labour had an (un)healthy majority. The absurd anomaly of the last election result, whereby a party supported by only 19 per cent of voting age citizens achieved a gigantic Commons majority, leaves Britain today in a state of barely democratic, or democratic in name only, tyranny. No matter how obscene, undemocratic or unwanted a move proposed by Lammy may be, no matter how widely detested this government is, both Lammy and Starmer know that any ‘reform’ of the justice system they wish to drive through Parliament has a very good chance of success.

These are incompetent leaders without any personal code of justice, and with a purely partisan set of ideological aims, who are also hugely ignorant about Britain’s constitutional and judicial arrangements and the reasons for their existence.

And that’s why they can plan to enact something as fundamentally disastrous as the removal of the right to trial by jury in the vast majority of criminal cases. A leaked internal report indicates that the Justice Secretary and Prime Minister wish to smash one of the most fundamental pillars of justice we have, a right that has existed for 800 years since Magna Carta.

Magna Carta states the following in Clause 39 of the original version, which became Clause 29 of the revised 1225 Magna Carta:

‘No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.’ This clause is also known as the right to due process and forms the foundation for the principle of trial by jury in English law which remains in force today.

The clause arose in response to King John’s tyrannical habit of imposing arbitrary fines and restrictions, and enacting imprisonments and seizures against political enemies or persons whose possessions and wealth he coveted.

This remains relevant today in two ways. First, because the clause offers protection for the citizen from crimes by the State. It limits the power of the State to persecute enemies or deny basic freedoms. Second, it inherently limits the power of the judiciary. With a right to appeal within a court case to a jury (‘the lawful judgement of his equals’) the citizen or subject is protected from judicial tyranny, from the judge being an agent of the King or State who simply rubber-stamps arbitrary and unjust actions.

The most important protection that jury trial offers is not just that ordinary people are engaged in the process, but that it is more difficult for politically biased judges to corrupt the law and impose sentences, fines and punishments for malicious or ideological reasons.

The judge becomes the person whose legal knowledge is used to run the court fairly and efficiently, and whose summary statements and interpretation of the law regarding punishment, are limited by it being the jury, the common man, who decides guilt or innocence.

The inherent dangers of removing trial by jury are so obvious that we use the phrase acting like judge, jury and executioner to describe murder, vigilantism, or an individual assuming to himself an unjust right to do anything to anyone.

For 800 years nobody has challenged this fundamental pillar of justice. Nobody. Lammy himself once described jury trial as a ‘fundamental part of our democratic settlement’. Unusually for any Lammy statement, that one was entirely correct. Today, in power, he proposes the opposite, an act of breathtaking constitutional vandalism that makes Tony Blair’s creation of a leftist-dominated Supreme Court look like a moderate and objective measure.

Claiming that it is a measure to get through a backlog of 80,000 cases, Lammy’s Cunning Plan, which we might generously ascribe to Baldrick-level stupidity rather than malicious design (I’m not sure I feel that generous, to be honest) retains jury trial for murder, rape and manslaughter, but even with those exceptions, it means that 75 per cent of cases can be decided (both guilt/innocence and punishment) by a single judge. If that single judge is corrupt, wicked, ideologically crazed, partisan, determined to twist the law, there is nobody in the courtroom that the defendant or his lawyers can appeal to. Where a defendant might hope to find a sympathetic ear from 12 ‘good men and true’, randomly selected from the populace, he must instead fervently pray that his judge isn’t the kind of activist judge we have seen in the US.

Because that too is the context of these changes. In the age of lawfare, in a period where it has become clear that some judges are shockingly partisan and prepared to collude with prosecutors towards party political ends, Lammy proposes a massive extension of judicial authority.

There’s a specific British context to this too, which is that a good proportion of the general public now believe that many British judges are untrustworthy and ideological in their judgements. Even with the protections of jury service in place, we have seen judges pass light sentences on child abusers, and harsh sentences on people who offend others with social media posts. After Southport, we saw this government prejudicing cases by publicly demanding swift and harsh punishments of alleged rioters, and we saw criminals being released early from their sentences to free space for the likes of Lucy Connolly and Peter Lynch, the grandfather with no prior criminal record who called the government and judges corrupt, was put in prison, and killed himself while serving his sentence.

Trust in our justice system has never been lower, and distrust in our judges has never been more justified. And it’s in that context that David Lammy chooses to take a wrecking ball to an 800-year-old tradition that has long been recognised as integral to a real engagement and trust of the public in the justice system. People who by jury service were all potential participants in and defenders of British justice, will even more be the ignored, unconsulted, unheard potential victims of British injustice.

No, I don’t think I think we can ascribe this to ignorance, incompetence or stupidity. It’s a tyrannical measure that would very much make it easier for the government to punish its opponents.

---

This article (Lammy’s assault on the jury system is an act of breathtaking constitutional vandalism) was created and published by Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Daniel Jupp