Tues 13 June - Judiciary: good, bad or indifferent?

"I am not having a crack at the judiciary for the recent matter of the man who has been incarcerated for the attacks on that three year old girl, however it is that incident that has sparked me off on this present tirade.

"I could not see the reason why the government decided to enact new regulations regardig the assessment of sentencing, so that if it was felt the sentence was inadequate or inappropriate, they home office would get the case in hand back to court for a variation in that sentence.

"I am even more baffled at present as it seem that there is a serious dichotomy of opinion between the legislature and the judiciary as what constitutes a proper sentence. Hence this constant referral to the Home Secretary whenever a perceived lenient sentence is passed by a judge.

"Some day it may cross the minds of our government that the public do not want this war of attrition between Westminster and the Courts, what is wanted, needed even, by the public, is sentencing that is acceptable to the public as adequate for the crime that is being tested in court.

"It does not imply that we go down the path of an eye for an eye, that being to primitive a route to take for most intelligent people, but when it is taken as inappropriate, the public is unlikely to be satisfied at the end of the day.

"Further to this is the matter of the kangaroo courts known as 'family courts' where justice is not only not seen to be done, but that a cloak of secrecy gives credence to the idea that there is a degree of that nasty political correct brigade having sway over the needs of the citizen.

"A recent well known case having been splashed all over the media, prompts me to question the validity of stealing children and literally giving them away, forever I must point out, to strangers, without any recourse to the fact that the whole thing may have been a massive error on the part of the authorities.

"There have been cases where parents have been deprived of their children under this pernicious and in my mind illegal, regime, only to have the case reviewed in the parents favour at a later date, but then this corrupt and evil method of dealing with the matter has prevented the return of the child or children back to their rightful and biologcal parents.

"All this done in absolute secrecy. Better the child or children be named in open court, rather than the whole mess be swept under this carpet of bureaucratic theft and mishandling.

"What difference does it make anyway if the names of the children and family are in the public domain? They are usually well named amongst their own local community, so why all the covert activity on behalf of the authority, or is it that the authorities are really the ones with something to hide? So that not naming the family in court is just a smoke screen for the ineptitude and bungling of these authorities.

"I am sure that if a great deal more was done openly then maybe the likes of what happened to that 3 year old recently would, or at least could have been prevented, as it seems that in order to protect those who make these decisions behind closed doors, steps are taken that virtually ensures certain elements in our society are given free rein to carry on in their normal abnormal fashion.

"Somehow I feel that Human Rights laws are there as a prop to the authorities whenever they cock it all up. They can use these laws to declare they were only doing this, that, or the other to ensure that someone's Human Rights were being kept. Never mind the poor bloody victims in all this clutter of bureaucracy, just as long as some pervert's Human Rights are intact we will be seen to be acting correctly.

"How well they looked after Victoria Climbie - tell it to the mother of the son stabbed to death or the parents of children stolen by the state and given away for life. What a pigs dinner the government and judiciary have made of our society with all this stuff."

Note - Morgan's views are not necessarily shared by the BBC