Levelling Level | The UK Courts – Fixing the Problems

One area of public service that could easily become a book all of its own is the future and direction of the Law Courts across the UK, whether they are dealing with Criminal, Civil or Family Matters.

Both the judiciary and the legal profession have been overtaken by self-interest.

In terms of the judiciary and of magistrates there has been massive blurring of the lines between what standing law actually is, and what they themselves want to see – or feel influenced to allow for there to be, depending upon their own innate prejudices or the fear that currently comes from the culture of group think or the populist voice of what they see as being the relevant crowd.

In terms of the legal profession, the desire and aim of providing the best service possible based on the understanding and knowledge of law that the lawyer, solicitor or barrister has to ensure the least pain possible to the client, has been superseded by the desire to provide the most expensive service over the longest time possible, without any consideration for the qualitative impact that unnecessary, emotive and highly polarising human misery that court cases cause.

In recent years there have been steps to temper the direction of this evolution by the introduction of mediation as a step-requirement in the case of family law, but its success has and will always be dependent upon the commitment and motivation of the primary counsels or solicitors within the process, and so it has been doomed never to reach the height of its potential and do the good that it can for any civil or family law process, for as long as the prioritisation of the bottom line continues to exist.

For a fair and just society to work in a balanced way – as it should – for all, it is essential that we have a healthy and robust court system, supported by a legal profession, which facilities an unquestionably impartial decision-making process and a legal advice system that always puts the interests of the client – and not the bottom line – first.

Such change will be greatly supported by the removal of laws for laws sake, as the Levelling Level approach provides, but it is nonetheless essential that the whole legal system them operates without self-interest of any kind, and that once fixed, it is fully funded as locally as possible, so that it can function as expeditiously as it can in every way.


The smallest prejudices can have the greatest cost

The really challenging aspect of the answer to the Social Mobility question, is the acceptance that we all have a part to play in helping others to get on.

More often than not, the part we have to play is resisting the innate prejudices that we all have – that call on us to obstruct people from progressing or accessing opportunities who we identify as being different and therefore a threat to us in some way.

Yes, the term ‘innate prejudices’ is yet another term that has and is being actively misused by the rights lobby today, simply because you cannot legislate to change the way that people think.

The spurious attempts regulate against innate prejudices are counterproductive. They make light of the reality that every one of us has innate prejudices that affect everything we do and every interaction that we have.

It is basic programming or software that constitutes the way that we think. Without modification through life learning and broad experience, it will have either been there, have been created or have been developing since the day that we were born.