Newly revealed Ministry of Justice guidance instructs UK judges to prioritize bail hearings for ethnic minorities, women, and transgender defendants. In other words, everyone other than straight, White, males.
According to The Telegraph, the policy advises courts to consider “historical trauma” and the impact of racism—potentially even suffered by a suspect’s ancestors—when deciding whether to grant bail.
Judges have been advised to consider historical trauma, including racism experienced by a suspect’s relatives. Campaigners argue that Blacks may still be affected by the legacy of slavery.
This move has sparked fresh outrage over what critics call a two-tier justice system that undermines equal treatment under the law. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick slammed the policy, accusing Labour of putting the public at risk.
“Instead of equality before the law, the Justice Secretary’s department believes in cultural relativism. This is a flagrant attack on the rule of law, and will put the British public at risk,” he said.
The guidance, issued in January, echoes controversial sentencing rules set to take effect this week, which require judges to factor in race and culture when determining punishments.
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has vowed to block those sentencing guidelines, admitting they risk “eroding public confidence.” However, the bail policy—developed under Conservative leadership in 2016 but implemented under Labour—suggests deeper systemic changes favouring identity-based legal outcomes.
I am deeply concerned that many in the establishment not only view racism as acceptable, but desirable, as long as it’s white people on the receiving end.
— Rupert Lowe MP (@RupertLowe10) March 31, 2025
Revolting. pic.twitter.com/oWXPqs8Rh3
This once again demonstrates how anti-White legislation and policy operates—not by opposing the straight, White, Christian man directly, but by promoting or advantaging everyone else. This tactic deceives the public into seeing it as righting a wrong rather than inflicting one.
When the ruling establishment enacts policies that specifically disadvantage the native population, it’s difficult to see it as anything other than a deliberate provocation. Why else? What’s the goal? Are they trying to alienate the native population intentionally? Do they want to heighten tensions and stir unrest? If incitement is illegal for ordinary citizens, shouldn’t it be held to an even stricter standard for those in power?
For centuries, equal treatment under the law in the UK has ensured that all individuals, regardless of status or background, are subject to the same legal standards and protections. This principle has historically upheld fairness and impartiality, fostering trust in the justice system—the very basis of maintaining law and order in the Western world.
To undermine the justice system is to erode the foundations of a harmonious society, breed resentment, and further fragment the community—none of which can be “earned back” overnight. That sort of trust in the legal process takes centuries to cultivate.
