Transparency.

Justice needs not just to be done,
but to be seen to be done!

Our legal system is supposed to be a good one and it is the bedrock of any good society.

It is true that the vast majority of Police officers, Judges and many others that work in our legal system are superb and do a fantastic job.

However, it has been clear in recent times for anyone watching close enough that unfortunately this isn’t always the case.

For this reason, we want to see all court room hearings aired on TV unless the jury submits that it is not appropriate.

Not only is this entertaining, but shows that the justice system is or perhaps isn’t working.

Most of the items within our Constitution relate directly to this subject. Some have further explanations below:

• The Divergent Party believes in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom as a nation and the full authority of its people in the governance and direction of that nation.
  Simply put, if the majority of people don’t want it, it shouldn’t happen!

• The Divergent Party believes that the government of the United Kingdom must place the interests of the British people over and above the citizens of other nations.
  We simply cannot help everyone, and our government is set up for the benefit of the UK and her citizens alone. This is not to say we cannot or should not assist others when appropriate, but that our needs come first.

• The Divergent Party believes that all public servants in any capacity, must be accountable to the British public and that it should be illegal for any public servant to knowingly lie in the capacity of that service.
  Too many times have public servants been able to avoid justice. From Politicians to policemen and women, knowingly lying to the public is in our opinions completely unacceptable.

• The Divergent Party believes in the democratic right to freedom of speech; excluding only direct incitement to violence.
  This includes the right to offend. In order to think, you have to risk being offensive. All “hate speech” laws to be redacted. Why? Because who is the arbiter of what constitutes hate? As Jordan Peterson says, “In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive” here. It doesn’t even mean it was offensive. Just as Ricky Gervais rightly points out here, you have to own the feeling.
  Not only all this, but if someone is a threat, a Nazi or a Taliban terrorist, we want them to be able to shout that as loud as they want, so we all know who and where the threat is coming from. The only thing speech legislation does is push it underground. We would rather it was out in the open.

• The Divergent Party believes in free and fair elections with one vote in all public elections afforded to all citizens (photo ID required). And that any standing candidate of any political party can assign two individuals with full recorded access rights to the election process and procedure to ensure integrity. This includes the option to voters of making their vote public.
  This is all geared towards making sure our system of government is not corrupt. Making votes public for those who chose to and requiring ID are no brainers in this regard.

• The Divergent Party believes in the equality of all citizens before one law, as determined by elected representatives in Parliament or the public via referendums.
  It is our belief that everyone should be held to account in a fair and appropriate way.

• The Divergent Party believes in the preservation of traditional British liberties. This specifically include the right to trial by jury and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
  The right to trial by jury ensures that when appropriate (asked for!) no one person can ever be full control of an individuals destiny. It also means that corruption at the highest level is as limited as possible. Innocent until proven guilty is also a primary right of anyone. However, for clarity, this comes with a risk assessment on a case by case basis.

• The Divergent Party believes in the rights of the individual only. That all individuals always have bodily autonomy and that parents have full rights over their own children up to the age of 16.
  The state should not interfere with peoples personal choices. In that as long as nobody is being harmed, it should respect any and all differences in choice. When a young adult reaches 16, they can have the right to certain freedoms as they currently have now.

• The Divergent Party believes in the liberty of all citizens to live privately and without unnecessary state or public intrusion.
  If someone wants to live privately they should have that right. This may mean home schooling children or moving away from the national grid electricity. Even access to bank accounts and any other personal information should be limited to what the individual allows or only that necessary as a request from the police to a judge while investigating a criminal matter.

• The Divergent Party believes in freedom of thought and the rights of the individual to assent to, or reject, any philosophical, political, or religious belief system, without penalty.
  This is just basic human rights. The right to vote or not, the right to practice any religion…. Always remembering that it should never have any negative impact on anyone else.

• The Divergent Party believes that no issue can be decided by parliament after a 1% of the UK population petition. It must go to referendum! A public event with experts from both sides of the argument will have the opportunity to present evidence in order to assist public opinion.
  This is purely to prevent narratives and any actions by government that people don’t necessarily want. It would be rare to get a 1% population petition. But it also makes sure that experts on both sides of an argument can be heard. This is vital for people to make informed decisions.

• The Divergent Party believes no media outlet can be treated unfairly.
  In order to facilitate part of the above item, it is paramount that the media are not paid for, or have any affiliations that may (does at the moment) provide reason for bias.

• The Divergent Party believes access to basic finance cannot be withheld for any reason. (IE A basic bank account). That no financial transactions can have limitations on amounts and that any individual always has the right of access to their own finances.
  We need to make sure that the government can not interfere with our banking systems and that they cannot simply ban anyone from society. Unfortunately, this is sometimes done here in the UK and it is unacceptable. An example of a worrying outcome from Government interference, was the treatment of the supporters of the Truckers movement in Canada. Some had bank accounts frozen because they didn’t agree with the government decisions. This is completely unacceptable! We need laws in place to make sure this can never happen here.

• The Divergent Party believes that justice is seen to be done. This can, under specific considerations include cameras in UK courts and a special protection in any case of self-defence. Specifically that protection of victims and witnesses is paramount.
  A direct alignment with all of the above. Victims need justice and the criminal justice system at the moment in the UK is not fit for purpose. Prisons are like holiday camps and when prisoners are released, they are not given the right or proper support to begin life once again in the community with a clean slate. Some crimes should come with an automatic minimum sentence and include the death penalty (capital punishment) for the worst crimes when appropriate. This needs to come however with a higher threshold of conviction from beyond reasonable doubt, to beyond any doubt.

On Capital Punishment I would like to explain that we should not tolerate torture of any kind.
Let me give you an example of when capital punishment could even be seen as an act of mercy.

Ian Huntley, the human piece of garbage has been costing the UK taxpayer at times, almost 1 million a year to ensure his safety. 
The parents of the girls he murdered are still paying tax and therefore are in essence helping pay to keep him safe. 

It would be torture for him without the safety precautions and if he has any moral compass, torture living with what he has done. 
It might also be a long tortured and painful death should other inmates or even some people get hold of him. (Argument for him to deserve that valid)

He even has to have anyone looking after him vetted to make sure they aren't a threat. 
As he will never be let out of prison and his existence is one that isn't worth the value to society. Especially when we have working class families, including children in cities all over the UK lining up at night for a food banks. 

It makes it clear to me that society has its priorities wrong. He gave up his right to a full life when he killed those girls.

Not only this, but sentencing should take into account when possible, the victims opinions on the crime, justice and punishment.