The Headmistress State Has Officially Lost Its Mind

Shabana Mahmood did not write this. The permanent secretary of the Home Office, Antonia Romeo, is too pretentious to have written this, although she might have commissioned it. This abomination was concocted by a very nasty cabal of permanent mandarins who printed it off and handed it over to the Parliamentary aides to put on the table of the House of Commons, and it is a prima facie exhibit demonstating why we can no longer tolerate these people. This disgrace of a bill is a classic example of why the entire establishment needs fumigating.

The total operational capacity for the prison system in the UK is around 98,200. Despite the population increase, we've only built 500 new places in 15 years. The British hard drive for the worst people has 1.2% space free at most. The prison population is forecast to increase to between 95,700 and 105,200 by 2029.

The Sentencing Bill is the Labour government's appalling answer to this civil service Uniparty disaster. The "plan" is to release everyone on ankle tags, then ban people who like Tommy Robinson from pubs. No, really. This isn't a joke, it's published legislation.

They are sneaking in grotesque Orwellian crap on the back of mass prisoner release because they didn't build enough prison places. Ministers haven't read this, and don't understand it. The Great Repeal must get rid of this pestilence.

We began with Anti-Social Behaviour Orders in 1998 - ostensibly to tackle genuine nuisance but quickly weaponised against the eccentric, the poor, and the politically inconvenient. Then came Control Orders (2005), Serious Crime Prevention Orders (2007), Criminal Behaviour Orders (2014), and risible "Respect Orders" (2025).

Now we arrive at the Sentencing Bill 2025's "income reduction orders" - a breathtaking assertion of state authority to seize citizens' wages for years after conviction. The progression is clear: from controlling where you go (ASBOs), to monitoring what you do (Control Orders), to confiscating what you earn (Income Reduction Orders). The HR state no longer merely punishes; it seeks to micromanage every aspect of post-conviction existence.

This disaster represents the most comprehensive assault on British liberty since the suspension of habeas corpus. It doesn't merely reform criminal justice—it abolishes foundational legal principles which have protected citizens since Magna Carta, replacing them with an administrative control system where punishment precedes conviction, bureaucrats exercise judicial powers, and the state claims perpetual authority over citizens' economic, social, and physical existence.

The exact kind of revolting violation you'd expect from the civil service.

Pre-Conviction Punishment

Section 41's bail provisions reveal the bill's most fundamental betrayal: the abolition of the presumption of innocence. Courts may impose electronic monitoring on unconvicted citizens based merely on speculation about potential future sentences. Not conviction, not evidence of guilt, but administrative prediction someone might receive a suspended sentence triggers immediate surveillance and control.

Consider what this means: a person accused of a "public order" offence—perhaps holding the wrong placard at a protest—faces electronic tagging before trial. The state tracks their every movement, restricts their associations, and brands them as quasi-criminal whilst they remain legally innocent. The provisions specifically target those unlikely to receive custody, acknowledging these are minor cases whilst imposing major restrictions without conviction.

This transforms bail from a mechanism ensuring court attendance into a pre-emptive punishment regime. These idiots are constructing an East German system where accusation alone triggers comprehensive state control, where citizens exist in limbo between innocence and guilt, subjected to punishment whilst awaiting determination of whether any crime occurred.

The Destruction of Judicial Independence

Throughout the bill, executive power systematically usurps judicial function. Section 26 grants the Secretary of State authority to determine recall criteria through regulations. Section 29 enables administrative determination of "significant risk" without judicial review. Section 19 requires Lord Chancellor approval for sentencing guidelines. Section 17 empowers the Lord Chancellor to create new community requirements through secondary legislation.

This represents nothing less than the executive branch assuming control over criminal justice. Decisions about liberty, property, and fundamental rights shift from courtrooms with procedural safeguards to government offices operating through unpublished guidelines. A civil servant's risk assessment carries the same weight as a judge's verdict. A minister's regulation overwrites centuries of common law protection.

The implications are staggering. Sentencing—the state's most serious power short of warfare—becomes an administrative function controlled by politicians rather than independent judges. Courts transform into bureaucratic processing centres implementing executive policy rather than dispensing justice. The separation of powers which protects citizens from arbitrary state action dissolves into executive supremacy.

State-Sanctioned Theft

Section 3 introduces perhaps the most audacious power grab in modern British history: "income reduction orders" allowing courts to confiscate up to 20% of earnings above a threshold for the entire operational period of a suspended sentence—potentially three years. This isn't a fine, it isn't restitution, it isn't even punishment—it's systematic wealth extraction enforced through threat of imprisonment.

The provision creates a comprehensive financial surveillance architecture requiring continuous monitoring, mandatory document production, and compelled attendance at hearings. The Secretary of State determines thresholds, percentages, and enforcement mechanisms through regulations, bypassing Parliamentary scrutiny. Failure to comply becomes a breach of the suspended sentence itself, creating a vicious cycle where poverty caused by state confiscation triggers imprisonment for non-payment.

Think about the precedent this establishes: the state claims authority to commandeer lawfully earned income years after conviction for minor offences. Someone convicted of a protest-related public order offence faces three years of state confiscation of their wages. A person guilty of offensive speech under ever-expanding definitions loses a fifth of their income above subsistence level. The provision creates a parallel tax system for those with convictions, transforming criminal justice into a revenue-generating enterprise where the state profits from criminalisation.

From where does government derive this authority? No democratic mandate exists for systematic wealth confiscation from citizens who have served their sentences. No constitutional principle permits the state to claim perpetual financial control over those convicted of minor offences. This is theft disguised as justice, extortion dressed as rehabilitation.

Cancel Culture In Law

Sections 13-16 introduce "prohibition requirements" which amount to "cancelling" people in real life. The "drinking establishment entry prohibition requirement" bans individuals from any pub, bar, or entertainment venue serving alcohol. The "public event attendance prohibition requirement" excludes people from any event with public access. The "restriction zone requirement" creates geographic prisons with mandatory electronic monitoring. The "driving prohibition requirement" removes mobility regardless of whether offences involved vehicles.

These aren't targeted restrictions addressing specific risks—they're blanket exclusions from society. Someone convicted of a minor public order offence cannot attend their child's school concert (public event), meet friends at a pub (drinking establishment), travel beyond prescribed boundaries (restriction zone), or drive to work (driving prohibition). The restrictions bear no relationship to original offences, instead imposing generalised social exile.

Not even East Germany went this far.

The provisions' breadth defies comprehension. "Public event" encompasses everything from football matches to political rallies, from concerts to community gatherings. A person banned from public events cannot participate in democracy through protest, cannot engage in community through local festivals, cannot maintain relationships through social gatherings. This isn't punishment—it's erasure and unpersoning from public life.

The "restriction zone requirement" creates de facto lockdown house arrest without proper legal safeguards. Courts may confine individuals to specified areas for up to two years, with different zones for different times. Someone might be permitted in their neighbourhood during work hours but confined to their street in evenings. Every journey requires permission, every deviation risks imprisonment. The state becomes arbiter of all movement, transforming daily life into a series of geographic negotiations with authority.

Imaginary Russian Bot Offences

Sections 7-10's expansion of "offenders of particular concern" categories reveals the bill's authoritarian core. These provisions dramatically broaden special sentencing beyond terrorism to encompass vaguely defined "national security offences" including any offence where "foreign power involvement exists." The definition captures activities involving foreign governments, organisations, or individuals—terminology so broad it criminalises legitimate journalism, academic research, and political commentary.

A blogger citing foreign sources while critiquing British policy triggers enhanced sentences. An academic collaborating with international colleagues faces lifetime restrictions. A protester whose cause involves foreign entities receives treatment previously reserved for terrorists. The provisions apply retrospectively, capturing past conduct under expanded definitions, destroying legal certainty and the prohibition on retroactive punishment.

The "foreign power condition" determination occurs through administrative processes, not criminal trial. Security officials, not judges, decide whether conduct involves foreign elements. This classification triggers enhanced sentences, extended monitoring, and permanent restrictions without specific conviction for security offences. They are creating a system where identical conduct receives vastly different punishment based on bureaucratic classification rather than judicial determination.

These provisions enable comprehensive suppression of political dissent. Combined with public order offences and prohibition requirements, they create a toolkit for silencing opposition through criminal justice. Protest organisers face classification as security risks, subjected to income confiscation, social exclusion, and geographic restriction not for specific crimes but for political activity deemed to involve foreign elements.

Retroactive Justice and the Goodbye To Legal Certainty

Multiple provisions apply retroactively to existing sentences and pending cases. Section 20's release modifications affect current prisoners. Section 7's national security provisions capture past conduct under expanded definitions. The foreign power conditions retroactively criminalise previously legal international engagement.

This destroys the fundamental principle citizens must know what law prohibits when acting. Past legitimate journalism becomes retroactively criminal. Previous academic collaboration triggers enhanced sentences. Political activity legal when undertaken attracts lifetime restrictions through administrative redefinition. The state claims power not merely to punish future conduct but to continuously rewrite the legal meaning of past actions.

The retroactive provisions reveal the bill's true nature: not prospective regulation but retrospective control. The state asserts authority to perpetually reassess past conduct under evolving definitions, capturing ever-wider categories of behaviour and imposing ever-expanding restrictions on those already processed through the justice system. No conviction is ever final, no sentence ever complete, no debt to society ever paid.

The Digital Gulag

The bill's expansion of electronic monitoring from exceptional measure to routine requirement creates a comprehensive surveillance state. Section 16's restriction zones with mandatory monitoring, Section 41's pre-conviction tagging, and Section 24's post-release surveillance combine to normalise permanent electronic supervision of anyone touching the criminal justice system.

This isn't targeted monitoring of dangerous offenders but routine surveillance of citizens convicted of minor offences. Electronic monitoring shifts from temporary measure to permanent feature, with people potentially tagged for years for trivial infractions. The technology enables comprehensive movement tracking, association monitoring, and behaviour analysis without traditional imprisonment's costs or visibility.

They are constructing a digital prison system where physical incarceration becomes unnecessary. Citizens remain nominally free whilst under constant surveillance, their every movement tracked, every deviation punished. The electronic tag becomes the modern equivalent of transported convicts' chains—a permanent mark of state control which follows citizens through life.

The Presumption of Control

Sections 1 and 2 establish presumptions for suspended sentences unless "exceptional circumstances" exist—undefined terminology granting courts unlimited discretion whilst reversing traditional logic. Courts must justify not imposing extended control regimes rather than justifying their imposition. Every minor conviction presumptively triggers financial surveillance, movement restrictions, and social prohibitions unless judges actively resist.

Combined with income reduction orders and prohibition requirements, this creates automatic enrollment in comprehensive control programmes following conviction. The distinction between convicted and unconvicted, imprisoned and free, dissolves into graduated administrative categories. Criminal justice transforms from exceptional state intervention into routine administrative processing where conviction automatically triggers years of bureaucratic management.

The Abolition of Proportionality

The bill obliterates proportionality—the principle punishment must match crime severity. Someone convicted of a minor public order offence faces years of income confiscation, social exclusion, and movement restriction exceeding consequences for serious violent crimes. These punishments are determined not by offence gravity but by administrative convenience and political preference.

The bill creates inverse proportionality where minor offenders face extensive control regimes whilst serious criminals receive early release. Section 20 reduces required custody time from half to one-third of sentences, releasing violent offenders early whilst imposing years of restrictions on speech offenders. This isn't justice but population management, using criminal law to control undesirable populations rather than punish specific conduct.

The Sentencing Bill 2025 doesn't reform criminal justice—it replaces it with an administrative control system operating outside constitutional constraints. It abolishes the presumption of innocence through pre-conviction punishment. It destroys judicial independence through executive usurpation. It obliterates proportionality through arbitrary restriction. It eliminates legal certainty through retroactive application.

We are witnessing not just "two tier justice," but the construction of a parallel justice system where punishment precedes conviction, where bureaucrats exercise judicial powers, where administrative classification replaces criminal trial. Citizens face comprehensive control regimes not through proper legal process but through regulatory mechanisms designed to bypass constitutional protections.

The bill reveals a state which views citizens as subjects requiring perpetual supervision and control. From income to associations, from geography to leisure activities, no aspect of existence remains beyond state interference once someone enters the criminal justice system—even for the most minor offences. The marginalised, the poor, the politically active, face systematic exclusion from economic and social life through administrative decree rather than judicial determination.

The civil service wants to "cancel" people.

If Parliament accepts this bill, it establishes precedent for comprehensive state control over any disfavoured group through administrative classification rather than legal process. Today's protester becomes tomorrow's security risk, subjected to lifetime restrictions through bureaucratic designation rather than criminal conviction.

Commit a public order offence at a protest involving international support, receive a suspended sentence with income reduction orders, pub bans, event exclusions, and restriction zones. Your earnings are confiscated, your social life destroyed, your movements monitored, your political participation prevented. Breach any requirement—miss a payment, enter a pub, attend a football match, travel beyond your zone—and face immediate imprisonment.

The Death of British Liberty

We gave the world habeas corpus, jury trial, the presumption of innocence. This isn't evolution but revolution—the overthrow of eight centuries of legal development protecting citizens from arbitrary state power.

The bill doesn't address crime or rehabilitation or public safety. It creates mechanisms for social control through criminal justice, transforming courts into lifestyle prescription services and probation into perpetual surveillance. It constructs an architecture where minor infractions trigger lifetime consequences, where accusation brings punishment, where bureaucratic classification replaces legal process.

It might represent the stupidity of ministers and civil servants. But it will represent an opportunity later for tyrants, who grasp the idiocy of the MPs who voted for it.

Accepting this garbage means accepting Britain's transformation from a nation governed by law to one ruled by administrative decree. It means abandoning fundamental principles—presumption of innocence, proportionate justice, judicial independence—in favour of bureaucratic control, perpetual surveillance, and executive supremacy.

It grants the state power to monitor, restrict, and economically destroy citizens based on minor infractions, political activity, or mere accusation. It transforms criminal justice from a system of punishment and rehabilitation into a mechanism for comprehensive social control. It abolishes the distinction between citizen and subject, between freedom and control, between democracy and authoritarianism.

Of course, Cooper, Mahmood, Romeo, and their satanic little elves are too catastrophically stupid to recognise it, but we're the ones affected.

This legislative abomination must be rejected in its entirety. Not amended, not modified, not reformed—rejected.

Parliament must dismiss this bill for what it is: the most dangerous assault on British liberty in living memory after lockdown; a blueprint for authoritarian control masquerading as criminal justice reform.

The headmistress state hasn't merely lost her HR mind—she has revealed her fundamental contempt for liberty, democracy, and the citizens she claims to serve.

Parliament must stop this madness before British freedom becomes a historical curiosity, studied by future generations as a cautionary tale of how liberty dies not through revolution but through legislation.