Up until recently I had never heard the phrase "People's Court". I rather hope I never come across it again, but I fear I will.
I came across it after reading a series of Tweets by those who should know better, namely Chris Philp, former crime and policing minister and now shadow Home Secretary and Kemi Badenoch, former Levelling Up minister, now leader of the Opposition.
Kemi suggested Lucy Connolly - who urged rioting people to burn down hotels housing refugees and them along with it - suffered a harsh sentence. Fact-check - Connolly pleaded guilty to 'publishing threatening or abusive material intending to stir up racial hatred'. For those unsure as to what is considered to stir it up, then "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.” is now considered stirring material.
What irked Conservative Kemi and Conservative Chris and many others was that Labour councillor Ricky Jones, despite being caught on camera at a rally and suggesting racist protestors had their throats slit, and despite the police arresting him and the CPS charging him, and him going to trial because he pleaded not guilty... well, the irksome bit was not that.
It was that the jury of twelve randomly chosen member of the public listened to all the evidence presented by the prosecution and defence and decided that they could not be sure beyond reasonable doubt that he was encouraging violent disorder. So they found him not guilty. And that's when it hit the fan.
Kemi accepted juries were the "cornerstone of justice"... "but we shouldn’t have to rely on them to protect basic freedoms". Well, clearly, if they happen to not give the verdict some people were clearly hoping for.
Chris went further, dragging out that new trope of the "development of two tier justice" which he insisted was "increasingly alarming". This from the guy who dismissed the Plymouth coroner's calm, police-backed, sensible call for gun licence reform - particularly shotguns - in the wake of the Keyham shooting, because it'd have a "negative impact" on farmers and those involved in voting Conservative.
Sorry, I meant to say he felt it'd have a negative impact on those involved in "rural pursuits".
He said the government "must come forward with plans to ensure justice is handed out equally" but qualified it with "but as far as I can see this Labour government seems to be quite happy with two tier justice."
A former Crime and Police minister, and a current leader of the opposition, start opining that there's something wrong with our legal system and perhaps it could do with being looked at and possibly changed a bit - because a jury decided one person was not guilty and thus would not be jailed, while another person who pleaded guilty was jailed.
A jury decides. And only the jury.
But that's not good enough is it, because there's that frustrated feeling that its being influenced by politicians. Well, not just the wrong kind of influence, but by the wrong kind of politicians.
So I did a bit of reading and found out where this kind of frustration can lead, with the legal system being just, well, a tad too liberal, not the right kind of justice, certainly not the kind of justice we can get behind when push comes to shove, or lit touch-paper comes to hotel full of migrants, refugees or people who look a bit off.
And there it was in the Jewish Virtual Library... Volksgerichtshof.
It's German, by the way. It translates as 'People's Court'. Which sounds nice, like 'People's Princess' eh?
It was set up in 1934 outside the operations of the constitutional frame of law. It aimed to deal with the new treason law, made that year. Three chambers, two for prosecution of high treason, one for the prosecution of treason. Two members of each chamber were professional jurists and three were lay judges, selected from party and military organisations.
And when I say party, just to clarify, we're talking the Nazi Party. The ones with the smart uniforms. Because nothing says setting up a fair, balanced, transparent court than the Nazi party, with a couple of military jackboot thugs, questioning those they consider "enemies of the Reich".
As opposed to "Enemies of the People" like that Daily Mail front page with the pictures of three judges. 
Those who opposed the increasingly authoritarian regime found themselves arbitrarily arrested if they were not the right sort. Or rather, not the far right sort. The sentences for supposed treason were a tad strict - more than 50 trials ended with 110 death sentences.
I'm sure there were those who questioned the need to overhaul the supposedly liberal judicial system that wasn't getting the results expected, but they were probably called hysterical and anyway, that Mr Hitler was a lovely man, made the trains run on time, he's ever so patriotic - he likes flags for a start - it's not like he wants to militarise everything...
The quote from the Jewish Virtual Library is worth noting: "Since its founding, the National Socialist German Workers Party fought against the rule of law. The National Socialist takeover also represented a victory of authoritarian criminal law over liberal criminal law"
Gosh - claims of a 'Two Tier' justice system, resulting in the changing the legal process to ensure more of the right sort of people were targeted and not the far right sort. Ring any bells (or alarms)?
