Best Of

FPT

The biggest takeaway for me from the four juries I sat on was that they varied enormously in quality. In fact I came away with the distinct view that if you were a guilty defendant, the stupider the jury, the better your chances of getting away with it.

One juror was so illiterate he couldn't read the oath. In the jury room he just nodded along with the prevailing sentiment which was that most of the jurors just wanted to get home and as a not guilty verdict was the quickest and easiest way of achieving this, he got off. The judge made it clear that he thought this was the wrong verdict, and i am sure he was right.

By contrast, in a much more serious case, it was clear that the entire court thought the defendant would get off, but it was his misfortune to have some very smart people on the jury, some of whom had picked up on things missed by the court. The discussion was detailed, rational and highly responsible. To this day I am certin the guilty verdict was correct, and the defendant was simply unlucky to have so many smart people ruling on his case.

The one serious contentious case with which I am deeply familiar is the A6 murder for which James Hanratty was hanged. There is little doubt that a material contributory factor in the guilty verdict was that the case, unusually, was held at Bedford rather than the Old Bailey. Bedford was close to the scene of the crime and feelings were running high at the time.

I am not saying these examples makes the jury system bad, and I certainly don't have any magic formula for improving it, but the nature of the jury and the way it is selected seems to me a neglected area of study. If we understood more about it, some of the miscarriages we hear of might be avoided.

I did my latest jury speech on Friday afternoon. It was a relief to get it out of the way by the weekend.

In general, I have found juries very attentive and focused in the High Court, much more so than they tend to be for less serious trials in the Sheriff court. I have had the odd jury who have come back quickly with a not proven verdict that smacked of a reluctance to engage with the evidence but it has been rare, maybe 2 in 40 or so trials that come to mind.

Even when I have disagreed with the jury's verdict I have seen how they got there. More often, I have had very discerning judgments where parts of the charge have been removed showing that they have gone through the evidence carefully.

It is not a perfect system and there is a random element to it but in my view decisions by judges alone, whether on their own or in a panel of 3, would be worse.

From a post on Bluesky

"The United States has informed its NATO allies of its decision to cease participation in the planning of future military exercises in Europe.

It is expected to affect exercises that are still in the planning stages or in the conceptual phase.

US will shift focus to the Indo-Pacific region."

Once again, the speed with which this is moving is shocking. Trump at least learned 1 thing from his first administration.

NATO needs replaced now. Only when we know what the alternative is can we work out properly what we need to do.

It makes me pessimistic about my predictions already. This year is going to be far more unstable than I had realised.

I said a couple of days ago that we should stop pretending the US is acting as an ally. I’m becoming increasingly convinced it doesn’t do much of anything towards preventing Trump acting against us, and is very probably counterproductive.

There’s no good reason to openly call him an enemy (whether or not some of us might think that), but rather simply treat the US as a country for now acting only in what it (wrongly) sees as its own interests, which on several rather important matters are completely at odds with our interests.

Trump has no better nature to appeal to - but he does respect strength. Grovelling means you still get told to do what he wants.

FPT

The biggest takeaway for me from the four juries I sat on was that they varied enormously in quality. In fact I came away with the distinct view that if you were a guilty defendant, the stupider the jury, the better your chances of getting away with it.

One juror was so illiterate he couldn't read the oath. In the jury room he just nodded along with the prevailing sentiment which was that most of the jurors just wanted to get home and as a not guilty verdict was the quickest and easiest way of achieving this, he got off. The judge made it clear that he thought this was the wrong verdict, and i am sure he was right.

By contrast, in a much more serious case, it was clear that the entire court thought the defendant would get off, but it was his misfortune to have some very smart people on the jury, some of whom had picked up on things missed by the court. The discussion was detailed, rational and highly responsible. To this day I am certin the guilty verdict was correct, and the defendant was simply unlucky to have so many smart people ruling on his case.

The one serious contentious case with which I am deeply familiar is the A6 murder for which James Hanratty was hanged. There is little doubt that a material contributory factor in the guilty verdict was that the case, unusually, was held at Bedford rather than the Old Bailey. Bedford was close to the scene of the crime and feelings were running high at the time.

I am not saying these examples makes the jury system bad, and I certainly don't have any magic formula for improving it, but the nature of the jury and the way it is selected seems to me a neglected area of study. If we understood more about it, some of the miscarriages we hear of might be avoided.

Ukraine gave up nukes, post-soviet era, in exchange for security guarantees from USA.

UK threw everything it had post- war into the special USA relationship tightly bound on security, intelligence, equipment, policy - even sharing nukes. We gave them airfields and bases and went to war with them against their enemies as in Iraq.

Both betrayed.

But betraying allies is an ancient American tradition - not joining the League of Nations after World War I, which they themselves had insisted on including in the Treaty of Versailles, being willing to fight to the last Brit in World War II until the Japanese attacked them, stabbking us in the back over Suez, then bitching that we didn't back them over Vietnam, cutting and running on the South Vietnamese, and in more recent times, betraying the Kurds (twice), the Afghans and now NATO and the Ukrainians.

They are a faithless and untrustworthy ally. It's what you'd expect from a self-obsessed, insular and ignorant people.

And it makes their occasional bursts of altruistic internationalism, such as the Marshall Plan, all the more exceptional.

Reform civil war continues to escalate:

https://x.com/rupertlowe10/status/1898454825366393311

Nigel Farage needs to take back control of Reform, and sack Zia Yusuf.

Seems Rupert is having second thoughts and hoping the whole thing can be hung around Zia Yusuf.

Nigel.

I have enormous respect for you, but you know that this is an entirely false and poisonous narrative. Why remove the whip before any investigation has even started? Don’t you believe that we are all innocent until proven guilty? Why launch this malicious attack the day after my reasonable concerns were made public?

The timing is suspect, to say the least.

To suggest that my questions came after this vindictive process began is a falsehood. I gave the interview to the Daily Mail on the 25th of February in Westminster. I first received word of the Reform proceedings against me on the 28th of February. On a Friday afternoon from Lee Anderson, with no prior warning. What professionalism.

Honestly, the process has been handled so appallingly. I don’t even know if I remain in the party or not. Amateur is generous.

Asking reasonable questions of Reform structure, policy and communication may be awkward and uncomfortable, but it is entirely necessary. I will continue to do so. Difficult interrogation will only make any party stronger.

As you know, I have tried and tried to have a civilised dinner with you to discuss all of this. You have repeatedly refused. I offered once more today, again no response. This should have ALL happened behind closed doors. As I pushed for, over and over again.

This isn’t about me, or you, or any petty personal differences you may have with me.

This is about our members, our supporters, and our country.

This isn’t about us. It’s about them.

That's very polite of you, William, and I have enormous respect for you, too.

But I'm afraid I've no idea what you're on about.