Best Of

ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.

Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.

I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.

The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.

The "terrorism" was only brought into it because the Zionist Entity was involved. That much is obvious.

Only a matter of time until the English judiciary introduces committing a blood libel onto the statute sheet.

ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.

Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.

I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.

The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.

Acquited of the terrorism charge or ALL the charges?

I do think this is a challenging case on I don't think the approach taken here is the right one. If you think someone is a terrorist, use the laws that exist already to establish this and give the appropriate punishment.

In Scotland you often get a choice between, say, careless and dangerous driving or full acquittal. If that were the case for this I think most people would have certainly convicted the sledgehammer guy of greivous bodily harm and possibly terrorism too. if it was just plain terrorism for criminal damage then it would have been full acquittals 90% of the time.

But this is rather beside the point. If juries want to convict on terrorism charges then fair enough - but they should be given the choice rather than have it deliberately concealed from them.

Not really. If someone is charged and taken to trial for dangerous driving the jury are told that they have the option of convicting of careless driving in the alternative and the difference is explained.

I think the problem with the English case, and I have not read it thoroughly, is that the motive for the offence is not relevant to the question of guilt. You either did it or you didn't and that is what the jury decides. But it is relevant to sentence and to any risk assessment that arises on conviction. It does seem odd though that having chosen not to put terrorism charges on the indictment they are then treated as if they were terrorists.

I think we are in agreement on the driving analogy, and I obviously can't do as good a job as explaining it as you did.

I think it's obvious why they didn't charge on that basis - they know juries don't think this stuff is terrorism (particularly the criminal damage) but want to get that result anyway. This mechanism allows it, and it's particularly attractive because the CPS can pick and choose which political motivations they don't like. I don't say that lightly - I just can't dismiss the blatant inconsistency in the sentencing approach.

It's happened again. See social media for video footage of the incident.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gypqp0rp9o

Girl, 17, stabbed in the neck in street attack

The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.

Were we getting many stabbings in the neck and attempted public beheadings in 1977?

Who knows, because back in 1977 we didn't have phones and CCTV to film all this stuff and make it as 'newsworthy'. That's what's different now - the amount captured on film and distributed on social media.

However, data shows that the rate of violent crime was higher in 1977 than it is now.

Here are the numbers for reported homicide rates;

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2024

Going up in the Good Old Days of the 70s to 90s, going down slightly since then.

And it's grimly sort-of reassuring that single horrible events/individuals (Shipman, Ryan, migrants in a lorry) show up as visible spikes.

None of which is any consolation to those who mourn, because every individual is important. But it's relevant for understanding if society is going to the dogs or not. And there is a perception/reality gap there, because the owners of our windows on the world have installed distorting windows.

It's happened again. See social media for video footage of the incident.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gypqp0rp9o

Girl, 17, stabbed in the neck in street attack

The homicide rate in the UK is at its lowest since 1977.

Were we getting many stabbings in the neck and attempted public beheadings in 1977?

Who knows, because back in 1977 we didn't have phones and CCTV to film all this stuff and make it as 'newsworthy'. That's what's different now - the amount captured on film and distributed on social media.

However, data shows that the rate of violent crime was higher in 1977 than it is now.

I think we knew on public murders, because cameras and newspapers still existed even if they didn't capture in "real time".

FWIW, this is @bondegezou usual one-man-rebuttal-unit bullshit again. The graph he's referring to is here and the murder rate was higher than in 1977 less than 2 years ago:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2025

There's a big spike in 2003. Initially my mind jumped to the 7/7 terror attacks, but they were in 2005 and those are probably captured differently.

One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”

https://bsky.app/profile/rodger.bsky.social/post/3mo4o2wcf622m

Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.

Peter.

yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV

I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?

Start warming up the school busses!

America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?

Are you thinking of some pedo guy?

No. Musk is the ket guy.

He repeatedly asked to go to Epstein Island, but Epstein didn’t want him.

Other way around. Epstein kept asking Musk to go to his island, and Musk repeatedly turned him down.

You're so gullible! That’s what Musk has claimed, but the released emails clearly show it’s Musk asking Epstein: https://time.com/7362868/elon-musk-epstein-emails/

ICYMI: yesterday was a very dark day for the UK justice system.

Four people sentenced for a crime they were not convicted of, after a trial where the judge deliberately concealed that possibility from the jury and prevented the media from reporting on it.

I’ve not doubt they would have been acquitted had the jury been made aware of what crime they were convicting them off, so in effect trial by jury has ended in the UK.

The only logical response for jurors is to always acquit in the future.

Acquited of the terrorism charge or ALL the charges?

I do think this is a challenging case on I don't think the approach taken here is the right one. If you think someone is a terrorist, use the laws that exist already to establish this and give the appropriate punishment.

In Scotland you often get a choice between, say, careless and dangerous driving or full acquittal. If that were the case for this I think most people would have certainly convicted the sledgehammer guy of greivous bodily harm and possibly terrorism too. if it was just plain terrorism for criminal damage then it would have been full acquittals 90% of the time.

But this is rather beside the point. If juries want to convict on terrorism charges then fair enough - but they should be given the choice rather than have it deliberately concealed from them.

Not really. If someone is charged and taken to trial for dangerous driving the jury are told that they have the option of convicting of careless driving in the alternative and the difference is explained.

I think the problem with the English case, and I have not read it thoroughly, is that the motive for the offence is not relevant to the question of guilt. You either did it or you didn't and that is what the jury decides. But it is relevant to sentence and to any risk assessment that arises on conviction. It does seem odd though that having chosen not to put terrorism charges on the indictment they are then treated as if they were terrorists.

Musk has more wealth than three quarters of the world’s nations.

And I bet it still doesn’t make him happy.

Point of order ( I’m not defending it): if he is a $ trillionaire that’s his wealth on a given day. The figures the media are bandying about that he’s as “wealthy as Switzerland or Saudi” are an apples and pears situation, in that they are comparing Swiss and Saudi GDPs which are income not the stock of Swiss and Saudi net assets which are wealth.

Perhaps of interest, using total economy net worth (sum of public and private assets and liabilities)

Rank	Country	National Net Wealth (US$ trillions, approx.)
1	United States	156
2	Japan	25
3	Germany	20
4	United Kingdom	17
5	France	16
6	Canada	13
7	Italy	12
8	South Korea	11
9	Australia	10
10	Spain	9
11	Netherlands	6
12	Switzerland	5
13	Belgium	3
14	Sweden	3
15	Denmark	2.5
16	Norway	2.4
17	Poland	2
18	Austria	2
19	Israel	1.8
20	Turkey	1.7
21	Portugal	1.5
22	New Zealand	1.4
23	Ireland	1.2
24	Czech Republic	1.1
25	Finland	0.9
26	Greece	0.8
27	Hungary	0.5
28	Slovakia	0.4
29	Slovenia	0.3
30	Lithuania	0.3

One day into the World Cup, FIFA is doing “actually, the stadiums ARE full” posts stating that there are “ticketed fans… standing in concourses rather than staying in their assigned seats”

https://bsky.app/profile/rodger.bsky.social/post/3mo4o2wcf622m

Three matches in and the first two big matches...two of the three host nations. Full stadiums is hardly surprising at this stage and tonights was only a 40k capacity.

Peter.

yeah, the point is the stadiums are not full. FIFA are claiming the empty seats belong to people who definitely bought the tickets and are definitely at the stadiums, you just can't see them on TV

I recall the same story from the opening days of London 2012, which they had to act quickly to resolve?

Start warming up the school busses!

America's flying start last night, beating a hapless Paraguay 4-1 (and Paraguay has form against Argentina and Brazil) might help sell a few tickets. Does anyone know any trillionaires who might subsidise tickets for schools?

Are you thinking of some pedo guy?

No. Musk is the ket guy.

He repeatedly asked to go to Epstein Island, but Epstein didn’t want him.

Other way around. Epstein kept asking Musk to go to his island, and Musk repeatedly turned him down.

That's his version, but it isn't borne out by the actual emails they exchanged:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk/expressed-interest-visiting-jeffrey-epstein-island-emails-show-doj-rcna256784

Epstein initiated the conversation, and Musk didn’t go to the island.

Which conversation? Epstein may have made initial contact (although the files we have cast doubt on that, they are not conclusive) but certainly on the evidence we have (rather than Musk's statements) it's certainly Musk that was angling for the invitation and Epstein kept putting him off.