Best Of

Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
·
1h
Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.

Then I see Epic Fury. I said, I like that name”

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2031842083326079472

Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.

No it is not.

The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.

For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.

Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.

Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.

If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.

I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.

It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.

And failing in its objectives:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-us-intelligence-says-iran-230717678.html

Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.

I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.

A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.

And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.

And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.

Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.

Good morning

Really disturbing news this morning from the gulf with Iran lashing out in an attempt to turn the world economies upside down

I see no positives in this war and Trump is utterly deranged

The genie is out of the bottle and chaos abounds

I hope the gulf states act together to find an off ramp because it is very much their war which to be fair they did not want nor start

Unfortunately, I think we are in the Suez situation, where Churchill said, 'I would never have started, but once started I would not have dared stop.'

I do not see how the Gulf States or Israel can be secure while the regime Israel and the US have created is in power in Tehran. This is a geopolitical deterioration as Khamanei was old and weak and muddled, too much so for major warfare against an organised enemy, while his son is not. (Incidentally the outlook for the people of Iran has worsened considerably as well, bad though it was before.)

Therefore the grim conclusion is it will have to be removed, somehow. The snag is although I'm no military expert I do not see how that can be done without a full invasion which nobody is contemplating.

We've therefore ended up in exactly the worst place imaginable, and it was entirely avaiudable.

Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
·
1h
Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.

Then I see Epic Fury. I said, I like that name”

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2031842083326079472

Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.

No it is not.

The POTUS is Commander in Chief. Having the ultimate final say in approving targets is his job. If the military offer different targets and the President makes the final call on which to approve is his job.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of any war, the President like LBJ discussing strategy and making the ultimate call on strategic decision making is his job.

For them to say 'we have intelligence on the location of Khameini, should we strike?' and he says yes or no is his job.

Obsessing over the name of the operation, being like 'boring, boring, I'm falling asleep, oh that one is badass, I like that name' and thinking that is momentous enough to share? Not his job.

Its a bit ironic that the main effect of the war that you support so enthusiastically is to make motor transport more expensive.

If you only support things that are economically in your self interest that is greed not principles.

I accept the higher cost of fuel is a downside but it is still worth doing. We should be cutting the tax on that fuel though since the price is mainly tax anyway.

It is a moronic war being directed by the demented and the alcoholic.

And failing in its objectives:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-us-intelligence-says-iran-230717678.html

Khameini is dead, that is already something achieved.

I agree about Trump being a poor leader though and if he ends the war prematurely without success then he has failed.

A Khameini is dead replaced by a younger enraged Khomeini whose father, wife and child have been killed by the Great Satan.

And the Great Satan cannot restore shipping through the Gulf. Iran can - but will demand the removal of US bases in the Gulf.

And the enriched uranium is still in Iran.

Looks like a piss-poor outcome from where I'm standing.

Republicans against Trump
@RpsAgainstTrump
·
1h
Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.

Then I see Epic Fury. I said, I like that name”

https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2031842083326079472

Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.

For every horror from Donald Trump you are somehow able to reach back into history and find something from the Dems to compare it favourably with. It really is pretty impressive.

The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...

Hopefully it won't come to that!

Any excuse to go full racist.

It's being restricted, not abolished.

Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.

So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.

Yes, its only a *restriction* of ancient liberties - not a wholesale abolition - people are so f***ing touchy aren't they?

Well yes, it does seem so.
Currently prosecutions are taking 4 years or longer to get to trial, which means that many of them fall apart because witnesses are lost contact with or their memory has faded, victims and accused have their lives put on hold, some are on remand for far longer than they'd be sentenced to if found guilty. That is unacceptable and it isn't a problem of Labour's making, it's the fault of the LDs and mainly the Conservatives, who did nothing to address it.
Labour are trying to resolve the delays, I don't agree with their solution, I don't expect it will work, and I don't think a Judge was the right person to review the system and make recommendations.
However, I think your objection is partisan rather than sincere.
What would you propose to resolve the backlog?

The issue is there are too many moving parts and scheduling falls apart.

I forget the precise details but I believe a lot of the delay is down to the pre-sentence reports that are now required. They add an extra loop of court time that really isn’t necessary in most cases.

You also have issues with things like demanding translators and other limited services when they don’t necessarily need them plus the unwillingness to pay legal aid barristers a reasonable sum.

Basically the issue is that the treasury likes to run things at 103% capacity when they should really be running at 85% even if some spreadsheet somewhere says that’s inefficient

Pre-sentencing reports would be post-verdict and not on the critical path, the Judge can read them before / after court or in the breaks.
The convicted prisoner would be remanded awaiting the reports and sentencing.

If the accused needs a translator, that would be arranged beforehand, there might be adjournments because a translator becomes unavailable but if you're on trial not in your first language then a translator is not a luxury, a basic tenet is the right to a fair trial, which means a right to understand fully what is being said.

There is definitely inefficiency in court preparation, both times there were adjournments for witness screens to be brought in.
The professionals could be less verbose.
My second stint, we got started about 11.30 on a Thursday, heard the opening statements, screen not prepared for 1st witness. Adjourn for lunch, and the week, Judge had something in the afternoon and Friday, Monday trooped in to court at 11am to be told by new Judge that original Judge had taken ill, so the case would have to be rescheduled but he'd felt the need to explain this to us in person blah blah blah.
So nothing productive happening in that court with that Judge for the morning.
Accused and plaintiff both having to wait months / years for another date, all for charges that based on the opening prosecution statement shouldn't have been brought.

I was just reporting what someone who has been intimately involved in the court system for decades told me (they were Starmer’s counterpart when he was DPP).

A lot of it is gaming the system and people not turning up. Each time you add - for example - and translator you add another point of failure. And the issue with translators specifically is people demanding them when they don’t need them (access to justice is important) in order to delay the process.

The general point is that there are many many things that could be done to improve efficiency before you start removing protections like trial by jury

The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...

Hopefully it won't come to that!

Any excuse to go full racist.

It's being restricted, not abolished.

Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.

So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.

If this had been the law, none of the subpostmasters would have been able to opt for trial by jury. If this had been the law, protesters who have been let off by sympathetic juries after committing offences would have been convicted. The 97% currently heard by magistrates are minor offences such as minor assault, motoring offences, shoplifting, criminal damage, etc. This change dramatically expands the scope of offences where the accused cannot opt for a jury trial and, at the same time, reduces the chances of the innocent getting justice when wrongly accused of such offences. It is pretty much guaranteed that this change will see many more miscarriages of justice. And it is being sold to us on a false premise. It will not make any significant dent in the backlog in the criminal courts.

As I've posted below, I don't agree with the change and I don't think it will achieve the objective.
They got an expert to review and recommend, there are no alternative recommendations, the system is failing currently so they're implementing the recommendation they have.
The LDs and Conservatives created the problem and then the Conservatives did nothing to resolve it.
Labour want to resolve it, other parties could engage constructively to find the best solution. It's not really a partisan issue, presumably all parties want more trials completed.

Whether it works or not it's not 'abolishing jury trials' and it's clearly part of a genuine attempt to unblock the CSJ. This is an area the public are little focused on. It'd be much easier, politically, to keep letting things slide, spend time and resource on things the voters care more about. That's been the Cons approach for years after all. Their negligence has led to the crisis in the system. That this government aren't following suit, are trying to do better, is to their credit.