Best Of

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.

OK, so I've been here since 2006/2007 and anybody who is a long term PB'er will know I haven't got a racist bone in my body... Indeed, I was always one of the "PB Tories" that "intensely relaxed" about immigration and although I voted LEAVE, it was for me, never anything to do with immigration.

So, lets cut the "racist" crap out right there!

So trial by jury is being "restricted" rather than abolished? Well, OK. Lets restrict it rather than abolish it. But we all know where this "restriction" is going don't we?

We'll "restrict" it.

But then, welllllll, as we've restricted it once we'll restrict it again. And then we'll restrict a little bit more... And then, eventually. we don't even need to talk about abolition , as the thing is basically dead anyway.

Like, do you think we're all fucking idiots? Do you think we're all fucking fools? We've lived through the Blair era, we know how this works. You salami slice everything we've known for hundreds years until there's nothing left [of it]

But you answer me this: Why does Labour and the "left" generally, so enjoy pissing on the ancient rights and traditions of this country?

The "right" to trial by jury was first established by Magna Carta, more than 800 years ago... But some useless, here today, gone tomorrow PM/government decides we're going to erode that right/freedom. Why?

I honestly don't understand why anyone with half a brain would ever want to even consider opening up this can of worms but as they have been stupid enough to open it up, it's now up to everyone else (left, right and center) to act accordingly!

And, just for the record, if I thought voting GREEN would bring back my right to be tried by a jury if I was ever accused of a crime, I probably would vote GREEN.

It's not a left/right issue it's a right/wrong issue. And for me, very, very, very fundamental!

Magna Carta established rates of scutage, but we don’t use those any more. Other clauses were about debts to Jews. So, yes, I think we should be cautious about any changes to the right to a jury trial, but I don’t think there’s anything special about it being in the Magna Carta.

OK, I mean, like, you focus on one passage of what I wrote to try and degrade what I say because deep down, you know what I say is right but as you're fundamentally a lefty you need to hone in on one thing to make you feel better and more comfortable about yourself and your own choices.

Well, OK. But nevertheless, you know everything I say is true, don't you???

I didn’t focus on one passage of what you wrote because I’m a lefty. I did it because I’m a pedant.

As I said, I think we should be cautious about any changes to the right to a jury trial. My choices have not led to this change. I didn’t vote for this Labour government and indeed have never voted Labour in FPTP elections. (I have put Labour second in my mayoral vote.)

same old tories, selling off the family silver and then complaining about the state of the dinner service

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.

But did any juries find subpostmasters innocent? I know some had juries that found them guilty.

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.

"What have we lost in the shift from cigarettes to smartphones?
The transition from cigarettes to phones highlights wider social shifts that the digital age of late capitalism has ushered in.

William Davies"

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/what-have-we-lost-in-shift-from-cigarettes-to-smartphones/

Er… lung cancer?

Cancer aside, I heard it pointed out a week or so ago that fag breaks are actually perfect for relieving stress. Get up from your desk, pop outside, take some deep breaths and relax.
All good, apart from the cancer bit, of course.
An interesting perspective.

I can vouch. Fag breaks do relieve stress. But the stress they relieve is that of not having had a fag for an hour.

A bloke I used to work with just couldn’t have that smokers were effectively getting an hour or more a day off just so they could go for a fag. It hadn’t occurred to me before, but he was right to be annoyed by it, a proper blag

Never heard/read of the word "discussant" before.

It cropped up often in the era of formal academic debate, when somebody published a paper and two people (the discussants) were formally picked to react to it. They didn't have to agree with it, just discuss it and make points. It's a format you don't see much these days, in this era of PowerPoints and questions from the audience.

Given the depth of feeling on the subject of trans, there was no way I could write an article that could satisfy everybody, but I could get discussants in to discuss it pro and con. I wanted two vs two but I couldn't get two gender critical people to commit, so I had to settle for one vs one, and I was lucky to get kyf_100 and Cyclefree in, both of which contributed long and closely argued pieces.

I don't know if people will *like* the final article, but hopefully it answers the question in a coherent and convincing manner. To quote somebody, I hope they find it interesting and informative.

Starmer is coming under fire from all sides including his own

Surely not? How could they turn on our King Of Hearts?

Sounds like an echo chamber.

Nothing to see here

Desperate Tories

Please stop being so damned dull and boring.

That is rather partisan, picking on the only socialist in the village. In the interests of adding BBC style impartiality to the mix I would like to throw into the hat the following names...

@Roger is a socialist and I do not agree with him on much but he certainly remains polite and is not someone who thows our abuse and nastyness in his posts

"What have we lost in the shift from cigarettes to smartphones?
The transition from cigarettes to phones highlights wider social shifts that the digital age of late capitalism has ushered in.

William Davies"

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/what-have-we-lost-in-shift-from-cigarettes-to-smartphones/

Er… lung cancer?

Cancer aside, I heard it pointed out a week or so ago that fag breaks are actually perfect for relieving stress. Get up from your desk, pop outside, take some deep breaths and relax.
All good, apart from the cancer bit, of course.
An interesting perspective.

I can vouch. Fag breaks do relieve stress. But the stress they relieve is that of not having had a fag for an hour.