No one cares about the China spy case . And most realize that with Trump in the WH we need to suck up to China.
If the government sabotaged the case then I’m afraid that’s the reality of where we are .
Yeah, China is our mate because of Trump
😂
Neither are our mates.
No nation is our ‘mate’
Apart from Australia, NZ and Canada, who I think are pretty staunch mates (two world wars together and counting).
Famously, Australia decoupled from the UK in the middle of WWII, see John Curtin. Australian involvement in the European theatre was less after 1942.
They were still pissed off about Bodyline but the arrival of the Yanks to Europe and the bombing of Darwin it made sense to redeploy to Australia.
At least the Aussies were there at El Alamein.
Once Singapore fell they had to look to their own defences first.
We couldn't help them because we were fighting for survival in Europe and the Med, and had trouble keeping a lid on India.
If we hadn't sent the Prince of Wales and the Repulse on a suicide mission, then Singapore would have been rather better defended. It's a decision of Churchill's that deserves far more approbation.
WATO had Prof Mark Elliott from Cambridge commenting on law re: China spying
AIUI he said that the Govt is not the "gatekeeper" as to the determination of whether China was/is a threat to national security but that it is up to a jury to determine that.
Interested to know PB's learned opinion of: 1 How the govt, which is in charge of international relations and national security, is not the sole arbiter on which countries are a threat to national security 2 How a jury, drawn from the general public and ignorant of security briefings, is supposed to do anything other than accept evidence on the govt's determination at the relevant time.
Above ignores the Prof's confusion at to whether OSA or NSA is the current legislation or whether the determination of threat can be retrospectively changed.
Juries decide facts on evidence. If necessary they do so on evidence heard in secret. Governments can certify that country X is a threat, and decide so as a matter of policy, just as the Tories tried to certify in a statute that Rwanda was a 'safe country'. None of that would be sufficient to require any jury to think anything particular.
Government is the arbiter of policy. A jury, strange as it may seem, would be the arbiter of (a) the fact of what that policy is and (b) whether or not country X, declared by government a threat, is in fact a threat.
If the point were contested, both sides could call expert evidence on the matter.
For a bit more see David Allen Green's blog today;
Noted, but on b) the Jury could also determine that country X, that the govt has deemed not to be a threat, is a threat (or, as per DAG blog, an "enemy"). As per the Court of Appeal Judge, a country 'would be “an enemy” if the jury concluded on the evidence that it was a country with whom the UK might some day be at war'
This is a ridiculously broad definition, at some point in history the UK has been at war with pretty much every other country, so this could also occur in the future, in shorter timescales countries formerly in the soviet bloc have gone from enemy to ally, not to mention the middle east.
Given that the government shares intelligence with other countries, a jury could decide that the govt is guilty of spying.
The Court of Appeal Judge seems to have made a very poor ruling.
As far as kilojoules of energy to move a gram of weight by one meter goes (i.e. efficiency of transport), a modern jet fighter is more efficient than a rabbit.
Three points for identifying who or what is the most efficient method of transportation on this scale.
A tiny bicycle. Or an ant.
It is a human on a bicycle, correct.
Pah! It'a a sailplane, shirley?
Btw when I first became a paraplegic, one of the physios at Stoke Mandeville told me: "It's not all bad news - moving around in a wheelchair is far more efficient than walking."
Which is no doubt true but not much help in weight control:
WATO had Prof Mark Elliott from Cambridge commenting on law re: China spying
AIUI he said that the Govt is not the "gatekeeper" as to the determination of whether China was/is a threat to national security but that it is up to a jury to determine that.
Interested to know PB's learned opinion of: 1 How the govt, which is in charge of international relations and national security, is not the sole arbiter on which countries are a threat to national security 2 How a jury, drawn from the general public and ignorant of security briefings, is supposed to do anything other than accept evidence on the govt's determination at the relevant time.
Above ignores the Prof's confusion at to whether OSA or NSA is the current legislation or whether the determination of threat can be retrospectively changed.
Juries decide facts on evidence. If necessary they do so on evidence heard in secret. Governments can certify that country X is a threat, and decide so as a matter of policy, just as the Tories tried to certify in a statute that Rwanda was a 'safe country'. None of that would be sufficient to require any jury to think anything particular.
Government is the arbiter of policy. A jury, strange as it may seem, would be the arbiter of (a) the fact of what that policy is and (b) whether or not country X, declared by government a threat, is in fact a threat.
If the point were contested, both sides could call expert evidence on the matter.
For a bit more see David Allen Green's blog today;
Noted, but on b) the Jury could also determine that country X, that the govt has deemed not to be a threat, is a threat (or, as per DAG blog, an "enemy"). As per the Court of Appeal Judge, a country 'would be “an enemy” if the jury concluded on the evidence that it was a country with whom the UK might some day be at war'
This is a ridiculously broad definition, at some point in history the UK has been at war with pretty much every other country, so this could also occur in the future, in shorter timescales countries formerly in the soviet bloc have gone from enemy to ally, not to mention the middle east.
Given that the government shares intelligence with other countries, a jury could decide that the govt is guilty of spying.
The Court of Appeal Judge seems to have made a very poor ruling.
One point to note: whether there is evidence upon which a properly directed jury could decide fact X is, confusingly, a matter of law. If, which seems unlikely, a relevant matter in a jury case is whether country X is an enemy/threat etc though the government policy is that it is not, then there has to be evidence before the jury upon which they could draw that conclusion. Whether that exists, if contested between the parties, is a matter for the judge.
Juries are directed that they can't just fantasise, guess and jump about facts. (Though if they do, and sometimes I think they do, and it leads to an acquittal then it will stand. That's all part of the system.)
Comments
As per the Court of Appeal Judge, a country 'would be “an enemy” if the jury concluded on the evidence that it was a country with whom the UK might some day be at war'
This is a ridiculously broad definition, at some point in history the UK has been at war with pretty much every other country, so this could also occur in the future, in shorter timescales countries formerly in the soviet bloc have gone from enemy to ally, not to mention the middle east.
Given that the government shares intelligence with other countries, a jury could decide that the govt is guilty of spying.
The Court of Appeal Judge seems to have made a very poor ruling.
* One for our older viewers.
CANCEL that Ben I have it saved
Juries are directed that they can't just fantasise, guess and jump about facts. (Though if they do, and sometimes I think they do, and it leads to an acquittal then it will stand. That's all part of the system.)