I've just found a great and very informative Instagram account called "reformarenotyourfriends"
I had a look at yours yesterday… interesting set of followers you have!
Wow!
I think it might time I left this place.
Or stop sharing Instagram posts that prompt people to look at your account
Either is fine!
I'm done mate. That's weird.
You’re weird
You shared the Instagram post on here, I clicked on it and it had a link to your profile, so I looked. What’s weird about that? A couple of people on here follow me and I follow them back. Won’t be joining the harem following you though, don’t worry
Not sorry to see you go if you do anyway
Fucking hell. I wouldn't dream of checking you out on social media. You are not the sort of character I would want to associate with in real life so I certainly wouldn't waste my time looking for who you were.
I can categorically say I have never searched down another poster's details.
You are fucking bonkers mate. Shove PB up your arse. Don't bother getting in the last word either that's it.
You shared a link with your profile on it you moron
I’m over the moon to see the last of you, thanks for the assist in getting rid
The top four seeded countries will not be able to meet each other until the semi-finals of next year's World Cup for the first time in the tournament's history.
Fifa has announced that Spain (1st seed) and Argentina (2) will be 'paired' and placed into groups in opposite halves of the draw.
France (3) and England (4) will also be paired, which means England will not be able to come up against Spain or Argentina until the semi-finals, and France until the final.
This only applies if the four countries win their groups.
I've just found a great and very informative Instagram account called "reformarenotyourfriends"
I had a look at yours yesterday… interesting set of followers you have!
Wow!
I think it might time I left this place.
Speaking seriously, people on PB are lulled into a false sense of security by the general wonderfulness of us all, and start posting personally-identifiable details. This can get weird - @Charles posted so much info I could have handed his birthday card to him in person - and it should never be forgotten it's also dangerous. I have an article patiently waiting for @rcs1000 or @TheScreamingEagles to check the metadata to confirm it's anonymised, and I think such caution is wise.
I agree there is a need for caution, but then sometimes there is paranoia. I have never posted anything I wouldn’t be prepared to say in a court of law, or to someone’s face.
I may be being very stupid but where is the metadata in a header than one writes? It's not like the original word doc just gets uploaded online.
In Windows, right-click on the downloaded document, select "properties", search through the tabs and eventually you'll find the name of the author. If the file is properly anonymised it'll be blank. If it isn't it'll be your name. I anonymised mine before I uploaded it but I want to make sure.
If you are correct and the Word doc that arrives at the uploaded place isn't the same as the one that was sent, then I am worrying about nothing. But I want to make sure.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
The key issue in all fraud trials is honesty and juries are the best people to assess this.
My trial lasted just over 2 months. There really is no need for them to last 2 years and if they do it is usually because the CPS has over-complicated matters or brought the wrong charges. The Maxwell trial - which I was also involved with - was an example of this.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was right when he said juries can often send governments a message or two.
I remember a barrister friend telling me of trial he was involved in the 1980s in Leeds.
The National Front regularly marched through Leeds and regularly caused disorder, one time a young black man assaulted a National Front supporter in front of two coppers.
The all white jury said not guilty, it was their way of sticking two fingers up at the National Front.
I am sure that the government wouldn't want to put the elderly "Palestine Action" protestors in front of a jury.
Juries have their flaws but are essential for grounding law in justice.
Indeed.
I mentioned a while back my friend's mother was arrested at a Palestine Action protest, after a few weeks she was told no further action, even the coppers were embarrassed.
Do we know if any of the Palestine Action t-shirt cases have gone through a court yet?
Not that I am aware.
Hmmm. I don't think it's particularly healthy that the police go around arresting people but don't even have the courage to actually try and convict them; all the more dangerous when it is something political like this.
She had a Palestine flag with her, as she pointed she's spent the last three years regularly standing with a Ukraine flag outside the Russian embassy, never been arrested.
That's mental. Being arrested is a serious business - but this is a country where a Chief Constable can be found in contempt of court and not go to jail, so I guess she hasn't much chance of recourse.
1 in 8 is pretty average and it rarely goes that much higher or lower. Say 12.5% plus or minus 2.5%.
Unfortunately for them (and wider society), there is a percentage of the population who are very difficult to employ (and I salute the people wo try to make work work for them.) Their issues are much deper than a change in the minimum wage.
The top four seeded countries will not be able to meet each other until the semi-finals of next year's World Cup for the first time in the tournament's history.
Fifa has announced that Spain (1st seed) and Argentina (2) will be 'paired' and placed into groups in opposite halves of the draw.
France (3) and England (4) will also be paired, which means England will not be able to come up against Spain or Argentina until the semi-finals, and France until the final.
This only applies if the four countries win their groups.
The top four seeded countries will not be able to meet each other until the semi-finals of next year's World Cup for the first time in the tournament's history.
Fifa has announced that Spain (1st seed) and Argentina (2) will be 'paired' and placed into groups in opposite halves of the draw.
France (3) and England (4) will also be paired, which means England will not be able to come up against Spain or Argentina until the semi-finals, and France until the final.
This only applies if the four countries win their groups.
I've just found a great and very informative Instagram account called "reformarenotyourfriends"
I had a look at yours yesterday… interesting set of followers you have!
Wow!
I think it might time I left this place.
Or stop sharing Instagram posts that prompt people to look at your account
Either is fine!
I'm done mate. That's weird.
You’re weird
You shared the Instagram post on here, I clicked on it and it had a link to your profile, so I looked. What’s weird about that? A couple of people on here follow me and I follow them back. Won’t be joining the harem following you though, don’t worry
Not sorry to see you go if you do anyway
Fucking hell. I wouldn't dream of checking you out on social media. You are not the sort of character I would want to associate with in real life so I certainly wouldn't waste my time looking for who you were.
I can categorically say I have never searched down another poster's details.
You are fucking bonkers mate. Shove PB up your arse. Don't bother getting in the last word either that's it.
You shared a link with your profile on it you moron
I’m over the moon to see the last of you, thanks for the assist in getting rid
There is something wrong with you that you decide you despise someone on a political blog because they don't share you Islamaphobic mindset and their political opinion is contrary to your own. You really are a piece of work, now piss off and leave me alone.
I was given by my team a mug where the handle made the "C" in the word "cock".
They then bet me that I could not get the phrase "cock mug" in that order into a talk I was giving to a very well known professional services firm and their clients later that evening, without anyone (bar them) noticing.
1 in 8 is pretty average and it rarely goes that much higher or lower. Say 12.5% plus or minus 2.5%.
Unfortunately for them (and wider society), there is a percentage of the population who are very difficult to employ (and I salute the people wo try to make work work for them.) Their issues are much deper than a change in the minimum wage.
It is the highest rate this year that its been in over a decade.
And this is the time they choose to jack it up by more than the regular rate?
That is a genuinely fascinating. Difficult to square with our exceptionally high rates of in-work poverty (even before housing costs), though my suspicion is that the high rate of increase of pensioner incomes has significantly boosted median incomes, thereby increasing the poverty line and therefore poverty rate for working households.
I've just found a great and very informative Instagram account called "reformarenotyourfriends"
I had a look at yours yesterday… interesting set of followers you have!
Wow!
I think it might time I left this place.
Or stop sharing Instagram posts that prompt people to look at your account
Either is fine!
I'm done mate. That's weird.
You’re weird
You shared the Instagram post on here, I clicked on it and it had a link to your profile, so I looked. What’s weird about that? A couple of people on here follow me and I follow them back. Won’t be joining the harem following you though, don’t worry
Not sorry to see you go if you do anyway
Fucking hell. I wouldn't dream of checking you out on social media. You are not the sort of character I would want to associate with in real life so I certainly wouldn't waste my time looking for who you were.
I can categorically say I have never searched down another poster's details.
You are fucking bonkers mate. Shove PB up your arse. Don't bother getting in the last word either that's it.
You shared a link with your profile on it you moron
I’m over the moon to see the last of you, thanks for the assist in getting rid
There is something wrong with you that you decide you despise someone on a political blog because they don't share you Islamaphobic mindset and their political opinion is contrary to your own. You really are a piece of work, now piss off and leave me alone.
Now you know how it feels
Why are you still here anyway? You said you were off
Is there any evidence that Trump plotted a coup? You would have thought the commanded in chief of the biggest armed forces the world had ever known might have rustled up some firearms for the coup.
In Peru, they had an auto-coup, where the President went on television to announce he was dissolving Congress.
There’s no provision for that in the Peruvian Constitution.
When they sent the *police* to arrest him, even the Presidential bodyguard kinda shrugged and and stared at the floor.
1 in 8 is pretty average and it rarely goes that much higher or lower. Say 12.5% plus or minus 2.5%.
Unfortunately for them (and wider society), there is a percentage of the population who are very difficult to employ (and I salute the people wo try to make work work for them.) Their issues are much deper than a change in the minimum wage.
It is the highest rate this year that its been in over a decade.
And this is the time they choose to jack it up by more than the regular rate?
Madness.
From the chart posted earlier the trajectory is only going one way too, before this.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
The key issue in all fraud trials is honesty and juries are the best people to assess this.
My trial lasted just over 2 months. There really is no need for them to last 2 years and if they do it is usually because the CPS has over-complicated matters or brought the wrong charges. The Maxwell trial - which I was also involved with - was an example of this.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was right when he said juries can often send governments a message or two.
I remember a barrister friend telling me of trial he was involved in the 1980s in Leeds.
The National Front regularly marched through Leeds and regularly caused disorder, one time a young black man assaulted a National Front supporter in front of two coppers.
The all white jury said not guilty, it was their way of sticking two fingers up at the National Front.
I am sure that the government wouldn't want to put the elderly "Palestine Action" protestors in front of a jury.
Juries have their flaws but are essential for grounding law in justice.
Why the Palestine Action in inverted commas?
They were by choice supporting an organisation that engages in sabotage against the British state. Whether or not it's sensible to arrest people for merely holding a placard, if juries were inclined to treat them differently on grounds of being elderly that suggests a flaw in the jury system not a strength.
The top four seeded countries will not be able to meet each other until the semi-finals of next year's World Cup for the first time in the tournament's history.
Fifa has announced that Spain (1st seed) and Argentina (2) will be 'paired' and placed into groups in opposite halves of the draw.
France (3) and England (4) will also be paired, which means England will not be able to come up against Spain or Argentina until the semi-finals, and France until the final.
This only applies if the four countries win their groups.
What will constitute the Group of Death this time? No one will fancy Norway as their pot 3 team nor Italy, should they qualify, as the pot 4 team.
Can Italy and Norway be in the same group though they met in qualifying? I can't see any rule that says no.
No. Scotland will be in Italy’s group, along with Argentina and Japan. England’s group will be Australia, Uzbekistan and Curacao.
How the f*** did Curaçao qualify?
(I guess with a 2-0 victory over Jamaica, and then holding them to a draw on the return match.)
With the expansion to 48 teams it’s almost harder not to qualify. I mean even Scotland have made it.
LOL.
Curaçao has a population of 155,826 (2023 est.), so it's easily the smallest qualifier, less than half the population of the next smallest, Cape Verde (491,233).
I think the US is the largest at 340M. That's 2183 times larger than Curaçao.
Is there any evidence that Trump plotted a coup? You would have thought the commanded in chief of the biggest armed forces the world had ever known might have rustled up some firearms for the coup.
That's getting into technical definitions of a coup, when people will use the term more casually. What he did was quite bad enough without getting into such disputes. It's also part of the 'if they'd done it it would have succeeded' style arguments, like my father believing salisbury poisoning conspiracies because he finds it impossible to believe the Russians might botch an operation.
I know that @DavidL cannot comment on this. But it is worth remembering - when considering Lammy's idiotic suggestion - that Scottish judges misapplied the law in rape trials and this was not clear until, finally, the Supreme Court reviewed the issue just a week or so ago.
Rape trials may continue to have juries.
But the point is this: if judges can get the law wrong on something like this (see also the recent LIBOR case) it is utterly foolish to give them the sole power to determine both facts and law when the liberty of an individual is at risk.
Labour have a lot of experience of making things worse when they think they've alighted on a wheeze to make them better.
Is there any evidence that Trump plotted a coup? You would have thought the commanded in chief of the biggest armed forces the world had ever known might have rustled up some firearms for the coup.
That's getting into technical definitions of a coup, when people will use the term more casually. What he did was quite bad enough without getting into such disputes. It's also part of the 'if they'd done it it would have succeeded' style arguments, like my father believing salisbury poisoning conspiracies because he finds it impossible to believe the Russians might botch an operation.
Trumps would need to have been the only American to not bring a gun to a gun fight.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
Lammy has just shown he cannot get the necessary funding out of Reeves and does not have the backing of the PM. A political eunuch as well as an idiot.
It's okay, when I heard the proposals my first reaction was surely this must be a joke, you cannot remove a key part of legal system* and my second thought was they are doing this to get a blistering article from you.
*I know I am telling the person who was involved in the UK's largest fraud trial but I do think some fraud cases might need go to a three panel of judges because of the complexity and the fact that some take nearly two years.
The key issue in all fraud trials is honesty and juries are the best people to assess this.
My trial lasted just over 2 months. There really is no need for them to last 2 years and if they do it is usually because the CPS has over-complicated matters or brought the wrong charges. The Maxwell trial - which I was also involved with - was an example of this.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was right when he said juries can often send governments a message or two.
I remember a barrister friend telling me of trial he was involved in the 1980s in Leeds.
The National Front regularly marched through Leeds and regularly caused disorder, one time a young black man assaulted a National Front supporter in front of two coppers.
The all white jury said not guilty, it was their way of sticking two fingers up at the National Front.
I am sure that the government wouldn't want to put the elderly "Palestine Action" protestors in front of a jury.
Juries have their flaws but are essential for grounding law in justice.
Indeed.
I mentioned a while back my friend's mother was arrested at a Palestine Action protest, after a few weeks she was told no further action, even the coppers were embarrassed.
Do we know if any of the Palestine Action t-shirt cases have gone through a court yet?
Not that I am aware.
Hmmm. I don't think it's particularly healthy that the police go around arresting people but don't even have the courage to actually try and convict them; all the more dangerous when it is something political like this.
She had a Palestine flag with her, as she pointed she's spent the last three years regularly standing with a Ukraine flag outside the Russian embassy, never been arrested.
That's mental. Being arrested is a serious business - but this is a country where a Chief Constable can be found in contempt of court and not go to jail, so I guess she hasn't much chance of recourse.
She found it interesting, sat in a police station, she ended up staying for longer as she was helping other people in the station.
She's the sort of woman who voted for Thatcher, goes to church every week, every Christmas day she works for a homeless charity.
For the latter and a few other things she has to be DBS'd, which she now finds amusing.
Is there any evidence that Trump plotted a coup? You would have thought the commanded in chief of the biggest armed forces the world had ever known might have rustled up some firearms for the coup.
In Peru, they had an auto-coup, where the President went on television to announce he was dissolving Congress.
There’s no provision for that in the Peruvian Constitution.
When they sent the *police* to arrest him, even the Presidential bodyguard kinda shrugged and and stared at the floor.
Maybe the worst coup attempt ever…
That’s how it should work. It should work here also, with the role of the King and the loyalty sworn to him, at a stroke you are no longer the PM and you have no authority. They must have war gamed it in the US, they revere the constitution not the man.
Is there any evidence that Trump plotted a coup? You would have thought the commanded in chief of the biggest armed forces the world had ever known might have rustled up some firearms for the coup.
That's getting into technical definitions of a coup, when people will use the term more casually. What he did was quite bad enough without getting into such disputes. It's also part of the 'if they'd done it it would have succeeded' style arguments, like my father believing salisbury poisoning conspiracies because he finds it impossible to believe the Russians might botch an operation.
Trumps would need to have been the only American to not bring a gun to a gun fight.
It’s the whole plot with fake electors that prove his guilt, along with his phone calls trying to get people to “find votes”, his relentless propaganda lies about fraud, etc. 6 January is just the tip of the iceberg.
I know that @DavidL cannot comment on this. But it is worth remembering - when considering Lammy's idiotic suggestion - that Scottish judges misapplied the law in rape trials and this was not clear until, finally, the Supreme Court reviewed the issue just a week or so ago.
Rape trials may continue to have juries.
But the point is this: if judges can get the law wrong on something like this (see also the recent LIBOR case) it is utterly foolish to give them the sole power to determine both facts and law when the liberty of an individual is at risk.
Labour have a lot of experience of making things worse when they think they've algihted on a wheeze to make them better.
I mean, isn't that kind of true for any government?
Sure, they do get things right from time to time, but by its very nature parties will occasionally follow ideology over evidence, or the quick and easy 'solution' that is anything but over hard graft and tough decisions the public won't thank them for.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
Whether it's right or wrong on its merits, it's terrible optics and undermines the case they will want to make at the time of the next election against Reform being a threat to civil liberties.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
I'm genuinely curious to see the rationale for the decision. Obviously there are some issues with jury trials, examples have been given on here of really long and complex trials as one, but it's so easy to attack such plans in a way which will cut across party lines, and if the motivation is financial that looks bad too, so even if it is not as bad as the picture you paint, it is not an easy sell, so they surely have some really big hitting arguments to come?
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
Whether it's right or wrong on its merits, it's terrible optics and undermines the case they will want to make at the time of the next election against Reform being a threat to civil liberties.
Axing the right to trial by jury would probably be enough for me to hold my nose and vote for REF/Farage, if they were the only party pledging to bring it back.
Is there any evidence that Trump plotted a coup? You would have thought the commanded in chief of the biggest armed forces the world had ever known might have rustled up some firearms for the coup.
That's getting into technical definitions of a coup, when people will use the term more casually. What he did was quite bad enough without getting into such disputes. It's also part of the 'if they'd done it it would have succeeded' style arguments, like my father believing salisbury poisoning conspiracies because he finds it impossible to believe the Russians might botch an operation.
Trumps would need to have been the only American to not bring a gun to a gun fight.
It’s the whole plot with fake electors that prove his guilt, along with his phone calls trying to get people to “find votes”, his relentless propaganda lies about fraud, etc. 6 January is just the tip of the iceberg.
Don't forget sudden belief that the VP had the power to set aside the outcome.
That he didn't manage to cling on to power led so many people, including in the Senate, to be really complacent about the robustness of their checks and balances.
So many political systems rely on, essentially, cultural expectations not to abuse power - given how many authoritarian states can have quite nice rights and powers in their various laws and constitutions.
I was given by my team a mug where the handle made the "C" in the word "cock".
They then bet me that I could not get the phrase "cock mug" in that order into a talk I was giving to a very well known professional services firm and their clients later that evening, without anyone (bar them) noticing.
I won the bet.
Looks like we have the same team, although I don't drink tea or coffee but I do have a mug with a knuckle duster handle.
I once was challenged to put in the title of 5 songs by Steps into a report and presentation, I managed 8.
Once I put in my (in)famous statistics/bikini analogy, there was brief intake of breath/silence then I had two hundred people laughing their heads off.
PBers will be shocked to learn I put in/make the occasional innuendo in speeches.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
Whether it's right or wrong on its merits, it's terrible optics and undermines the case they will want to make at the time of the next election against Reform being a threat to civil liberties.
Axing the right to trial by jury would probably be enough for me to hold my nose and vote for REF/Farage, if they were the only party pledging to bring it back.
They wouldn’t be the only party pledging to bring it back.
I was given by my team a mug where the handle made the "C" in the word "cock".
They then bet me that I could not get the phrase "cock mug" in that order into a talk I was giving to a very well known professional services firm and their clients later that evening, without anyone (bar them) noticing.
I won the bet.
Looks like we have the same team, although I don't drink tea or coffee but I do have a mug with a knuckle duster handle.
I once was challenged to put in the title of 5 songs by Steps into a report and presentation, I managed 8.
Once I put in my (in)famous statistics/bikini analogy, there was brief intake of breath/silence then I had two hundred people laughing their heads off.
PBers will be shocked to learn I put in/make the occasional innuendo in speeches.
I’m sure you’re quite adept at slipping it in, the innuendo that is.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
Whether it's right or wrong on its merits, it's terrible optics and undermines the case they will want to make at the time of the next election against Reform being a threat to civil liberties.
Axing the right to trial by jury would probably be enough for me to hold my nose and vote for REF/Farage, if they were the only party pledging to bring it back.
They wouldn’t be the only party pledging to bring it back.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
I'm genuinely curious to see the rationale for the decision. Obviously there are some issues with jury trials, examples have been given on here of really long and complex trials as one, but it's so easy to attack such plans in a way which will cut across party lines, and if the motivation is financial that looks bad too, so even if it is not as bad as the picture you paint, it is not an easy sell, so they surely have some really big hitting arguments to come?
Maybe some fools are willing to trust this government to not manipulate judicial selection. I'm not. Also, what about future governments?
Both the Tories and Reform must pledge to bring back jury trials as manifesto commitments from day one. Anything less and they are complicit in a huge erosion of our rights.
Probably the only cop show I've seen where the cop doesn't have a hook - Morse the alcoholic, Frost the saddo etc. I quite like it, in its own slow way.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
The hereditaries would never let something like this pass. Let’s see how supine the current chamber is.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
Whether it's right or wrong on its merits, it's terrible optics and undermines the case they will want to make at the time of the next election against Reform being a threat to civil liberties.
Axing the right to trial by jury would probably be enough for me to hold my nose and vote for REF/Farage, if they were the only party pledging to bring it back.
They wouldn’t be the only party pledging to bring it back.
Who else would? LDs perhaps.
Conservatives, Greens, Your Party, probably Plaid and SNP too. Everyone?
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
The hereditaries would never let something like this pass. Let’s see how supine the current chamber is.
Like the Assisted Dying bill I suspect any bill that attempts to restrict trial by juries will be amended to death, I reckon you'd see at least a thousand amendments.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
So thanks to Lockdown causing massive court backlog we also lose the right to jury trial?
Just f-ing incredible. You could not make this stop up.
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
Whether it's right or wrong on its merits, it's terrible optics and undermines the case they will want to make at the time of the next election against Reform being a threat to civil liberties.
Axing the right to trial by jury would probably be enough for me to hold my nose and vote for REF/Farage, if they were the only party pledging to bring it back.
They wouldn’t be the only party pledging to bring it back.
Who else would? LDs perhaps.
Not sure about the LDs. They tend to to be the most illiberal and undemocratic of the lot 😂
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
Whether it's right or wrong on its merits, it's terrible optics and undermines the case they will want to make at the time of the next election against Reform being a threat to civil liberties.
Axing the right to trial by jury would probably be enough for me to hold my nose and vote for REF/Farage, if they were the only party pledging to bring it back.
They wouldn’t be the only party pledging to bring it back.
Who else would? LDs perhaps.
Not sure about the LDs. They tend to to be the most illiberal and undemocratic of the lot 😂
Quislings. Labour supporters in yellow these days. You see it on here, the government's primary defenders aren't Labour voters they're mostly so called Lib Dems.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
So thanks to Lockdown causing massive court backlog we also lose the right to jury trial?
Just f-ing incredible. You could not make this stop up.
It's not just that, you see and hear stuff like this more and more, some jurors are fucking stupid.
A juror who collapsed a murder trial after doing his own research on the internet has been jailed for four months.
Paul Richards, 65, had been selected to be a juror in a trial of three people relating to a man's murder in Treforest, Rhondda Cynon Taf, in December 2023.
Newport Crown Court heard Richards, of Pentrebane Drive, St Fagans, Cardiff, had sworn an oath, and the jury had been given directions by the trial judge not to carry out their own research into the case.
About a week into the trial Richards, while in the jury room, was overheard by an usher telling other jurors about joint enterprise murder.
As a result, the jury had to be discharged and new jurors selected.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
I'm genuinely curious to see the rationale for the decision. Obviously there are some issues with jury trials, examples have been given on here of really long and complex trials as one, but it's so easy to attack such plans in a way which will cut across party lines, and if the motivation is financial that looks bad too, so even if it is not as bad as the picture you paint, it is not an easy sell, so they surely have some really big hitting arguments to come?
Maybe some fools are willing to trust this government to not manipulate judicial selection. I'm not. Also, what about future governments?
Both the Tories and Reform must pledge to bring back jury trials as manifesto commitments from day one. Anything less and they are complicit in a huge erosion of our rights.
I'll be interested to see if this divides tory/reform. I'd imagine this is a no-brainer Conservative position. Reform? Not so sure.
Probably the only cop show I've seen where the cop doesn't have a hook - Morse the alcoholic, Frost the saddo etc. I quite like it, in its own slow way.
Midsomer murders for the totally normal, well adjusted police detective.
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
Whether it's right or wrong on its merits, it's terrible optics and undermines the case they will want to make at the time of the next election against Reform being a threat to civil liberties.
Axing the right to trial by jury would probably be enough for me to hold my nose and vote for REF/Farage, if they were the only party pledging to bring it back.
I don't really understand the exceptions - death by dangerous driving can be a life sentence now and I don't know why that wouldn't deserve a fully jury. I suspect this has been leaked at a very early stage and such inconsistencies have not been considered yet.
It's worth pointing out however that you can go to prison without a jury already - e.g. in Scotland up to a year, in England the same I think. It might be more sensible just to extend that to 3 years or similar.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
Whether it's right or wrong on its merits, it's terrible optics and undermines the case they will want to make at the time of the next election against Reform being a threat to civil liberties.
Axing the right to trial by jury would probably be enough for me to hold my nose and vote for REF/Farage, if they were the only party pledging to bring it back.
They wouldn’t be the only party pledging to bring it back.
Who else would? LDs perhaps.
Not sure about the LDs. They tend to to be the most illiberal and undemocratic of the lot 😂
Quislings. Labour supporters in yellow these days. You see it on here, the government's primary defenders aren't Labour voters they're mostly so called Lib Dems.
Who can forget when they were just going to cancel the 2016 referendum result because they didn't like the outcome...
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.
It's also obvious that the government revealed this ridiculous idea today hoping that the budget shit fest will dominate the media cycle for the next week. They're clearly trying to sneak this through.
This may be the first issue where I'll actually go and protest.
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.
It's also obvious that the government revealed this ridiculous idea today hoping that the budget shit fest will dominate the media cycle for the next week. They're clearly trying to sneak this through.
This may be the first issue where I'll actually go and protest.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
I'm genuinely curious to see the rationale for the decision. Obviously there are some issues with jury trials, examples have been given on here of really long and complex trials as one, but it's so easy to attack such plans in a way which will cut across party lines, and if the motivation is financial that looks bad too, so even if it is not as bad as the picture you paint, it is not an easy sell, so they surely have some really big hitting arguments to come?
Is it in fact the lack of juries (rather than, say, the lack of court time or the procedures needed for preparation) that is delaying trials by up to 4 years? If no, the change doesn't work. If yes, what is the alternative (or are 4-year delays acceptable)?
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
Whether it's right or wrong on its merits, it's terrible optics and undermines the case they will want to make at the time of the next election against Reform being a threat to civil liberties.
Axing the right to trial by jury would probably be enough for me to hold my nose and vote for REF/Farage, if they were the only party pledging to bring it back.
I don't really understand the exceptions - death by dangerous driving can be a life sentence now and I don't know why that wouldn't deserve a fully jury. I suspect this has been leaked at a very early stage and such inconsistencies have not been considered yet.
It's worth pointing out however that you can go to prison without a jury already - e.g. in Scotland up to a year, in England the same I think. It might be more sensible just to extend that to 3 years or similar.
I think that's for crimes dealt with in a magistrate's court. A person can request trial by jury even in those situations though 99% don't because it's usually just a fine or suspended sentence for pissing in public.
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
I don’t agree with this proposal, but the idea that we wouldn’t be a “free” country…? Germany doesn’t have jury trials. Is Germany not a free country? Ditto the Netherlands. France only has jury trials for certain serious cases. Is France not a free country?
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.
It's also obvious that the government revealed this ridiculous idea today hoping that the budget shit fest will dominate the media cycle for the next week. They're clearly trying to sneak this through.
This may be the first issue where I'll actually go and protest.
I think I will join you!
There's no way this is going anywhere. Just thinking about how they get it through HoL for a start!!! Not unless they get Charles to create 400 new peers or whatever.
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.
It's surprising that 20-30 years of underfunding, under-reforming, can lead to simplistic revoking of nearly a millennia of tradition.
Maybe not that surprising. Now that I think about it.
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.
It's also obvious that the government revealed this ridiculous idea today hoping that the budget shit fest will dominate the media cycle for the next week. They're clearly trying to sneak this through.
This may be the first issue where I'll actually go and protest.
I hope you get a benevolent jury after you inevitably get arrested under the Terrorism Act. And don't even think about closing a road off.
(and maybe it's the other way round - this is the first attempt to distract us from the budget...)
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
Whether it's right or wrong on its merits, it's terrible optics and undermines the case they will want to make at the time of the next election against Reform being a threat to civil liberties.
Axing the right to trial by jury would probably be enough for me to hold my nose and vote for REF/Farage, if they were the only party pledging to bring it back.
They wouldn’t be the only party pledging to bring it back.
Who else would? LDs perhaps.
Not sure about the LDs. They tend to to be the most illiberal and undemocratic of the lot 😂
Quislings. Labour supporters in yellow these days. You see it on here, the government's primary defenders aren't Labour voters they're mostly so called Lib Dems.
That’s a load of bollocks. Because you’re a right winger and Labour is (sort of, when they feel like it) not right wing, you see people criticising right wing views - often extreme right wing views - on here and assume that must mean they are defending Labour.
There are in fact opinions available that are neither hard right nor Labour supporter.
Quislings is also a somewhat unpleasant slur, given there are actual Quislings in contemporary British politics who have taken the Putin shilling.
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.
It's surprising that 20-30 years of underfunding, under-reforming, can lead to simplistic revoking of nearly a millennia of tradition.
Maybe not that surprising. Now that I think about it.
I find it interesting that a government led by a proclaimed human rights lawyer thinks that
1) Abolishing the right to jury trial is just tickety boo 2) Removing the requirement for nuclear power stations to spend £700 millliom to save 10 salmon could be a dangerous proposal. That might affect human rights law and international treaties.
Probably the only cop show I've seen where the cop doesn't have a hook - Morse the alcoholic, Frost the saddo etc. I quite like it, in its own slow way.
The original Frost radio plays are worth finding if you can. Very different to the TV versions. And if it leads you into the peculiar world of R. D. Wingfield then all the better. Some really cracking thrillers in his output. It's a shame he's been overlooked as a writer.
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.
It's surprising that 20-30 years of underfunding, under-reforming, can lead to simplistic revoking of nearly a millennia of tradition.
Maybe not that surprising. Now that I think about it.
I find it interesting that a government led by a proclaimed human rights lawyer thinks that
1) Abolishing the right to jury trial is just tickety boo 2) Removing the requirement for nuclear power stations to spend £700 millliom to save 10 salmon could be a dangerous proposal. That might affect human rights law and international treaties.
I think it's safe to say they have totally lost the plot.
Telegraph makes clear though that Lammy will need to pass legislation to end jury trials, so it 'aint gonna happen.
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.
It's surprising that 20-30 years of underfunding, under-reforming, can lead to simplistic revoking of nearly a millennia of tradition.
Maybe not that surprising. Now that I think about it.
I find it interesting that a government led by a proclaimed human rights lawyer thinks that
1) Abolishing the right to jury trial is just tickety boo 2) Removing the requirement for nuclear power stations to spend £700 millliom to save 10 salmon could be a dangerous proposal. That might affect human rights law and international treaties.
But we need to be an 'AI Superpower'. Maybe the two are linked?
As a more serious aside - I've still no idea why they aren't looking to legalise and tax the heck out of cannabis. Not a partaker myself - but... for a government desperate to both save money (and court/police time) and raise tax revenue - why not?
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.
It's surprising that 20-30 years of underfunding, under-reforming, can lead to simplistic revoking of nearly a millennia of tradition.
Maybe not that surprising. Now that I think about it.
I find it interesting that a government led by a proclaimed human rights lawyer thinks that
1) Abolishing the right to jury trial is just tickety boo 2) Removing the requirement for nuclear power stations to spend £700 millliom to save 10 salmon could be a dangerous proposal. That might affect human rights law and international treaties.
I think it's safe to say they have totally lost the plot.
Telegraph makes clear though that Lammy will need to pass legislation to end jury trials, so it 'aint gonna happen.
Labour MPs would surely vote for it? And they are in the process of kicking out the last hereditaries in the House of Lords. All bets are off!
Lib Dem justice spokeswoman Jess Brown-Fuller also described the reports as “completely disgraceful” and accused ministers of dismantling the justice system and failing victims.
Just when you think this government couldnt get anymore dangerously stupid...tonights headlines...
They have, for the first time since they were elected (where mostly I’ve just despaired/been severely disappointed/irked) made me feel genuinely angry today.
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
I don’t agree with this proposal, but the idea that we wouldn’t be a “free” country…? Germany doesn’t have jury trials. Is Germany not a free country? Ditto the Netherlands. France only has jury trials for certain serious cases. Is France not a free country?
Who cares what the French et al do? Trial by jury in England dates back to at least Henry II.
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.
It's surprising that 20-30 years of underfunding, under-reforming, can lead to simplistic revoking of nearly a millennia of tradition.
Maybe not that surprising. Now that I think about it.
I find it interesting that a government led by a proclaimed human rights lawyer thinks that
1) Abolishing the right to jury trial is just tickety boo 2) Removing the requirement for nuclear power stations to spend £700 millliom to save 10 salmon could be a dangerous proposal. That might affect human rights law and international treaties.
I think it's safe to say they have totally lost the plot.
Telegraph makes clear though that Lammy will need to pass legislation to end jury trials, so it 'aint gonna happen.
Labour MPs would surely vote for it? And they are in the process of kicking out the last hereditaries in the House of Lords. All bets are off!
My guess is that they’ll go for changes “in a very specific and limited way” first, then try to go further over time.
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.
Getting rid of jury trials is a completely rogue decision and it should be resisted by MPs and the Lords at every turn. This wasn't in the Labour manifesto and they have no remit to remove such a vital protection of our freedom and liberty. What's to stop the government from manipulating judicial selection to fill the benches with judges who will target their opponents? We're literally seeing this happen in real time across the pond and Labour want to walk down an even worse path without jury trials?
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
Whether it's right or wrong on its merits, it's terrible optics and undermines the case they will want to make at the time of the next election against Reform being a threat to civil liberties.
Axing the right to trial by jury would probably be enough for me to hold my nose and vote for REF/Farage, if they were the only party pledging to bring it back.
I don't really understand the exceptions - death by dangerous driving can be a life sentence now and I don't know why that wouldn't deserve a fully jury. I suspect this has been leaked at a very early stage and such inconsistencies have not been considered yet.
It's worth pointing out however that you can go to prison without a jury already - e.g. in Scotland up to a year, in England the same I think. It might be more sensible just to extend that to 3 years or similar.
I think that's for crimes dealt with in a magistrate's court. A person can request trial by jury even in those situations though 99% don't because it's usually just a fine or suspended sentence for pissing in public.
It's used to be up to potential 6 months imprisonment. This is the Conservative's fault, they created the massive courts backlog and prison overcrowding that led to Leveson doing a review. It's not going to solve the issue, people I know who've done jury service recently have hardly been used. There are other factors 1) Defendants getting to trial before pleading, gambling that the delays are now so long that the CPS are likely to have lost evidence or witnesses 2) Barristers and Judges who witter on 3) Court inefficiency, not prepared with screens for witnesses, Judges scheduled for sentencing when they're also on a trial etc
That is a genuinely fascinating. Difficult to square with our exceptionally high rates of in-work poverty (even before housing costs), though my suspicion is that the high rate of increase of pensioner incomes has significantly boosted median incomes, thereby increasing the poverty line and therefore poverty rate for working households.
No, the state pension is now less than half the rate the UK minimum wage will be from tomorrow. We will now have one of the highest minimum wages in the world, yet unemployment is now 5% and rising
Contemptible, but not entirely surprising given Witkoff's long term dodgy Russian ties.
If it were US rather than European security being sold out, it would be treasonous. But it's certainly acting as an agent of foreign influence, which is likely criminal in this context.
This really feels like a turning point for this country. If Labour manage to somehow remove jury trials for all but two types of crime then I truly believe we will no longer be living in a free or just country.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
The right for an Englishman to be tried by a jury of his or her peers goes all the way back to Magna Carta. There's no way fools like Lammy and here today, gone tomorrow PMs like Starmer can be allowed to get away with axing a Centuries old right like this - Especially as it wasn't even a manifesto commitment.
Contemptible, but not entirely surprising given Witkoff's long term dodgy Russian ties.
If it were US rather than European security being sold out, it would be treasonous. But it's certainly acting as an agent of foreign influence, which is likely criminal in this context.
A call with Putin right before Zelensky arrived could explain why things seemed to go off the rails right away last time the Ukrainian delegation was in DC.
Witkoff: And here’s one more thing: Zelensky is coming to the White House on Friday. Putin envoy Ushakov: I know that. [chuckles] Witkoff: I will go to that meeting because they want me there, but I think if possible we have the call with your boss before that Friday meeting. Ushakov: Before, before — yeah? Witkoff: Correct https://x.com/prestonstew_/status/1993427622664032650
With the 28-point plan to end the war in Ukraine, Trump’s United States can no longer be considered an ally of Europe, which is not even consulted on matters affecting its own security. Europe must acknowledge this shift in U.S. policy and respond accordingly. https://x.com/JosepBorrellF/status/1992981845655634321
Comments
I’m over the moon to see the last of you, thanks for the assist in getting rid
The obvious victims forced to run them will be councils but they don't have money or spare staff so this looks a bit pointless..
If you are correct and the Word doc that arrives at the uploaded place isn't the same as the one that was sent, then I am worrying about nothing. But I want to make sure.
Has EdM been reading my posts?
https://data.youthfuturesfoundation.org/dashboard/neet
1 in 8 is pretty average and it rarely goes that much higher or lower. Say 12.5% plus or minus 2.5%.
Unfortunately for them (and wider society), there is a percentage of the population who are very difficult to employ (and I salute the people wo try to make work work for them.) Their issues are much deper than a change in the minimum wage.
Simon French
@Frencheconomics
·
3h
For context. The UK’s minimum wage journey since 2015 now makes it a big outlier to the rest of the OECD.
https://x.com/Frencheconomics
Nice lad. Gave his all in an often losing cause.
Pleased for him.
Only one of those is accurate, of course.
They then bet me that I could not get the phrase "cock mug" in that order into a talk I was giving to a very well known professional services firm and their clients later that evening, without anyone (bar them) noticing.
I won the bet.
And this is the time they choose to jack it up by more than the regular rate?
Madness.
Jack or Knave quote FTW.
Why are you still here anyway? You said you were off
I don’t care to know what it is to do!
There’s no provision for that in the Peruvian Constitution.
When they sent the *police* to arrest him, even the Presidential bodyguard kinda shrugged and and stared at the floor.
Maybe the worst coup attempt ever…
They were by choice supporting an organisation that engages in sabotage against the British state. Whether or not it's sensible to arrest people for merely holding a placard, if juries were inclined to treat them differently on grounds of being elderly that suggests a flaw in the jury system not a strength.
Otherwise your analysis is accurate.
Curaçao has a population of 155,826 (2023 est.), so it's easily the smallest qualifier, less than half the population of the next smallest, Cape Verde (491,233).
I think the US is the largest at 340M. That's 2183 times larger than Curaçao.
The straw man factory refuses to close..
The mug that came true.
This government proves itself to be utterly unfit for purpose at every opportunity. I curse the million Tory voters who sat on their hands by getting caught up in a media witch hunt against the party. Complete numpties and they've made us all regret it.
She's the sort of woman who voted for Thatcher, goes to church every week, every Christmas day she works for a homeless charity.
For the latter and a few other things she has to be DBS'd, which she now finds amusing.
Sure, they do get things right from time to time, but by its very nature parties will occasionally follow ideology over evidence, or the quick and easy 'solution' that is anything but over hard graft and tough decisions the public won't thank them for.
That he didn't manage to cling on to power led so many people, including in the Senate, to be really complacent about the robustness of their checks and balances.
So many political systems rely on, essentially, cultural expectations not to abuse power - given how many authoritarian states can have quite nice rights and powers in their various laws and constitutions.
I once was challenged to put in the title of 5 songs by Steps into a report and presentation, I managed 8.
Once I put in my (in)famous statistics/bikini analogy, there was brief intake of breath/silence then I had two hundred people laughing their heads off.
PBers will be shocked to learn I put in/make the occasional innuendo in speeches.
Quite,like Wycliffe. Watched them all in the summer
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/jack-shepherd-death-wycliffe-actor-b2872416.html
Both the Tories and Reform must pledge to bring back jury trials as manifesto commitments from day one. Anything less and they are complicit in a huge erosion of our rights.
Just f-ing incredible. You could not make this stop up.
From beginning to end agents of the state will be able to investigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate and sentence on criminal cases in very serious matters. There won't be a single break point or sanity check in that process where someone who isn't paid by the state can actually check the state's reasoning.
This is fundamentally wrong.
Off the top of my head because I remember the parody so well, the judge in the Jeremy Thorpe trial.
DavidL and Cyclefree could list dozens more.
A juror who collapsed a murder trial after doing his own research on the internet has been jailed for four months.
Paul Richards, 65, had been selected to be a juror in a trial of three people relating to a man's murder in Treforest, Rhondda Cynon Taf, in December 2023.
Newport Crown Court heard Richards, of Pentrebane Drive, St Fagans, Cardiff, had sworn an oath, and the jury had been given directions by the trial judge not to carry out their own research into the case.
About a week into the trial Richards, while in the jury room, was overheard by an usher telling other jurors about joint enterprise murder.
As a result, the jury had to be discharged and new jurors selected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77zvl0777mo
Also, what the actual f**k are Labour doing?
It's worth pointing out however that you can go to prison without a jury already - e.g. in Scotland up to a year, in England the same I think. It might be more sensible just to extend that to 3 years or similar.
This may be the first issue where I'll actually go and protest.
Maybe not that surprising. Now that I think about it.
(and maybe it's the other way round - this is the first attempt to distract us from the budget...)
There are in fact opinions available that are neither hard right nor Labour supporter.
Quislings is also a somewhat unpleasant slur, given there are actual Quislings in contemporary British politics who have taken the Putin shilling.
1) Abolishing the right to jury trial is just tickety boo
2) Removing the requirement for nuclear power stations to spend £700 millliom to save 10 salmon could be a dangerous proposal. That might affect human rights law and international treaties.
So leaving would be Joining The Rest Of The World.
The duopoly could never stand those Liberal interlopers. Yet they both seem enamoured of the new Turquoise interloper.
Telegraph makes clear though that Lammy will need to pass legislation to end jury trials, so it 'aint gonna happen.
As a more serious aside - I've still no idea why they aren't looking to legalise and tax the heck out of cannabis. Not a partaker myself - but... for a government desperate to both save money (and court/police time) and raise tax revenue - why not?
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-11-25/government-may-restrict-jury-trials-for-only-the-most-serious-cases
This is the Conservative's fault, they created the massive courts backlog and prison overcrowding that led to Leveson doing a review.
It's not going to solve the issue, people I know who've done jury service recently have hardly been used.
There are other factors
1) Defendants getting to trial before pleading, gambling that the delays are now so long that the CPS are likely to have lost evidence or witnesses
2) Barristers and Judges who witter on
3) Court inefficiency, not prepared with screens for witnesses, Judges scheduled for sentencing when they're also on a trial etc
There is no legislation planned to stop people adding their own sugar BTW.
https://x.com/business/status/1993407614370140494
Contemptible, but not entirely surprising given Witkoff's long term dodgy Russian ties.
If it were US rather than European security being sold out, it would be treasonous.
But it's certainly acting as an agent of foreign influence, which is likely criminal in this context.
Witkoff: And here’s one more thing: Zelensky is coming to the White House on Friday.
Putin envoy Ushakov: I know that. [chuckles]
Witkoff: I will go to that meeting because they want me there, but I think if possible we have the call with your boss before that Friday meeting.
Ushakov: Before, before — yeah?
Witkoff: Correct
https://x.com/prestonstew_/status/1993427622664032650
With the 28-point plan to end the war in Ukraine, Trump’s United States can no longer be considered an ally of Europe, which is not even consulted on matters affecting its own security. Europe must acknowledge this shift in U.S. policy and respond accordingly.
https://x.com/JosepBorrellF/status/1992981845655634321