"Her Honour Judge Dean is listed as a Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ), a role that involves promoting diversity and community engagement in the judicial system.
"HHJ Dean covers the area around Snaresbrook Crown Court. She has also supported diversity efforts, such as assisting with visits from Diversity and Community Relations Magistrates at Harrow Crown Court. Additionally, her participation in events like the London Law Collective, where she delivered a keynote speech, highlights her role in inspiring diversity in the legal profession.
"Diversity and Community Relations Judges across England and Wales undertake a huge amount of community engagement in a voluntary capacity. They also seek to encourage legal professionals from under-represented groups to consider a judicial career."
It was probably her wise and expert legal guidance in the field of diversity that allowed the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, in just thirty minutes
Only if the jury were as stupid as you are.
How do you think they reached a verdict of Not Guilty in THIRTY MINUTES, given the undisputed video evidence of him doing exactly and precisely what he was accused of doing?
Because they are cleverer and have a higher IQ than you. But then, so does everyone with a brain larger than an amoeba.
It suggests they were all pretty sure about the verdict before deliberations tbh. I'm not sure it contributes to Leon's conspiracy theory at all.
What has been really fascinating is there has been a widespread but grudging defence of Palestine Action supporters on Facebook. I must admit that was a surprise - instead of piling in on the loony lefties, the boomers/bots see this as yet more evidence of the state's crackdown on free speech.
I wonder if that's what this jury consisted off. Free speech ultras + Antifa types.
That's the next step - the Mail will try to track down all the jurors and do a character assassination of any who aren't Reform or Conservative supporters and claim it's "in the public interest".
England isn’t America. Journalists who go looking for jurors can and will be held up for contempt of court.
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
Not sure you really understand protests. It's about sticking two fingers up at the government; doing what they ask and causing as little disruption as possible is exactly what an authoritarian government would want you to do. It was mad listening to Stewart and Campbell tip toe round the issue on their podcast lest they get arrested too - do you really want to live in a UK like that?
"Her Honour Judge Dean is listed as a Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ), a role that involves promoting diversity and community engagement in the judicial system.
"HHJ Dean covers the area around Snaresbrook Crown Court. She has also supported diversity efforts, such as assisting with visits from Diversity and Community Relations Magistrates at Harrow Crown Court. Additionally, her participation in events like the London Law Collective, where she delivered a keynote speech, highlights her role in inspiring diversity in the legal profession.
"Diversity and Community Relations Judges across England and Wales undertake a huge amount of community engagement in a voluntary capacity. They also seek to encourage legal professionals from under-represented groups to consider a judicial career."
It was probably her wise and expert legal guidance in the field of diversity that allowed the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, in just thirty minutes
No, it was probably the fact the jury was from overwhelmingly Labour Walthamstow. Had the jury been from say heavily Reform Basildon the verdict may have been different.
Judges in criminal trials normally sentence on the law and guidelines whatever their political views
Even in Labour Walthamstow what are the chances that all 12 jury members would all be left-wingers? Even in the Colston Four trial there was 1 jury member who wanted them found guilty.
Trump can make life v uncomfortable for Starmer. I’d like to see the US impose a Lucy Connolly tariff.
Yes nothing screams "I love my country" more than seeking a foreign power to engage in a hostile act against it.
I don’t love this country any more
I despise what it has become
Don’t be negative, it’s crappy at the moment, compared to some countries I can’t think of, maybe Denmark but they have high taxes and their women sound like drains when they talk whilst looking attractive.
You despise what it “has become” because you were living in periods where it was the best place to be.
I love the country, I love what it was and what it could be. It’s not great at the moment and could go down several bad routes but I live in hope someone with a brain will find a way back.
I still have a hankering to live in the UK, I have my eyes on a specific house and do consider it, even if for tax reasons I’m limited in time I can spend there. It’s still a great place with a lot of fun people, we don’t take ourselves too seriously. A lot of great pubs and restaurants, great culture, great free museums.
It’s shitty if you don’t have much but where is good if you don’t?
I’ve only lived in Switzerland and France so they are my only good true comparisons and god they have their faults too, and they speak French just to make it worse.
It’s still on the whole, a good place to be.
You misconstrue
I despise the British state and almost every representation of it. I want a revolution (peaceful) where almost everyone in power is driven into exile or maybe put in jail for a long long time
Would I fight for Britain in a war? I’m no longer sure at all
That’s very different from whether it is a pleasant place to live. Lots of despicable countries can be nice places to live
Because Britain - or England or Scotland if you prefer - is not 'The State'. Nor is it the Government or the poltical and chattering classes. It is a society, a history, a culture and a 'terroir' (to use the French wine making term) which is inculcated into our souls by years of exposure and familiarity.
Like you I would not fight for 'the state' nor for any of those who lead or control it. But I would fight for all those other things I listed and for the people that share them with me.
Clearly this is a hypothetical. I am a bit aged to be called up, but as a hypothetical it is interesting
As I said, I genuinely don't know if I would fight any more. To defend this rotten edifice of hypocrisy piled on venality, sired by stupidity? Hmmm
I guess it would depend on the enemy and their intentions. If it was Putin, yeah, I'd fight, if it was some militia of American free speechers, come to help the Brits overthrow the regime, I'd join the Americans
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
What specific crime did they commit?
Support for a proscribed terrorist organisation.
Did they vandalize any RAF planes?
They showed their explicit support for those who did.
"Her Honour Judge Dean is listed as a Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ), a role that involves promoting diversity and community engagement in the judicial system.
"HHJ Dean covers the area around Snaresbrook Crown Court. She has also supported diversity efforts, such as assisting with visits from Diversity and Community Relations Magistrates at Harrow Crown Court. Additionally, her participation in events like the London Law Collective, where she delivered a keynote speech, highlights her role in inspiring diversity in the legal profession.
"Diversity and Community Relations Judges across England and Wales undertake a huge amount of community engagement in a voluntary capacity. They also seek to encourage legal professionals from under-represented groups to consider a judicial career."
It was probably her wise and expert legal guidance in the field of diversity that allowed the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, in just thirty minutes
No, it was probably the fact the jury was from overwhelmingly Labour Walthamstow.
How do you know they were from Walthamstow?
I was "called up" for Snaresbrook back in 1994, and I don't live in Walthamstow.
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
They were standing up for the right to protest. It is an ancient British right which is being infringed.
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
What specific crime did they commit?
Support for a proscribed terrorist organisation.
Did they vandalize any RAF planes?
They showed their explicit support for those who did.
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
It is a basic principle. There are lots of people who do not consider what Palestine Action did to be terrorism. I have to say that I am probably one of them. What they did was certainly illegal and I suppose if you want a high crime to pin on them you might reasonably get away with calling it Treason. But a vast number of people - even those like me who oppose what they did - don't see it as terrorism.
And the really important point here is one of free speech. If I or anyone else disagrees with the actions of the Government - including their proscription of a group - we should be allowed to protest against it. As long as we are not ourselves using violent means.
That is why I think it is wrong to be arresting the protestors. Peaceful protest should never be criminalised, nor should criticising and opposing laws which we feel are fundamentally wrong. To link to another current discussion on here, to me it just seems throughly un-British.
"Her Honour Judge Dean is listed as a Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ), a role that involves promoting diversity and community engagement in the judicial system.
"HHJ Dean covers the area around Snaresbrook Crown Court. She has also supported diversity efforts, such as assisting with visits from Diversity and Community Relations Magistrates at Harrow Crown Court. Additionally, her participation in events like the London Law Collective, where she delivered a keynote speech, highlights her role in inspiring diversity in the legal profession.
"Diversity and Community Relations Judges across England and Wales undertake a huge amount of community engagement in a voluntary capacity. They also seek to encourage legal professionals from under-represented groups to consider a judicial career."
It was probably her wise and expert legal guidance in the field of diversity that allowed the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, in just thirty minutes
No, it was probably the fact the jury was from overwhelmingly Labour Walthamstow. Had the jury been from say heavily Reform Basildon the verdict may have been different.
Judges in criminal trials normally sentence on the law and guidelines whatever their political views
Even in Labour Walthamstow what are the chances that all 12 jury members would all be left-wingers? Even in the Colston Four trial there was 1 jury member who wanted them found guilty.
You only need 3 jurors to say 'Not Guilty, you can't change my mind" to guarantee an acquittal (or a retrial in specific situations)
So the jury in the Jones case might have had just three stubborn individuals. And if there was bias, it might have been due to ethnicity rather than politics (but we don't know in this instance, of course)
I posted evidence earlier of racial bias in jurors in the USA. Black American jurors are far more likely to acquit black defendants than white defendants, whereas white jurors show little bias. It would be interesting to find out if there is a similar pattern in the UK
Sad to see our @leon on X joining in with complaints about justice.
Acquitted by a jury randomly selected has to be better than trial by social media mob.
But I have good news for fans of mobs. You see the wazzocks attacking scouts thinking they were asylum seekers because they had a funny accent (Scottish)? You see the wazzock posting on Facebook that the bus load of sea cadets getting off a bus outside their training centre were immigrants? And the people who ramped this wazzockry?
All are eligible for random selection to serve on a jury.
Even Leon is eligible to serve on a jury. God help democracy.
Sad to see our @leon on X joining in with complaints about justice.
Acquitted by a jury randomly selected has to be better than trial by social media mob.
But I have good news for fans of mobs. You see the wazzocks attacking scouts thinking they were asylum seekers because they had a funny accent (Scottish)? You see the wazzock posting on Facebook that the bus load of sea cadets getting off a bus outside their training centre were immigrants? And the people who ramped this wazzockry?
All are eligible for random selection to serve on a jury.
I posted a great bit of journalism from the P&J about that last night. I think something similar happened in Wales?
Yes. Some moron on Facebook spots sea cadets outside the training centre in Boddam and thinks “Muslims!!!” Morons then pile on, claims the centre is closed etc
Trump can make life v uncomfortable for Starmer. I’d like to see the US impose a Lucy Connolly tariff.
Yes nothing screams "I love my country" more than seeking a foreign power to engage in a hostile act against it.
I don’t love this country any more
I despise what it has become
Surely this must include the despicables who have repeatedly voted for what this country has become?
The Brexit dividend seems to be acute dislike of the country taken back under control.
We had to destroy the country to save the country.
The self hating Brit is an exciting new development. From my parochial North British perch I have neck strain from double takes at folk who not that long ago were telling me what a smashing place the UK is.
Sad to see our @leon on X joining in with complaints about justice.
Acquitted by a jury randomly selected has to be better than trial by social media mob.
But I have good news for fans of mobs. You see the wazzocks attacking scouts thinking they were asylum seekers because they had a funny accent (Scottish)? You see the wazzock posting on Facebook that the bus load of sea cadets getting off a bus outside their training centre were immigrants? And the people who ramped this wazzockry?
All are eligible for random selection to serve on a jury.
Do you understand how the jury could have reached the verdict it did?
Absolutely. They saw the evidence. All the evidence. Both sides. They considered it. They reached a decision.
The joy - and sorrow - of jury trial is that jurors can reach decisions that people not on the jury dislike. Sometimes they make decisions that puzzle even the barristers.
"Her Honour Judge Dean is listed as a Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ), a role that involves promoting diversity and community engagement in the judicial system.
"HHJ Dean covers the area around Snaresbrook Crown Court. She has also supported diversity efforts, such as assisting with visits from Diversity and Community Relations Magistrates at Harrow Crown Court. Additionally, her participation in events like the London Law Collective, where she delivered a keynote speech, highlights her role in inspiring diversity in the legal profession.
"Diversity and Community Relations Judges across England and Wales undertake a huge amount of community engagement in a voluntary capacity. They also seek to encourage legal professionals from under-represented groups to consider a judicial career."
It was probably her wise and expert legal guidance in the field of diversity that allowed the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, in just thirty minutes
No, it was probably the fact the jury was from overwhelmingly Labour Walthamstow. Had the jury been from say heavily Reform Basildon the verdict may have been different.
Judges in criminal trials normally sentence on the law and guidelines whatever their political views
Even in Labour Walthamstow what are the chances that all 12 jury members would all be left-wingers? Even in the Colston Four trial there was 1 jury member who wanted them found guilty.
You only need 3 jurors to say 'Not Guilty, you can't change my mind" to guarantee an acquittal (or a retrial in specific situations)
So the jury in the Jones case might have had just three stubborn individuals. And if there was bias, it might have been due to ethnicity rather than politics (but we don't know in this instance, of course)
I posted evidence earlier of racial bias in jurors in the USA. Black American jurors are far more likely to acquit black defendants than white defendants, whereas white jurors show little bias. It would be interesting to find out if there is a similar pattern in the UK
That's not true, 3 can block a guilty verdict, but you need 10 to get a not guilty (technically 9 if there's only 9 left on the jury). If the Jury can't get to a decision as in the Manchester Airport case there is a mistrial and the CPS can try again.
How likely is it to get called up to a jury? I've only had one call up, and that was coming up to 30 years ago.
I've had none and I'd love to do it. Free of work, rigorously fair-minded, expert in probability theory, I'm a perfect juror waiting to happen. But no, nothing doing. I've stopped even hoping now.
Let’s just be clear - are the people attacking this case demanding trial by mob? People who are “obviously” guilty as assessed by “evidence” posted on social media?
I’ve just given two two examples this week where the “obvious” “evidence was bullshit.
We either protect our jury system - and it isn’t perfect - or we have mob rule.
"Her Honour Judge Dean is listed as a Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ), a role that involves promoting diversity and community engagement in the judicial system.
"HHJ Dean covers the area around Snaresbrook Crown Court. She has also supported diversity efforts, such as assisting with visits from Diversity and Community Relations Magistrates at Harrow Crown Court. Additionally, her participation in events like the London Law Collective, where she delivered a keynote speech, highlights her role in inspiring diversity in the legal profession.
"Diversity and Community Relations Judges across England and Wales undertake a huge amount of community engagement in a voluntary capacity. They also seek to encourage legal professionals from under-represented groups to consider a judicial career."
It was probably her wise and expert legal guidance in the field of diversity that allowed the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, in just thirty minutes
No, it was probably the fact the jury was from overwhelmingly Labour Walthamstow. Had the jury been from say heavily Reform Basildon the verdict may have been different.
Judges in criminal trials normally sentence on the law and guidelines whatever their political views
Even in Labour Walthamstow what are the chances that all 12 jury members would all be left-wingers? Even in the Colston Four trial there was 1 jury member who wanted them found guilty.
You only need 3 jurors to say 'Not Guilty, you can't change my mind" to guarantee an acquittal (or a retrial in specific situations)
So the jury in the Jones case might have had just three stubborn individuals. And if there was bias, it might have been due to ethnicity rather than politics (but we don't know in this instance, of course)
I posted evidence earlier of racial bias in jurors in the USA. Black American jurors are far more likely to acquit black defendants than white defendants, whereas white jurors show little bias. It would be interesting to find out if there is a similar pattern in the UK
Stubbornness isn't consistent with a 30 minute verdict. Given the timeframe, it's pretty likely that they were all agreed.
And given the different histories of racism in the UK and USA, a shiny sixpence says that the racial bias issue among juries is less of an effect here than there.
Trump can make life v uncomfortable for Starmer. I’d like to see the US impose a Lucy Connolly tariff.
Yes nothing screams "I love my country" more than seeking a foreign power to engage in a hostile act against it.
I don’t love this country any more
I despise what it has become
Don’t be negative, it’s crappy at the moment, compared to some countries I can’t think of, maybe Denmark but they have high taxes and their women sound like drains when they talk whilst looking attractive.
You despise what it “has become” because you were living in periods where it was the best place to be.
I love the country, I love what it was and what it could be. It’s not great at the moment and could go down several bad routes but I live in hope someone with a brain will find a way back.
I still have a hankering to live in the UK, I have my eyes on a specific house and do consider it, even if for tax reasons I’m limited in time I can spend there. It’s still a great place with a lot of fun people, we don’t take ourselves too seriously. A lot of great pubs and restaurants, great culture, great free museums.
It’s shitty if you don’t have much but where is good if you don’t?
I’ve only lived in Switzerland and France so they are my only good true comparisons and god they have their faults too, and they speak French just to make it worse.
It’s still on the whole, a good place to be.
You misconstrue
I despise the British state and almost every representation of it. I want a revolution (peaceful) where almost everyone in power is driven into exile or maybe put in jail for a long long time
Would I fight for Britain in a war? I’m no longer sure at all
That’s very different from whether it is a pleasant place to live. Lots of despicable countries can be nice places to live
Because Britain - or England or Scotland if you prefer - is not 'The State'. Nor is it the Government or the poltical and chattering classes. It is a society, a history, a culture and a 'terroir' (to use the French wine making term) which is inculcated into our souls by years of exposure and familiarity.
Like you I would not fight for 'the state' nor for any of those who lead or control it. But I would fight for all those other things I listed and for the people that share them with me.
Clearly this is a hypothetical. I am a bit aged to be called up, but as a hypothetical it is interesting
As I said, I genuinely don't know if I would fight any more. To defend this rotten edifice of hypocrisy piled on venality, sired by stupidity? Hmmm
I guess it would depend on the enemy and their intentions. If it was Putin, yeah, I'd fight, if it was some militia of American free speechers, come to help the Brits overthrow the regime, I'd join the Americans
Trump can make life v uncomfortable for Starmer. I’d like to see the US impose a Lucy Connolly tariff.
Yes nothing screams "I love my country" more than seeking a foreign power to engage in a hostile act against it.
I don’t love this country any more
I despise what it has become
Surely this must include the despicables who have repeatedly voted for what this country has become?
The Brexit dividend seems to be acute dislike of the country taken back under control.
We had to destroy the country to save the country.
The self hating Brit is an exciting new development. From my parochial North British perch I have neck strain from double takes at folk who not that long ago were telling me what a smashing place the UK is.
They only worry if we threaten to break away and remove the best bit of the UK.
Trump can make life v uncomfortable for Starmer. I’d like to see the US impose a Lucy Connolly tariff.
Yes nothing screams "I love my country" more than seeking a foreign power to engage in a hostile act against it.
I don’t love this country any more
I despise what it has become
Surely this must include the despicables who have repeatedly voted for what this country has become?
The Brexit dividend seems to be acute dislike of the country taken back under control.
We had to destroy the country to save the country.
The self hating Brit is an exciting new development. From my parochial North British perch I have neck strain from double takes at folk who not that long ago were telling me what a smashing place the UK is.
Only if we threaten to break away and remove the best bit of the UK.
On topic, this happened to me the other day sitting on a train. Couple get on, looks like they are heading for the airport for a holiday.
She is miffed because he has walked her to the 1713 express train rather than their intended 1731 train. This means they will be early, and thus have to change mid-journey and wait 15 minutes or so to get their original train as the express one isn't stopping at their final station.
Not a full blown row, just a series of half-muttered bitter nips, jibes, barbs and non-sequiturs at each other about the fact somehow they've ended up on this slightly earlier train. Netted out they have to wait the same amount of time either way, either at the original station to get a slightly later train or mid journey to transfer to the original train, but they are guaranteed to get there at the original intended time. Still, this displeases her immensely.
I wasn't really trying to listen in or block them out either way, but was hard to avoid somehow being privy to it. I felt quite sorry for the guy. Not "it's your fault we were late, missed our train and flight and now the holiday is RUINED!!" but instead "it's your fault we were early BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME, now we have to change trains so that we get to the destination at exactly the original time we intended anyway".
I did wonder (a) how their holiday would go and (b) how much mileage was left in the relationship.
How likely is it to get called up to a jury? I've only had one call up, and that was coming up to 30 years ago.
I've had none and I'd love to do it. Free of work, rigorously fair-minded, expert in probability theory, I'm a perfect juror waiting to happen. But no, nothing doing. I've stopped even hoping now.
It's not that fun. a lot of waiting around in the jury room (take a good book), I got picked in the 15 for an attempted murder case but then my number didn't come up so ended up doing a Driving While Disqualified which shouldn't even have got to Crown Court.
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
Not sure you really understand protests. It's about sticking two fingers up at the government; doing what they ask and causing as little disruption as possible is exactly what an authoritarian government would want you to do. It was mad listening to Stewart and Campbell tip toe round the issue on their podcast lest they get arrested too - do you really want to live in a UK like that?
But @kinabalu has informed me that the government has decent intentions and “wouldn’t do this, trust me”. So there’s no problem there.
So they want a Senatus consultum ultimum? What could possibly go wrong?
Re the trial of the Labour councillor acquitted of encouraging violent disorder at Snaresbrook Crown Court. Had be been tried by a jury at Basildon Crown Court I venture he may well have been found guilty.
That is one of the drawbacks of jury trial it can depend on where the jury is drawn from, especially if a political, racial or religious element. However to his credit Jacob Rees Mogg still accepts that as he believes in juries in principle even if he disagreed with verdicts like the slave owner statue damage acquittal in Bristol.
Shame Cleverly and Philp did not follow JRM but jumped on the populist bandwagon earlier before thinking through the logic of their comments ie that all trials should be judge only with no juries at Crown Court level.
Speaking of which JRM owns Cleverly and Philp.
'This is self-evidently not an example of two-tier justice as this Councillor was cleared by a jury. Lucy Connolly offered a guilty plea so did not have a jury trial, although she probably could have done had she pleaded not guilty.' https://x.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1956379270445752482
Has he spoken to his great friend Nigel Farage about his view ?
Perhaps he will educate Nigel on thinking a bit more before he speaks?
The only difference is Farage is leading the narrative and the polls and JRM is some rich entitled ex mp
No, there's also the difference that JRM is (for once in his life) right, and Farage wrong.
Let’s just be clear - are the people attacking this case demanding trial by mob? People who are “obviously” guilty as assessed by “evidence” posted on social media?
I’ve just given two two examples this week where the “obvious” “evidence was bullshit.
We either protect our jury system - and it isn’t perfect - or we have mob rule.
And, in "this clearly shouldn't need saying, but maybe today it does" news,
Trump can make life v uncomfortable for Starmer. I’d like to see the US impose a Lucy Connolly tariff.
Yes nothing screams "I love my country" more than seeking a foreign power to engage in a hostile act against it.
I don’t love this country any more
I despise what it has become
Surely this must include the despicables who have repeatedly voted for what this country has become?
The Brexit dividend seems to be acute dislike of the country taken back under control.
We had to destroy the country to save the country.
The self hating Brit is an exciting new development. From my parochial North British perch I have neck strain from double takes at folk who not that long ago were telling me what a smashing place the UK is.
Only if we threaten to break away and remove the best bit of the UK.
Derbyshire?
Bonnie Prince Charlie turned round at Derby because he realised nowhere further was going to be as good.
Trump can make life v uncomfortable for Starmer. I’d like to see the US impose a Lucy Connolly tariff.
Yes nothing screams "I love my country" more than seeking a foreign power to engage in a hostile act against it.
I don’t love this country any more
I despise what it has become
Don’t be negative, it’s crappy at the moment, compared to some countries I can’t think of, maybe Denmark but they have high taxes and their women sound like drains when they talk whilst looking attractive.
You despise what it “has become” because you were living in periods where it was the best place to be.
I love the country, I love what it was and what it could be. It’s not great at the moment and could go down several bad routes but I live in hope someone with a brain will find a way back.
I still have a hankering to live in the UK, I have my eyes on a specific house and do consider it, even if for tax reasons I’m limited in time I can spend there. It’s still a great place with a lot of fun people, we don’t take ourselves too seriously. A lot of great pubs and restaurants, great culture, great free museums.
It’s shitty if you don’t have much but where is good if you don’t?
I’ve only lived in Switzerland and France so they are my only good true comparisons and god they have their faults too, and they speak French just to make it worse.
It’s still on the whole, a good place to be.
I've lived in Switzerland, Austria and Denmark for periods long enough to feel fairly rootless - on the whole I like Switzerland and Denmark most, because of their majority of people keen to make society work, in a way that one doesn't see frequently in the UK (or Austria). But so many other things decide where one lives, and I'm happy living in the UK, and puzzled by people who feel vehemently against it.
Switzerland is a great place in many ways but:
- winters generally harsher than here - prices much higher (so are incomes but you still feel like you're being ripped off every time you do the shopping) - the three linguistic communities view each other with indifference on a good day, active dislike when things go badly - the EU bullies them at every opportunity even worse than it does us - government officials are staggeringly punctilious, officious and punitive, even for a Germanic country, e.g my friends who got a 500 Fr fine for not sorting their recycling correctly - every male is supposed to serve in the utterly pointless army
I've lived in Germany and the USA and travelled a lot it's mostly told me that nowhere is perfect and that, despite our government, this old island still has its virtues.
"Her Honour Judge Dean is listed as a Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ), a role that involves promoting diversity and community engagement in the judicial system.
"HHJ Dean covers the area around Snaresbrook Crown Court. She has also supported diversity efforts, such as assisting with visits from Diversity and Community Relations Magistrates at Harrow Crown Court. Additionally, her participation in events like the London Law Collective, where she delivered a keynote speech, highlights her role in inspiring diversity in the legal profession.
"Diversity and Community Relations Judges across England and Wales undertake a huge amount of community engagement in a voluntary capacity. They also seek to encourage legal professionals from under-represented groups to consider a judicial career."
It was probably her wise and expert legal guidance in the field of diversity that allowed the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, in just thirty minutes
So you’re trashing the judge because because she committed the sin of doing some voluntary work to encourage under-represented groups to think of a judicial career . And that term which now seems to drive some people into having a meltdown “ diversity “.
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
It is a basic principle. There are lots of people who do not consider what Palestine Action did to be terrorism. I have to say that I am probably one of them. What they did was certainly illegal and I suppose if you want a high crime to pin on them you might reasonably get away with calling it Treason. But a vast number of people - even those like me who oppose what they did - don't see it as terrorism.
And the really important point here is one of free speech. If I or anyone else disagrees with the actions of the Government - including their proscription of a group - we should be allowed to protest against it. As long as we are not ourselves using violent means.
That is why I think it is wrong to be arresting the protestors. Peaceful protest should never be criminalised, nor should criticising and opposing laws which we feel are fundamentally wrong. To link to another current discussion on here, to me it just seems throughly un-British.
I take a subtly different view. That the actions against the military bases were clearly terrorism, they caused tens of millions of pounds worth of damage to the King’s Army.
The government shouldn’t have proscribed the group, but they should have charged those actually damaging and planning to damage aircraft with treason, and they should be expecting to be behind bars for a decade or more
But also that the right to protest is a key facet of British law, but if this government sees fit to proscribe the terrorist group then they should be expected to throw the book at their supporters, and deal with the political fallout that entails. They’ve instead decided to formally proscribe the group but continue to let them protest basically unhindered every weekend.
Let’s just be clear - are the people attacking this case demanding trial by mob? People who are “obviously” guilty as assessed by “evidence” posted on social media?
I’ve just given two two examples this week where the “obvious” “evidence was bullshit.
We either protect our jury system - and it isn’t perfect - or we have mob rule.
And, in "this clearly shouldn't need saying, but maybe today it does" news,
Mob rule would be a very bad thing.
That's the obvious result of this Trumpian anti-elite, anti-establishment thing. Now we have attacks on juries selected randomly from the public.
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
What specific crime did they commit?
Support for a proscribed terrorist organisation.
Did they vandalize any RAF planes?
They showed their explicit support for those who did.
Define "explicit support".
Holding up placards saying "I support Palestine Action". Hard to be more explicit.
Sad to see our @leon on X joining in with complaints about justice.
Acquitted by a jury randomly selected has to be better than trial by social media mob.
But I have good news for fans of mobs. You see the wazzocks attacking scouts thinking they were asylum seekers because they had a funny accent (Scottish)? You see the wazzock posting on Facebook that the bus load of sea cadets getting off a bus outside their training centre were immigrants? And the people who ramped this wazzockry?
All are eligible for random selection to serve on a jury.
Do you understand how the jury could have reached the verdict it did?
Absolutely. They saw the evidence. All the evidence. Both sides. They considered it. They reached a decision.
The joy - and sorrow - of jury trial is that jurors can reach decisions that people not on the jury dislike. Sometimes they make decisions that puzzle even the barristers.
The discussion is pretty futile unless a particular thing is known, and I have no idea if any of the media bothered to report it: What did the judge say in summing up and directions to the jury as to how to reach a verdict of guilty, and how did the judge put to the jury what the defence or defences were - so on what grounds would it be right to acquit. If there were no such grounds the judge would have said so.
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
It is a basic principle. There are lots of people who do not consider what Palestine Action did to be terrorism. I have to say that I am probably one of them. What they did was certainly illegal and I suppose if you want a high crime to pin on them you might reasonably get away with calling it Treason. But a vast number of people - even those like me who oppose what they did - don't see it as terrorism.
And the really important point here is one of free speech. If I or anyone else disagrees with the actions of the Government - including their proscription of a group - we should be allowed to protest against it. As long as we are not ourselves using violent means.
That is why I think it is wrong to be arresting the protestors. Peaceful protest should never be criminalised, nor should criticising and opposing laws which we feel are fundamentally wrong. To link to another current discussion on here, to me it just seems throughly un-British.
I take a subtly different view. That the actions against the military bases were clearly terrorism, they caused tens of millions of pounds worth of damage to the King’s Army.
The government shouldn’t have proscribed the group, but they should have charged those actually damaging and planning to damage aircraft with treason, and they should be expecting to be behind bars for a decade or more
But also that the right to protest is a key facet of British law, but if this government sees fit to proscribe the terrorist group then they should be expected to throw the book at their supporters, and deal with the political fallout that entails. They’ve instead decided to formally proscribe the group but continue to let them protest basically unhindered every weekend.
If the right to protest is proscribed, it would make the DPP’s job easier. What was Starmer’s previous job?
On topic: Sometimes one -- or both -- of a quarreling couple want other people to listen to them. The incident solarflare just described might be an example of that.
On topic, this happened to me the other day sitting on a train. Couple get on, looks like they are heading for the airport for a holiday.
She is miffed because he has walked her to the 1713 express train rather than their intended 1731 train. This means they will be early, and thus have to change mid-journey and wait 15 minutes or so to get their original train as the express one isn't stopping at their final station.
Not a full blown row, just a series of half-muttered bitter nips, jibes, barbs and non-sequiturs at each other about the fact somehow they've ended up on this slightly earlier train. Netted out they have to wait the same amount of time either way, either at the original station to get a slightly later train or mid journey to transfer to the original train, but they are guaranteed to get there at the original intended time. Still, this displeases her immensely.
I wasn't really trying to listen in or block them out either way, but was hard to avoid somehow being privy to it. I felt quite sorry for the guy. Not "it's your fault we were late, missed our train and flight and now the holiday is RUINED!!" but instead "it's your fault we were early BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME, now we have to change trains so that we get to the destination at exactly the original time we intended anyway".
I did wonder (a) how their holiday would go and (b) how much mileage was left in the relationship.
A couple of decades ago I got the last train back from London to Cambridge after a work meeting. Myself and a friend got a taxi back to our respective digs, and the driver spent the entire drive screaming at her daughter over the phone, occasionally swerving across the road for added emphasis. I learnt a lot about their relationship that I really did not need to know.
Oh, and arguments can be silly and deadly: a woman died on the Sawston bypass when she had an argument with her husband over whether they'd bought the right paint from B&Q.
On topic, this happened to me the other day sitting on a train. Couple get on, looks like they are heading for the airport for a holiday.
She is miffed because he has walked her to the 1713 express train rather than their intended 1731 train. This means they will be early, and thus have to change mid-journey and wait 15 minutes or so to get their original train as the express one isn't stopping at their final station.
Not a full blown row, just a series of half-muttered bitter nips, jibes, barbs and non-sequiturs at each other about the fact somehow they've ended up on this slightly earlier train. Netted out they have to wait the same amount of time either way, either at the original station to get a slightly later train or mid journey to transfer to the original train, but they are guaranteed to get there at the original intended time. Still, this displeases her immensely.
I wasn't really trying to listen in or block them out either way, but was hard to avoid somehow being privy to it. I felt quite sorry for the guy. Not "it's your fault we were late, missed our train and flight and now the holiday is RUINED!!" but instead "it's your fault we were early BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME, now we have to change trains so that we get to the destination at exactly the original time we intended anyway".
I did wonder (a) how their holiday would go and (b) how much mileage was left in the relationship.
Years ago, while my wife and I (newly married) were out looking at houses.
A very elderly, but sprightly couple were sitting, arguing, on a bench. I reckon they were 90s, minimum. They were arguing about absolutely nothing - something about breakfast.
James Cleverly and Chris Philip seem to have forgotten that 12 people returned a verdict. It my be perverse, but it was a Crown Court trial not a trail by public opinion.
"The Ricky Jones acquittal shows us the wisdom of juries If only Lucy Connolly had been advised to plead not guilty, things might have been very different. Tom Slater"
Let’s just be clear - are the people attacking this case demanding trial by mob? People who are “obviously” guilty as assessed by “evidence” posted on social media?
I’ve just given two two examples this week where the “obvious” “evidence was bullshit.
We either protect our jury system - and it isn’t perfect - or we have mob rule.
Come on now.
This is utter tripe and you know it.
"Posted on social media" - are you suggesting that the video footage is somehow a deep fake? What on earth does "posted on social media" have to do with it?
"Two examples this week" - OK, what have they got to do with this case? The evidence here clearly isn't bullshit.
I agree we need to protect trial by jury - that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn the lessons of what has clearly gone wrong here.
How likely is it to get called up to a jury? I've only had one call up, and that was coming up to 30 years ago.
I've had none and I'd love to do it. Free of work, rigorously fair-minded, expert in probability theory, I'm a perfect juror waiting to happen. But no, nothing doing. I've stopped even hoping now.
It's not that fun. a lot of waiting around in the jury room (take a good book), I got picked in the 15 for an attempted murder case but then my number didn't come up so ended up doing a Driving While Disqualified which shouldn't even have got to Crown Court.
That's a letdown. What I'd want is a big serious crime but not with upsetting aspects. But you can't choose, I know.
On topic: Sometimes one -- or both -- of a quarreling couple want other people to listen to them. The incident solarflare just described might be an example of that.
Because they both think they are in the right, and expect their audience to agree with them.
Trump can make life v uncomfortable for Starmer. I’d like to see the US impose a Lucy Connolly tariff.
Yes nothing screams "I love my country" more than seeking a foreign power to engage in a hostile act against it.
I don’t love this country any more
I despise what it has become
Don’t be negative, it’s crappy at the moment, compared to some countries I can’t think of, maybe Denmark but they have high taxes and their women sound like drains when they talk whilst looking attractive.
You despise what it “has become” because you were living in periods where it was the best place to be.
I love the country, I love what it was and what it could be. It’s not great at the moment and could go down several bad routes but I live in hope someone with a brain will find a way back.
I still have a hankering to live in the UK, I have my eyes on a specific house and do consider it, even if for tax reasons I’m limited in time I can spend there. It’s still a great place with a lot of fun people, we don’t take ourselves too seriously. A lot of great pubs and restaurants, great culture, great free museums.
It’s shitty if you don’t have much but where is good if you don’t?
I’ve only lived in Switzerland and France so they are my only good true comparisons and god they have their faults too, and they speak French just to make it worse.
It’s still on the whole, a good place to be.
You misconstrue
I despise the British state and almost every representation of it. I want a revolution (peaceful) where almost everyone in power is driven into exile or maybe put in jail for a long long time
Would I fight for Britain in a war? I’m no longer sure at all
That’s very different from whether it is a pleasant place to live. Lots of despicable countries can be nice places to live
Because Britain - or England or Scotland if you prefer - is not 'The State'. Nor is it the Government or the poltical and chattering classes. It is a society, a history, a culture and a 'terroir' (to use the French wine making term) which is inculcated into our souls by years of exposure and familiarity.
Like you I would not fight for 'the state' nor for any of those who lead or control it. But I would fight for all those other things I listed and for the people that share them with me.
Clearly this is a hypothetical. I am a bit aged to be called up, but as a hypothetical it is interesting
As I said, I genuinely don't know if I would fight any more. To defend this rotten edifice of hypocrisy piled on venality, sired by stupidity? Hmmm
I guess it would depend on the enemy and their intentions. If it was Putin, yeah, I'd fight, if it was some militia of American free speechers, come to help the Brits overthrow the regime, I'd join the Americans
‘If it was Putin, yeah, I'd fight’
I have to ask, for or against?
I sometimes wonder if Putin is already running the British state the way it actively seeks to destroy Britain.
EXCLUSIVE: Newsnight can reveal there has been another Afghan data breach. The Ministry of Defence sent emails to those affected on Friday afternoon 🧵
Let’s just be clear - are the people attacking this case demanding trial by mob? People who are “obviously” guilty as assessed by “evidence” posted on social media?
I’ve just given two two examples this week where the “obvious” “evidence was bullshit.
We either protect our jury system - and it isn’t perfect - or we have mob rule.
Growing up is mostly about realizing that the world - i.e. other people - isn't likely to conform to our desires. And reaching peace with that fact.
You know what, I would *probably* have come back with a guilty verdict. I also think that Lucy Connelly's sentence was hugely disproportionate.
But I also know that the world is not always going to conform to my desires. I also know that I am not always right.
And the idea that "the mob" or some "great leader" is going to be both always correct and constantly in line with my desires is so absurd as to be laughable.
On topic, this happened to me the other day sitting on a train. Couple get on, looks like they are heading for the airport for a holiday.
She is miffed because he has walked her to the 1713 express train rather than their intended 1731 train. This means they will be early, and thus have to change mid-journey and wait 15 minutes or so to get their original train as the express one isn't stopping at their final station.
Not a full blown row, just a series of half-muttered bitter nips, jibes, barbs and non-sequiturs at each other about the fact somehow they've ended up on this slightly earlier train. Netted out they have to wait the same amount of time either way, either at the original station to get a slightly later train or mid journey to transfer to the original train, but they are guaranteed to get there at the original intended time. Still, this displeases her immensely.
I wasn't really trying to listen in or block them out either way, but was hard to avoid somehow being privy to it. I felt quite sorry for the guy. Not "it's your fault we were late, missed our train and flight and now the holiday is RUINED!!" but instead "it's your fault we were early BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME, now we have to change trains so that we get to the destination at exactly the original time we intended anyway".
I did wonder (a) how their holiday would go and (b) how much mileage was left in the relationship.
A couple of decades ago I got the last train back from London to Cambridge after a work meeting. Myself and a friend got a taxi back to our respective digs, and the driver spent the entire drive screaming at her daughter over the phone, occasionally swerving across the road for added emphasis. I learnt a lot about their relationship that I really did not need to know.
Oh, and arguments can be silly and deadly: a woman died on the Sawston bypass when she had an argument with her husband over whether they'd bought the right paint from B&Q.
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
Not sure you really understand protests. It's about sticking two fingers up at the government; doing what they ask and causing as little disruption as possible is exactly what an authoritarian government would want you to do. It was mad listening to Stewart and Campbell tip toe round the issue on their podcast lest they get arrested too - do you really want to live in a UK like that?
But @kinabalu has informed me that the government has decent intentions and “wouldn’t do this, trust me”. So there’s no problem there.
So they want a Senatus consultum ultimum? What could possibly go wrong?
Let’s just be clear - are the people attacking this case demanding trial by mob? People who are “obviously” guilty as assessed by “evidence” posted on social media?
I’ve just given two two examples this week where the “obvious” “evidence was bullshit.
We either protect our jury system - and it isn’t perfect - or we have mob rule.
And, in "this clearly shouldn't need saying, but maybe today it does" news,
Mob rule would be a very bad thing.
Worth remembering that jury nullification has a very nasty side.
It was why, no white man in Mississippi was found guilty of killing a black man between 1865 and 1965.
"Her Honour Judge Dean is listed as a Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ), a role that involves promoting diversity and community engagement in the judicial system.
"HHJ Dean covers the area around Snaresbrook Crown Court. She has also supported diversity efforts, such as assisting with visits from Diversity and Community Relations Magistrates at Harrow Crown Court. Additionally, her participation in events like the London Law Collective, where she delivered a keynote speech, highlights her role in inspiring diversity in the legal profession.
"Diversity and Community Relations Judges across England and Wales undertake a huge amount of community engagement in a voluntary capacity. They also seek to encourage legal professionals from under-represented groups to consider a judicial career."
It was probably her wise and expert legal guidance in the field of diversity that allowed the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, in just thirty minutes
No, it was probably the fact the jury was from overwhelmingly Labour Walthamstow. Had the jury been from say heavily Reform Basildon the verdict may have been different.
Judges in criminal trials normally sentence on the law and guidelines whatever their political views
Even in Labour Walthamstow what are the chances that all 12 jury members would all be left-wingers? Even in the Colston Four trial there was 1 jury member who wanted them found guilty.
You only need 3 jurors to say 'Not Guilty, you can't change my mind" to guarantee an acquittal (or a retrial in specific situations)
So the jury in the Jones case might have had just three stubborn individuals. And if there was bias, it might have been due to ethnicity rather than politics (but we don't know in this instance, of course)
I posted evidence earlier of racial bias in jurors in the USA. Black American jurors are far more likely to acquit black defendants than white defendants, whereas white jurors show little bias. It would be interesting to find out if there is a similar pattern in the UK
That's not true, 3 can block a guilty verdict, but you need 10 to get a not guilty (technically 9 if there's only 9 left on the jury). If the Jury can't get to a decision as in the Manchester Airport case there is a mistrial and the CPS can try again.
Are you sure? That was my understanding - having literally been the defendant in a trial at the old Bailey! My silk explained it to me
But it was a long time ago and maybe I misremember
How likely is it to get called up to a jury? I've only had one call up, and that was coming up to 30 years ago.
I've had none and I'd love to do it. Free of work, rigorously fair-minded, expert in probability theory, I'm a perfect juror waiting to happen. But no, nothing doing. I've stopped even hoping now.
It's not that fun. a lot of waiting around in the jury room (take a good book), I got picked in the 15 for an attempted murder case but then my number didn't come up so ended up doing a Driving While Disqualified which shouldn't even have got to Crown Court.
That's a letdown. What I'd want is a big serious crime but not with upsetting aspects. But you can't choose, I know.
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
It is a basic principle. There are lots of people who do not consider what Palestine Action did to be terrorism. I have to say that I am probably one of them. What they did was certainly illegal and I suppose if you want a high crime to pin on them you might reasonably get away with calling it Treason. But a vast number of people - even those like me who oppose what they did - don't see it as terrorism.
And the really important point here is one of free speech. If I or anyone else disagrees with the actions of the Government - including their proscription of a group - we should be allowed to protest against it. As long as we are not ourselves using violent means.
That is why I think it is wrong to be arresting the protestors. Peaceful protest should never be criminalised, nor should criticising and opposing laws which we feel are fundamentally wrong. To link to another current discussion on here, to me it just seems throughly un-British.
I take a subtly different view. That the actions against the military bases were clearly terrorism, they caused tens of millions of pounds worth of damage to the King’s Army.
The government shouldn’t have proscribed the group, but they should have charged those actually damaging and planning to damage aircraft with treason, and they should be expecting to be behind bars for a decade or more
But also that the right to protest is a key facet of British law, but if this government sees fit to proscribe the terrorist group then they should be expected to throw the book at their supporters, and deal with the political fallout that entails. They’ve instead decided to formally proscribe the group but continue to let them protest basically unhindered every weekend.
Hang on.
Up until the penultimate paragraph, I'm with you.
You can support (verbally and in your head) what the hell you like. What you cannot do is cross the line into providing aid.
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
It is a basic principle. There are lots of people who do not consider what Palestine Action did to be terrorism. I have to say that I am probably one of them. What they did was certainly illegal and I suppose if you want a high crime to pin on them you might reasonably get away with calling it Treason. But a vast number of people - even those like me who oppose what they did - don't see it as terrorism.
And the really important point here is one of free speech. If I or anyone else disagrees with the actions of the Government - including their proscription of a group - we should be allowed to protest against it. As long as we are not ourselves using violent means.
That is why I think it is wrong to be arresting the protestors. Peaceful protest should never be criminalised, nor should criticising and opposing laws which we feel are fundamentally wrong. To link to another current discussion on here, to me it just seems throughly un-British.
I take a subtly different view. That the actions against the military bases were clearly terrorism, they caused tens of millions of pounds worth of damage to the King’s Army.
The government shouldn’t have proscribed the group, but they should have charged those actually damaging and planning to damage aircraft with treason, and they should be expecting to be behind bars for a decade or more
But also that the right to protest is a key facet of British law, but if this government sees fit to proscribe the terrorist group then they should be expected to throw the book at their supporters, and deal with the political fallout that entails. They’ve instead decided to formally proscribe the group but continue to let them protest basically unhindered every weekend.
Hang on.
Up until the penultimate paragraph, I'm with you.
You can support (verbally and in your head) what the hell you like. What you cannot do is cross the line into providing aid.
How likely is it to get called up to a jury? I've only had one call up, and that was coming up to 30 years ago.
I've had none and I'd love to do it. Free of work, rigorously fair-minded, expert in probability theory, I'm a perfect juror waiting to happen. But no, nothing doing. I've stopped even hoping now.
It's not that fun. a lot of waiting around in the jury room (take a good book), I got picked in the 15 for an attempted murder case but then my number didn't come up so ended up doing a Driving While Disqualified which shouldn't even have got to Crown Court.
That's a letdown. What I'd want is a big serious crime but not with upsetting aspects. But you can't choose, I know.
i want Bates v The Post Office.
Lee Castleton v the Post Office and Fujitsu is the one we are going to get.
On topic: Sometimes one -- or both -- of a quarreling couple want other people to listen to them. The incident solarflare just described might be an example of that.
I was certainly impressed at how long they kept at it. Even when I thought it was done and they'd moved on to another topic of conversation, no, she'd bring it back to the fact they were on the wrong train, and that would be another round of sniping.
"Her Honour Judge Dean is listed as a Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ), a role that involves promoting diversity and community engagement in the judicial system.
"HHJ Dean covers the area around Snaresbrook Crown Court. She has also supported diversity efforts, such as assisting with visits from Diversity and Community Relations Magistrates at Harrow Crown Court. Additionally, her participation in events like the London Law Collective, where she delivered a keynote speech, highlights her role in inspiring diversity in the legal profession.
"Diversity and Community Relations Judges across England and Wales undertake a huge amount of community engagement in a voluntary capacity. They also seek to encourage legal professionals from under-represented groups to consider a judicial career."
It was probably her wise and expert legal guidance in the field of diversity that allowed the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, in just thirty minutes
No, it was probably the fact the jury was from overwhelmingly Labour Walthamstow. Had the jury been from say heavily Reform Basildon the verdict may have been different.
Judges in criminal trials normally sentence on the law and guidelines whatever their political views
Even in Labour Walthamstow what are the chances that all 12 jury members would all be left-wingers? Even in the Colston Four trial there was 1 jury member who wanted them found guilty.
You only need 3 jurors to say 'Not Guilty, you can't change my mind" to guarantee an acquittal (or a retrial in specific situations)
So the jury in the Jones case might have had just three stubborn individuals. And if there was bias, it might have been due to ethnicity rather than politics (but we don't know in this instance, of course)
I posted evidence earlier of racial bias in jurors in the USA. Black American jurors are far more likely to acquit black defendants than white defendants, whereas white jurors show little bias. It would be interesting to find out if there is a similar pattern in the UK
That's not true, 3 can block a guilty verdict, but you need 10 to get a not guilty (technically 9 if there's only 9 left on the jury). If the Jury can't get to a decision as in the Manchester Airport case there is a mistrial and the CPS can try again.
Are you sure? That was my understanding - having literally been the defendant in a trial at the old Bailey! My silk explained it to me
But it was a long time ago and maybe I misremember
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
It is a basic principle. There are lots of people who do not consider what Palestine Action did to be terrorism. I have to say that I am probably one of them. What they did was certainly illegal and I suppose if you want a high crime to pin on them you might reasonably get away with calling it Treason. But a vast number of people - even those like me who oppose what they did - don't see it as terrorism.
And the really important point here is one of free speech. If I or anyone else disagrees with the actions of the Government - including their proscription of a group - we should be allowed to protest against it. As long as we are not ourselves using violent means.
That is why I think it is wrong to be arresting the protestors. Peaceful protest should never be criminalised, nor should criticising and opposing laws which we feel are fundamentally wrong. To link to another current discussion on here, to me it just seems throughly un-British.
I take a subtly different view. That the actions against the military bases were clearly terrorism, they caused tens of millions of pounds worth of damage to the King’s Army.
The government shouldn’t have proscribed the group, but they should have charged those actually damaging and planning to damage aircraft with treason, and they should be expecting to be behind bars for a decade or more
But also that the right to protest is a key facet of British law, but if this government sees fit to proscribe the terrorist group then they should be expected to throw the book at their supporters, and deal with the political fallout that entails. They’ve instead decided to formally proscribe the group but continue to let them protest basically unhindered every weekend.
Again, no Government should have the right to ban peaceful protest. Indeed it is almost the duty of a good citizen to defy that ban and make the law unworkable.
Ever so slightly off topic, I was clearing out a corner of my flat this afternoon. 20 years of accumulated crap. Mostly meaningless. Admin. Paperwork. A useless printer. All purged. Yay
But then suddenly I came across a sketch book that belonged to my ex wife (who I loved very much and only split with coz she wanted babies and I didn’t). It was full of her crazy funny eccentric drawings - even pages embroidered with wool. The epic of Gilgamesh in crayon. All her creativity and wit and uniqueness in o one pad of paper
And I sat there and, I confess, I slightly cried. Just a few manly tears but they were real
What is that? I was perfectly content - happy even. Then suddenly a land mine of emotion and memory exploded in my face and I was plunged into intense sadness
What is the psychology? The evolutionary explanation for these emotions? Very strange
On topic, this happened to me the other day sitting on a train. Couple get on, looks like they are heading for the airport for a holiday.
She is miffed because he has walked her to the 1713 express train rather than their intended 1731 train. This means they will be early, and thus have to change mid-journey and wait 15 minutes or so to get their original train as the express one isn't stopping at their final station.
Not a full blown row, just a series of half-muttered bitter nips, jibes, barbs and non-sequiturs at each other about the fact somehow they've ended up on this slightly earlier train. Netted out they have to wait the same amount of time either way, either at the original station to get a slightly later train or mid journey to transfer to the original train, but they are guaranteed to get there at the original intended time. Still, this displeases her immensely.
I wasn't really trying to listen in or block them out either way, but was hard to avoid somehow being privy to it. I felt quite sorry for the guy. Not "it's your fault we were late, missed our train and flight and now the holiday is RUINED!!" but instead "it's your fault we were early BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME, now we have to change trains so that we get to the destination at exactly the original time we intended anyway".
I did wonder (a) how their holiday would go and (b) how much mileage was left in the relationship.
My wife and I were clambering along the ridge of Grib Goch, and encountered a couple having an almighty public row. He hadn't told her, that there was a sheer drop on her right, and a sheer drop on her left. Like Solarflare I was left wondering what happened next.
Trump can make life v uncomfortable for Starmer. I’d like to see the US impose a Lucy Connolly tariff.
Yes nothing screams "I love my country" more than seeking a foreign power to engage in a hostile act against it.
I don’t love this country any more
I despise what it has become
Don’t be negative, it’s crappy at the moment, compared to some countries I can’t think of, maybe Denmark but they have high taxes and their women sound like drains when they talk whilst looking attractive.
You despise what it “has become” because you were living in periods where it was the best place to be.
I love the country, I love what it was and what it could be. It’s not great at the moment and could go down several bad routes but I live in hope someone with a brain will find a way back.
I still have a hankering to live in the UK, I have my eyes on a specific house and do consider it, even if for tax reasons I’m limited in time I can spend there. It’s still a great place with a lot of fun people, we don’t take ourselves too seriously. A lot of great pubs and restaurants, great culture, great free museums.
It’s shitty if you don’t have much but where is good if you don’t?
I’ve only lived in Switzerland and France so they are my only good true comparisons and god they have their faults too, and they speak French just to make it worse.
It’s still on the whole, a good place to be.
I've lived in Switzerland, Austria and Denmark for periods long enough to feel fairly rootless - on the whole I like Switzerland and Denmark most, because of their majority of people keen to make society work, in a way that one doesn't see frequently in the UK (or Austria). But so many other things decide where one lives, and I'm happy living in the UK, and puzzled by people who feel vehemently against it.
Switzerland is a great place in many ways but:
- winters generally harsher than here - prices much higher (so are incomes but you still feel like you're being ripped off every time you do the shopping) - the three linguistic communities view each other with indifference on a good day, active dislike when things go badly - the EU bullies them at every opportunity even worse than it does us - government officials are staggeringly punctilious, officious and punitive, even for a Germanic country, e.g my friends who got a 500 Fr fine for not sorting their recycling correctly - every male is supposed to serve in the utterly pointless army
I've lived in Germany and the USA and travelled a lot it's mostly told me that nowhere is perfect and that, despite our government, this old island still has its virtues.
On the first, winters might be colder but I preferred them as it was cold or cold and snow largely with plenty of glorious blue skies, far preferable to Atlantic wind, rain and cloud. Really good seasons where it was generally hot and sunny from may to October then You watched the snow come closer and closer over the mountains which was great.
Prices were higher but so was pay.
The EU thing, I didn’t care.
Officials were brutal but then everything was done well so an ok trade-off. Also the Swiss have the ability to change to a lot easier than the UK as the rules are up to communes and cantons as much as federal authorities so you have much better avenues for getting your area to suit you.
My Swiss friends generally didn’t mind National Service, it was not far from a jolly in the CCF. More annoying for employers than the individual.
Many other problems, horrifically racist police, I’m fine as I am clearly Northern European but I knew many people with Mediterranean skins, yet alone brown or black who had a bad time of it if they came across the police. Swiss drivers, well the Genevois, are wankers. Lots of other things but would take a wealthy UK hometown over Switzerland every time.
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
It is a basic principle. There are lots of people who do not consider what Palestine Action did to be terrorism. I have to say that I am probably one of them. What they did was certainly illegal and I suppose if you want a high crime to pin on them you might reasonably get away with calling it Treason. But a vast number of people - even those like me who oppose what they did - don't see it as terrorism.
And the really important point here is one of free speech. If I or anyone else disagrees with the actions of the Government - including their proscription of a group - we should be allowed to protest against it. As long as we are not ourselves using violent means.
That is why I think it is wrong to be arresting the protestors. Peaceful protest should never be criminalised, nor should criticising and opposing laws which we feel are fundamentally wrong. To link to another current discussion on here, to me it just seems throughly un-British.
I take a subtly different view. That the actions against the military bases were clearly terrorism, they caused tens of millions of pounds worth of damage to the King’s Army.
The government shouldn’t have proscribed the group, but they should have charged those actually damaging and planning to damage aircraft with treason, and they should be expecting to be behind bars for a decade or more
But also that the right to protest is a key facet of British law, but if this government sees fit to proscribe the terrorist group then they should be expected to throw the book at their supporters, and deal with the political fallout that entails. They’ve instead decided to formally proscribe the group but continue to let them protest basically unhindered every weekend.
If the right to protest is proscribed, it would make the DPP’s job easier. What was Starmer’s previous job?
IMHO the right to protest should of course exist, but if the mechanism for proscribing terrorist groups exists then the police and prosecutors need to enforce that law.
The problem is selective enforcement and selective punishment, one might think of a phrase that rhymes with the given name of the Prime Minister….
Let’s just be clear - are the people attacking this case demanding trial by mob? People who are “obviously” guilty as assessed by “evidence” posted on social media?
I’ve just given two two examples this week where the “obvious” “evidence was bullshit.
We either protect our jury system - and it isn’t perfect - or we have mob rule.
Come on now.
This is utter tripe and you know it.
"Posted on social media" - are you suggesting that the video footage is somehow a deep fake? What on earth does "posted on social media" have to do with it?
"Two examples this week" - OK, what have they got to do with this case? The evidence here clearly isn't bullshit.
I agree we need to protect trial by jury - that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn the lessons of what has clearly gone wrong here.
Luckyguy, you know that social media clips can be misleading. For example the Manchester Airport brawl initially showed the actual attackers being attacked. That clip wasn't fake but it didn't show what had happened before the clip. With that evidence one of them was found guilty on three charges and both brothers will face a second trial on the 4th count.
In the Ricky Jones case the jurors were shown footage of the speech before the clip. In the full clip it was clear who was being referred to. Now I wasn't in court so I don't know if it would have persuaded me to acquit, but the 12 that were on the jury all agreed to acquit so I suggest it was probably compelling.
How likely is it to get called up to a jury? I've only had one call up, and that was coming up to 30 years ago.
I think I'm the only PBer to have been "conscripted" twice.
Back in 1994 for Snaresbrook CC, and then in 2006 for Cambridge CC (I was living and working in Cambridge 2004-2007).
I have been called up for JD twice. The first time my name was drawn for two juries. In both cases the defence knocked me back, as is their right. For one, the defence solicitor said" This man is known to me!" like I was one of his regular clients. In fact, we had played chess for rival teams. The second time I wasted half a day at the Sheriff Court but my name didn't get drawn.
How likely is it to get called up to a jury? I've only had one call up, and that was coming up to 30 years ago.
I've had none and I'd love to do it. Free of work, rigorously fair-minded, expert in probability theory, I'm a perfect juror waiting to happen. But no, nothing doing. I've stopped even hoping now.
It's not that fun. a lot of waiting around in the jury room (take a good book), I got picked in the 15 for an attempted murder case but then my number didn't come up so ended up doing a Driving While Disqualified which shouldn't even have got to Crown Court.
That's a letdown. What I'd want is a big serious crime but not with upsetting aspects. But you can't choose, I know.
i want Bates v The Post Office.
Lee Castleton v the Post Office and Fujitsu is the one we are going to get.
On topic, this happened to me the other day sitting on a train. Couple get on, looks like they are heading for the airport for a holiday.
She is miffed because he has walked her to the 1713 express train rather than their intended 1731 train. This means they will be early, and thus have to change mid-journey and wait 15 minutes or so to get their original train as the express one isn't stopping at their final station.
Not a full blown row, just a series of half-muttered bitter nips, jibes, barbs and non-sequiturs at each other about the fact somehow they've ended up on this slightly earlier train. Netted out they have to wait the same amount of time either way, either at the original station to get a slightly later train or mid journey to transfer to the original train, but they are guaranteed to get there at the original intended time. Still, this displeases her immensely.
I wasn't really trying to listen in or block them out either way, but was hard to avoid somehow being privy to it. I felt quite sorry for the guy. Not "it's your fault we were late, missed our train and flight and now the holiday is RUINED!!" but instead "it's your fault we were early BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME, now we have to change trains so that we get to the destination at exactly the original time we intended anyway".
I did wonder (a) how their holiday would go and (b) how much mileage was left in the relationship.
My wife and I were clambering along the ridge of Grib Goch, and encountered a couple having an almighty public row. He hadn't told her, that there was a sheer drop on her right, and a sheer drop on her left. Like Solarflare I was left wondering what happened next.
Trump can make life v uncomfortable for Starmer. I’d like to see the US impose a Lucy Connolly tariff.
Yes nothing screams "I love my country" more than seeking a foreign power to engage in a hostile act against it.
I don’t love this country any more
I despise what it has become
Surely this must include the despicables who have repeatedly voted for what this country has become?
The Brexit dividend seems to be acute dislike of the country taken back under control.
We had to destroy the country to save the country.
The self hating Brit is an exciting new development. From my parochial North British perch I have neck strain from double takes at folk who not that long ago were telling me what a smashing place the UK is.
Seems to despise the very thing he says you should be grateful to belong to!
Not sure I even want to unravel what's going on there.
A comment to shed possible light on Ricky Jones. According to the chambers website of his counsel, Jones was charged under section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007.
The section reads thus:
45 Encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed A person commits an offence if— (a)he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; and
(b)he believes—
(i)that the offence will be committed; and
(ii)that his act will encourage or assist its commission.
If this is correct and complete it is a simple exercise to work out defences. Leon could work them out in seconds. As could Philp, Farage and Cleverley. I note also from the website that Jones used the firm of solicitors I would like to use if in trouble of this sort - Birnberg Peirce.
On topic, this happened to me the other day sitting on a train. Couple get on, looks like they are heading for the airport for a holiday.
She is miffed because he has walked her to the 1713 express train rather than their intended 1731 train. This means they will be early, and thus have to change mid-journey and wait 15 minutes or so to get their original train as the express one isn't stopping at their final station.
Not a full blown row, just a series of half-muttered bitter nips, jibes, barbs and non-sequiturs at each other about the fact somehow they've ended up on this slightly earlier train. Netted out they have to wait the same amount of time either way, either at the original station to get a slightly later train or mid journey to transfer to the original train, but they are guaranteed to get there at the original intended time. Still, this displeases her immensely.
I wasn't really trying to listen in or block them out either way, but was hard to avoid somehow being privy to it. I felt quite sorry for the guy. Not "it's your fault we were late, missed our train and flight and now the holiday is RUINED!!" but instead "it's your fault we were early BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME, now we have to change trains so that we get to the destination at exactly the original time we intended anyway".
I did wonder (a) how their holiday would go and (b) how much mileage was left in the relationship.
My wife and I were clambering along the ridge of Grib Goch, and encountered a couple having an almighty public row. He hadn't told her, that there was a sheer drop on her right, and a sheer drop on her left. Like Solarflare I was left wondering what happened next.
Probably continued the argument whilst plummeting towards the ground!
How likely is it to get called up to a jury? I've only had one call up, and that was coming up to 30 years ago.
I never have been nor my wife. I’m 52 and she’s 46. Feels like a conspiracy.
I'm slightly older than you and have done jury service once. A murder trial. We unanimously found the defendant guilty, but it took a bit of discussion in the jury room to get there.
"Her Honour Judge Dean is listed as a Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ), a role that involves promoting diversity and community engagement in the judicial system.
"HHJ Dean covers the area around Snaresbrook Crown Court. She has also supported diversity efforts, such as assisting with visits from Diversity and Community Relations Magistrates at Harrow Crown Court. Additionally, her participation in events like the London Law Collective, where she delivered a keynote speech, highlights her role in inspiring diversity in the legal profession.
"Diversity and Community Relations Judges across England and Wales undertake a huge amount of community engagement in a voluntary capacity. They also seek to encourage legal professionals from under-represented groups to consider a judicial career."
It was probably her wise and expert legal guidance in the field of diversity that allowed the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, in just thirty minutes
No, it was probably the fact the jury was from overwhelmingly Labour Walthamstow. Had the jury been from say heavily Reform Basildon the verdict may have been different.
Judges in criminal trials normally sentence on the law and guidelines whatever their political views
Even in Labour Walthamstow what are the chances that all 12 jury members would all be left-wingers? Even in the Colston Four trial there was 1 jury member who wanted them found guilty.
You only need 3 jurors to say 'Not Guilty, you can't change my mind" to guarantee an acquittal (or a retrial in specific situations)
So the jury in the Jones case might have had just three stubborn individuals. And if there was bias, it might have been due to ethnicity rather than politics (but we don't know in this instance, of course)
I posted evidence earlier of racial bias in jurors in the USA. Black American jurors are far more likely to acquit black defendants than white defendants, whereas white jurors show little bias. It would be interesting to find out if there is a similar pattern in the UK
That's not true, 3 can block a guilty verdict, but you need 10 to get a not guilty (technically 9 if there's only 9 left on the jury). If the Jury can't get to a decision as in the Manchester Airport case there is a mistrial and the CPS can try again.
Are you sure? That was my understanding - having literally been the defendant in a trial at the old Bailey! My silk explained it to me
But it was a long time ago and maybe I misremember
I think you're confusing walking free from court with being acquitted. If there's a deadlocked jury then you haven't been found not guilty and even if the CPS decline to try again there's no double jeopardy, you can be tried again.
Let’s just be clear - are the people attacking this case demanding trial by mob? People who are “obviously” guilty as assessed by “evidence” posted on social media?
I’ve just given two two examples this week where the “obvious” “evidence was bullshit.
We either protect our jury system - and it isn’t perfect - or we have mob rule.
Come on now.
This is utter tripe and you know it.
"Posted on social media" - are you suggesting that the video footage is somehow a deep fake? What on earth does "posted on social media" have to do with it?
"Two examples this week" - OK, what have they got to do with this case? The evidence here clearly isn't bullshit.
I agree we need to protect trial by jury - that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn the lessons of what has clearly gone wrong here.
I'm suggesting that the video posted will have been part of the evidence considered.
Incidentally, long before deep fakes, you could manipulate footage. Iraq after the fall of Saddam, a massive crowd of excited Iraqis tearing down the statue of Saddam and beating it with their shoes. Unprompted. Joyous. Then years later we see the wide angle. The video wasn't fake, but the context was - the "mass" of people was small, and was corralled in by the US army.
So yes, the video footage. Part of the evidence submitted by both sides.
Here the problems. Angry people like you demanding blood and not getting it. The precise reason why we have trial by jury and not trial by mob.
Ever so slightly off topic, I was clearing out a corner of my flat this afternoon. 20 years of accumulated crap. Mostly meaningless. Admin. Paperwork. A useless printer. All purged. Yay
But then suddenly I came across a sketch book that belonged to my ex wife (who I loved very much and only split with coz she wanted babies and I didn’t). It was full of her crazy funny eccentric drawings - even pages embroidered with wool. The epic of Gilgamesh in crayon. All her creativity and wit and uniqueness in o one pad of paper
And I sat there and, I confess, I slightly cried. Just a few manly tears but they were real
What is that? I was perfectly content - happy even. Then suddenly a land mine of emotion and memory exploded in my face and I was plunged into intense sadness
What is the psychology? The evolutionary explanation for these emotions? Very strange
It’s gone now. I’m fine again. But wow
Give it to your daughter and ask her to deal with it as she deems fit. If you want to keep it, drop hints to that effect.
Ever so slightly off topic, I was clearing out a corner of my flat this afternoon. 20 years of accumulated crap. Mostly meaningless. Admin. Paperwork. A useless printer. All purged. Yay
But then suddenly I came across a sketch book that belonged to my ex wife (who I loved very much and only split with coz she wanted babies and I didn’t). It was full of her crazy funny eccentric drawings - even pages embroidered with wool. The epic of Gilgamesh in crayon. All her creativity and wit and uniqueness in o one pad of paper
And I sat there and, I confess, I slightly cried. Just a few manly tears but they were real
What is that? I was perfectly content - happy even. Then suddenly a land mine of emotion and memory exploded in my face and I was plunged into intense sadness
What is the psychology? The evolutionary explanation for these emotions? Very strange
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
It is a basic principle. There are lots of people who do not consider what Palestine Action did to be terrorism. I have to say that I am probably one of them. What they did was certainly illegal and I suppose if you want a high crime to pin on them you might reasonably get away with calling it Treason. But a vast number of people - even those like me who oppose what they did - don't see it as terrorism.
And the really important point here is one of free speech. If I or anyone else disagrees with the actions of the Government - including their proscription of a group - we should be allowed to protest against it. As long as we are not ourselves using violent means.
That is why I think it is wrong to be arresting the protestors. Peaceful protest should never be criminalised, nor should criticising and opposing laws which we feel are fundamentally wrong. To link to another current discussion on here, to me it just seems throughly un-British.
I take a subtly different view. That the actions against the military bases were clearly terrorism, they caused tens of millions of pounds worth of damage to the King’s Army.
The government shouldn’t have proscribed the group, but they should have charged those actually damaging and planning to damage aircraft with treason, and they should be expecting to be behind bars for a decade or more
But also that the right to protest is a key facet of British law, but if this government sees fit to proscribe the terrorist group then they should be expected to throw the book at their supporters, and deal with the political fallout that entails. They’ve instead decided to formally proscribe the group but continue to let them protest basically unhindered every weekend.
Again, no Government should have the right to ban peaceful protest. Indeed it is almost the duty of a good citizen to defy that ban and make the law unworkable.
I agree.
My contention is that the government explicitly proscribed this particular group only weeks ago, yet their overt supporters are being let off and not prosecuted.
The problem is the inconsistency, which only adds to the allegations of “two-tier” justice.
Ever so slightly off topic, I was clearing out a corner of my flat this afternoon. 20 years of accumulated crap. Mostly meaningless. Admin. Paperwork. A useless printer. All purged. Yay
But then suddenly I came across a sketch book that belonged to my ex wife (who I loved very much and only split with coz she wanted babies and I didn’t). It was full of her crazy funny eccentric drawings - even pages embroidered with wool. The epic of Gilgamesh in crayon. All her creativity and wit and uniqueness in o one pad of paper
And I sat there and, I confess, I slightly cried. Just a few manly tears but they were real
What is that? I was perfectly content - happy even. Then suddenly a land mine of emotion and memory exploded in my face and I was plunged into intense sadness
What is the psychology? The evolutionary explanation for these emotions? Very strange
It’s gone now. I’m fine again. But wow
Give it to your daughter and ask her to deal with it as she deems fit. If you want to keep it, drop hints to that effect.
Er, what? Thanks for replying but this was my ex wife’s sketch pad. Nothing to do with my kids (which is a sadness in itself but another story)
It’s the mystery of consciousness. How can molecules and atoms - meat and blood - get together and make memory that makes “sadness” that makes salt water run down my face? And why? What’s the evolutionary purpose? To discourage divorce?!
And these are thoughts, not even thoughts in the moment - memories of previous thoughts….
On topic, this happened to me the other day sitting on a train. Couple get on, looks like they are heading for the airport for a holiday.
She is miffed because he has walked her to the 1713 express train rather than their intended 1731 train. This means they will be early, and thus have to change mid-journey and wait 15 minutes or so to get their original train as the express one isn't stopping at their final station.
Not a full blown row, just a series of half-muttered bitter nips, jibes, barbs and non-sequiturs at each other about the fact somehow they've ended up on this slightly earlier train. Netted out they have to wait the same amount of time either way, either at the original station to get a slightly later train or mid journey to transfer to the original train, but they are guaranteed to get there at the original intended time. Still, this displeases her immensely.
I wasn't really trying to listen in or block them out either way, but was hard to avoid somehow being privy to it. I felt quite sorry for the guy. Not "it's your fault we were late, missed our train and flight and now the holiday is RUINED!!" but instead "it's your fault we were early BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME, now we have to change trains so that we get to the destination at exactly the original time we intended anyway".
I did wonder (a) how their holiday would go and (b) how much mileage was left in the relationship.
Years ago, while my wife and I (newly married) were out looking at houses.
A very elderly, but sprightly couple were sitting, arguing, on a bench. I reckon they were 90s, minimum. They were arguing about absolutely nothing - something about breakfast.
Bet they had been married about 60 years.
On holiday in Devon 25 years ago I watched an old couple in the over a couple of hours.* The only words were ‘Another drink then?’ every half hour or so. Is that better or worse than bickering at 90?
How likely is it to get called up to a jury? I've only had one call up, and that was coming up to 30 years ago.
I think I'm the only PBer to have been "conscripted" twice.
Back in 1994 for Snaresbrook CC, and then in 2006 for Cambridge CC (I was living and working in Cambridge 2004-2007).
I have been called up for JD twice. The first time my name was drawn for two juries. In both cases the defence knocked me back, as is their right. For one, the defence solicitor said" This man is known to me!" like I was one of his regular clients. In fact, we had played chess for rival teams. The second time I wasted half a day at the Sheriff Court but my name didn't get drawn.
I was called up for jury duty six times in a year. Eventually wrote to my MP as it was getting ridiculous when I got my 7th call up. At which point it all stopped.
It's just teaching people not to reply to the call-up letters.
On topic, this happened to me the other day sitting on a train. Couple get on, looks like they are heading for the airport for a holiday.
She is miffed because he has walked her to the 1713 express train rather than their intended 1731 train. This means they will be early, and thus have to change mid-journey and wait 15 minutes or so to get their original train as the express one isn't stopping at their final station.
Not a full blown row, just a series of half-muttered bitter nips, jibes, barbs and non-sequiturs at each other about the fact somehow they've ended up on this slightly earlier train. Netted out they have to wait the same amount of time either way, either at the original station to get a slightly later train or mid journey to transfer to the original train, but they are guaranteed to get there at the original intended time. Still, this displeases her immensely.
I wasn't really trying to listen in or block them out either way, but was hard to avoid somehow being privy to it. I felt quite sorry for the guy. Not "it's your fault we were late, missed our train and flight and now the holiday is RUINED!!" but instead "it's your fault we were early BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME, now we have to change trains so that we get to the destination at exactly the original time we intended anyway".
I did wonder (a) how their holiday would go and (b) how much mileage was left in the relationship.
Bickering with a partner is par for the course. Mrs Foxy and I were bickering about the playlist while driving earlier. It's perfectly possible to bicker for decades. 36 years for Me and Mrs Foxy this weekend.
I am suspicious of couples that never argue. There's some weird dynamic usually, such as an oppressive partner, or simply extreme fragility as if one sharp word would end things. It must be so wearing to be walking on eggshells the whole time. Not universally of course, Foxy jr and his partner claim to have never argued in 8 years and seem perfectly content.
Interesting that the Spectator have just discovered that people who can afford better lawyers get better outcomes. Sad that there's no suggestion of ways to provide everyone with quality legal representation.
Calverton is a very good school but instead of 420 pupils on roll, it's going to start the new year with 229 and as funding is related to numbers on roll, the school is going to take a big financial hit.
IF we are seeing declining birth rates and these are not being balanced (as they were before) by children of immigrants, we are going to see more schools merging and closing and that is going to have significant impacts on local economies and other areas.
Good job we have a cracking government with a really foresighted education policy in charge.
Ever so slightly off topic, I was clearing out a corner of my flat this afternoon. 20 years of accumulated crap. Mostly meaningless. Admin. Paperwork. A useless printer. All purged. Yay
But then suddenly I came across a sketch book that belonged to my ex wife (who I loved very much and only split with coz she wanted babies and I didn’t). It was full of her crazy funny eccentric drawings - even pages embroidered with wool. The epic of Gilgamesh in crayon. All her creativity and wit and uniqueness in o one pad of paper
And I sat there and, I confess, I slightly cried. Just a few manly tears but they were real
What is that? I was perfectly content - happy even. Then suddenly a land mine of emotion and memory exploded in my face and I was plunged into intense sadness
What is the psychology? The evolutionary explanation for these emotions? Very strange
On topic, this happened to me the other day sitting on a train. Couple get on, looks like they are heading for the airport for a holiday.
She is miffed because he has walked her to the 1713 express train rather than their intended 1731 train. This means they will be early, and thus have to change mid-journey and wait 15 minutes or so to get their original train as the express one isn't stopping at their final station.
Not a full blown row, just a series of half-muttered bitter nips, jibes, barbs and non-sequiturs at each other about the fact somehow they've ended up on this slightly earlier train. Netted out they have to wait the same amount of time either way, either at the original station to get a slightly later train or mid journey to transfer to the original train, but they are guaranteed to get there at the original intended time. Still, this displeases her immensely.
I wasn't really trying to listen in or block them out either way, but was hard to avoid somehow being privy to it. I felt quite sorry for the guy. Not "it's your fault we were late, missed our train and flight and now the holiday is RUINED!!" but instead "it's your fault we were early BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME, now we have to change trains so that we get to the destination at exactly the original time we intended anyway".
I did wonder (a) how their holiday would go and (b) how much mileage was left in the relationship.
A couple of decades ago I got the last train back from London to Cambridge after a work meeting. Myself and a friend got a taxi back to our respective digs, and the driver spent the entire drive screaming at her daughter over the phone, occasionally swerving across the road for added emphasis. I learnt a lot about their relationship that I really did not need to know.
Oh, and arguments can be silly and deadly: a woman died on the Sawston bypass when she had an argument with her husband over whether they'd bought the right paint from B&Q.
Ever so slightly off topic, I was clearing out a corner of my flat this afternoon. 20 years of accumulated crap. Mostly meaningless. Admin. Paperwork. A useless printer. All purged. Yay
But then suddenly I came across a sketch book that belonged to my ex wife (who I loved very much and only split with coz she wanted babies and I didn’t). It was full of her crazy funny eccentric drawings - even pages embroidered with wool. The epic of Gilgamesh in crayon. All her creativity and wit and uniqueness in o one pad of paper
And I sat there and, I confess, I slightly cried. Just a few manly tears but they were real
What is that? I was perfectly content - happy even. Then suddenly a land mine of emotion and memory exploded in my face and I was plunged into intense sadness
What is the psychology? The evolutionary explanation for these emotions? Very strange
It’s gone now. I’m fine again. But wow
Is it possible to exist without a printer now?
I’m gonna give it a good go. The gladsome feeling as I chucked out that last fucker was almost as profound as the sadness I felt with my ex’s sketches
It is better we have juries that sometimes make mistakes, than we don't have juries at all.
And sometimes juries aquit to prevent an injustice. I don't know this particular case, but it will be popcorn time when Palestine Action come before a jury.
How many of the hundreds arrested last weekend actually got charged with anything in the first place?
Three so far, though many more could be charged later. If they are not charged then the government looks ridiculous, and if they are charged even more so. We have a couple of elderly terrorists in my church congregation now.
What made them want to show support specifically for the proscribed terrorist group, rather than simply supporting international action in Palestine?
It is a basic principle. There are lots of people who do not consider what Palestine Action did to be terrorism. I have to say that I am probably one of them. What they did was certainly illegal and I suppose if you want a high crime to pin on them you might reasonably get away with calling it Treason. But a vast number of people - even those like me who oppose what they did - don't see it as terrorism.
And the really important point here is one of free speech. If I or anyone else disagrees with the actions of the Government - including their proscription of a group - we should be allowed to protest against it. As long as we are not ourselves using violent means.
That is why I think it is wrong to be arresting the protestors. Peaceful protest should never be criminalised, nor should criticising and opposing laws which we feel are fundamentally wrong. To link to another current discussion on here, to me it just seems throughly un-British.
I take a subtly different view. That the actions against the military bases were clearly terrorism, they caused tens of millions of pounds worth of damage to the King’s Army.
The government shouldn’t have proscribed the group, but they should have charged those actually damaging and planning to damage aircraft with treason, and they should be expecting to be behind bars for a decade or more
But also that the right to protest is a key facet of British law, but if this government sees fit to proscribe the terrorist group then they should be expected to throw the book at their supporters, and deal with the political fallout that entails. They’ve instead decided to formally proscribe the group but continue to let them protest basically unhindered every weekend.
Again, no Government should have the right to ban peaceful protest. Indeed it is almost the duty of a good citizen to defy that ban and make the law unworkable.
I agree.
My contention is that the government explicitly proscribed this particular group only weeks ago, yet their overt supporters are being let off and not prosecuted.
The problem is the inconsistency, which only adds to the allegations of “two-tier” justice.
Trump can make life v uncomfortable for Starmer. I’d like to see the US impose a Lucy Connolly tariff.
Yes nothing screams "I love my country" more than seeking a foreign power to engage in a hostile act against it.
I don’t love this country any more
I despise what it has become
Don’t be negative, it’s crappy at the moment, compared to some countries I can’t think of, maybe Denmark but they have high taxes and their women sound like drains when they talk whilst looking attractive.
You despise what it “has become” because you were living in periods where it was the best place to be.
I love the country, I love what it was and what it could be. It’s not great at the moment and could go down several bad routes but I live in hope someone with a brain will find a way back.
I still have a hankering to live in the UK, I have my eyes on a specific house and do consider it, even if for tax reasons I’m limited in time I can spend there. It’s still a great place with a lot of fun people, we don’t take ourselves too seriously. A lot of great pubs and restaurants, great culture, great free museums.
It’s shitty if you don’t have much but where is good if you don’t?
I’ve only lived in Switzerland and France so they are my only good true comparisons and god they have their faults too, and they speak French just to make it worse.
It’s still on the whole, a good place to be.
You misconstrue
I despise the British state and almost every representation of it. I want a revolution (peaceful) where almost everyone in power is driven into exile or maybe put in jail for a long long time
Would I fight for Britain in a war? I’m no longer sure at all
That’s very different from whether it is a pleasant place to live. Lots of despicable countries can be nice places to live
Because Britain - or England or Scotland if you prefer - is not 'The State'. Nor is it the Government or the poltical and chattering classes. It is a society, a history, a culture and a 'terroir' (to use the French wine making term) which is inculcated into our souls by years of exposure and familiarity.
Like you I would not fight for 'the state' nor for any of those who lead or control it. But I would fight for all those other things I listed and for the people that share them with me.
Clearly this is a hypothetical. I am a bit aged to be called up, but as a hypothetical it is interesting
As I said, I genuinely don't know if I would fight any more. To defend this rotten edifice of hypocrisy piled on venality, sired by stupidity? Hmmm
I guess it would depend on the enemy and their intentions. If it was Putin, yeah, I'd fight, if it was some militia of American free speechers, come to help the Brits overthrow the regime, I'd join the Americans
‘If it was Putin, yeah, I'd fight’
I have to ask, for or against?
I sometimes wonder if Putin is already running the British state the way it actively seeks to destroy Britain.
EXCLUSIVE: Newsnight can reveal there has been another Afghan data breach. The Ministry of Defence sent emails to those affected on Friday afternoon 🧵
Comments
I was "called up" for Snaresbrook back in 1994, and I don't live in Walthamstow.
And the really important point here is one of free speech. If I or anyone else disagrees with the actions of the Government - including their proscription of a group - we should be allowed to protest against it. As long as we are not ourselves using violent means.
That is why I think it is wrong to be arresting the protestors. Peaceful protest should never be criminalised, nor should criticising and opposing laws which we feel are fundamentally wrong. To link to another current discussion on here, to me it just seems throughly un-British.
Back in 1994 for Snaresbrook CC, and then in 2006 for Cambridge CC (I was living and working in Cambridge 2004-2007).
So the jury in the Jones case might have had just three stubborn individuals. And if there was bias, it might have been due to ethnicity rather than politics (but we don't know in this instance, of course)
I posted evidence earlier of racial bias in jurors in the USA. Black American jurors are far more likely to acquit black defendants than white defendants, whereas white jurors show little bias. It would be interesting to find out if there is a similar pattern in the UK
The self hating Brit is an exciting new development. From my parochial North British perch I have neck strain from double takes at folk who not that long ago were telling me what a smashing place the UK is.
The joy - and sorrow - of jury trial is that jurors can reach decisions that people not on the jury dislike. Sometimes they make decisions that puzzle even the barristers.
I’ve just given two two examples this week where the “obvious” “evidence was bullshit.
We either protect our jury system - and it isn’t perfect - or we have mob rule.
And given the different histories of racism in the UK and USA, a shiny sixpence says that the racial bias issue among juries is less of an effect here than there.
I have to ask, for or against?
She is miffed because he has walked her to the 1713 express train rather than their intended 1731 train. This means they will be early, and thus have to change mid-journey and wait 15 minutes or so to get their original train as the express one isn't stopping at their final station.
Not a full blown row, just a series of half-muttered bitter nips, jibes, barbs and non-sequiturs at each other about the fact somehow they've ended up on this slightly earlier train. Netted out they have to wait the same amount of time either way, either at the original station to get a slightly later train or mid journey to transfer to the original train, but they are guaranteed to get there at the original intended time. Still, this displeases her immensely.
I wasn't really trying to listen in or block them out either way, but was hard to avoid somehow being privy to it. I felt quite sorry for the guy. Not "it's your fault we were late, missed our train and flight and now the holiday is RUINED!!" but instead "it's your fault we were early BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME, now we have to change trains so that we get to the destination at exactly the original time we intended anyway".
I did wonder (a) how their holiday would go and (b) how much mileage was left in the relationship.
So they want a Senatus consultum ultimum? What could possibly go wrong?
Mob rule would be a very bad thing.
- winters generally harsher than here
- prices much higher (so are incomes but you still feel like you're being ripped off every time you do the shopping)
- the three linguistic communities view each other with indifference on a good day, active dislike when things go badly
- the EU bullies them at every opportunity even worse than it does us
- government officials are staggeringly punctilious, officious and punitive, even for a Germanic country, e.g my friends who got a 500 Fr fine for not sorting their recycling correctly
- every male is supposed to serve in the utterly pointless army
I've lived in Germany and the USA and travelled a lot it's mostly told me that nowhere is perfect and that, despite our government, this old island still has its virtues.
Ricky Jones and the reality of two-tier justice
15 August 2025, 7:04pm" (£)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ricky-jones-and-the-reality-of-two-tier-justice
The government shouldn’t have proscribed the group, but they should have charged those actually damaging and planning to damage aircraft with treason, and they should be expecting to be behind bars for a decade or more
But also that the right to protest is a key facet of British law, but if this government sees fit to proscribe the terrorist group then they should be expected to throw the book at their supporters, and deal with the political fallout that entails. They’ve instead decided to formally proscribe the group but continue to let them protest basically unhindered every weekend.
Trial by jury, like democracy, is the worst possible system.
Apart from all others.
Oh, and arguments can be silly and deadly: a woman died on the Sawston bypass when she had an argument with her husband over whether they'd bought the right paint from B&Q.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bq-row-kills-mum-581731
A very elderly, but sprightly couple were sitting, arguing, on a bench. I reckon they were 90s, minimum. They were arguing about absolutely nothing - something about breakfast.
Bet they had been married about 60 years.
If only Lucy Connolly had been advised to plead not guilty, things might have been very different.
Tom Slater"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/08/15/the-ricky-jones-acquittal-shows-us-the-wisdom-of-juries
This is utter tripe and you know it.
"Posted on social media" - are you suggesting that the video footage is somehow a deep fake? What on earth does "posted on social media" have to do with it?
"Two examples this week" - OK, what have they got to do with this case? The evidence here clearly isn't bullshit.
I agree we need to protect trial by jury - that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn the lessons of what has clearly gone wrong here.
EXCLUSIVE: Newsnight can reveal there has been another Afghan data breach. The Ministry of Defence sent emails to those affected on Friday afternoon 🧵
https://x.com/bbcnewsnight/status/1956427387438092669?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
You know what, I would *probably* have come back with a guilty verdict. I also think that Lucy Connelly's sentence was hugely disproportionate.
But I also know that the world is not always going to conform to my desires. I also know that I am not always right.
And the idea that "the mob" or some "great leader" is going to be both always correct and constantly in line with my desires is so absurd as to be laughable.
It was why, no white man in Mississippi was found guilty of killing a black man between 1865 and 1965.
But it was a long time ago and maybe I misremember
Up until the penultimate paragraph, I'm with you.
You can support (verbally and in your head) what the hell you like. What you cannot do is cross the line into providing aid.
https://x.com/bohuslavskakate/status/1956416191678820441
Difficult to deny he’s showing his strength to the enemy.
Lee is seeking £4million https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30zq28v0dlo
https://x.com/Scavino47/status/1956435635818070211
But then suddenly I came across a sketch book that belonged to my ex wife (who I loved very much and only split with coz she wanted babies and I didn’t). It was full of her crazy funny eccentric drawings - even pages embroidered with wool. The epic of Gilgamesh in crayon. All her creativity and wit and uniqueness in o one pad of paper
And I sat there and, I confess, I slightly cried. Just a few manly tears but they were real
What is that? I was perfectly content - happy even. Then suddenly a land mine of emotion and memory exploded in my face and I was plunged into intense sadness
What is the psychology? The evolutionary explanation for these emotions? Very strange
It’s gone now. I’m fine again. But wow
Prices were higher but so was pay.
The EU thing, I didn’t care.
Officials were brutal but then everything was done well so an ok trade-off. Also the Swiss have the ability to change to a lot easier than the UK as the rules are up to communes and cantons as much as federal authorities so you have much better avenues for getting your area to suit you.
My Swiss friends generally didn’t mind National Service, it was not far from a jolly in the CCF. More annoying for employers than the individual.
Many other problems, horrifically racist police, I’m fine as I am clearly Northern European but I knew many people with Mediterranean skins, yet alone brown or black who had a bad time of it if they came across the police. Swiss drivers, well the Genevois, are wankers. Lots of other things but would take a wealthy UK hometown over Switzerland every time.
The problem is selective enforcement and selective punishment, one might think of a phrase that rhymes with the given name of the Prime Minister….
In the Ricky Jones case the jurors were shown footage of the speech before the clip. In the full clip it was clear who was being referred to. Now I wasn't in court so I don't know if it would have persuaded me to acquit, but the 12 that were on the jury all agreed to acquit so I suggest it was probably compelling.
For one, the defence solicitor said" This man is known to me!" like I was one of his regular clients. In fact, we had played chess for rival teams.
The second time I wasted half a day at the Sheriff Court but my name didn't get drawn.
Not sure I even want to unravel what's going on there.
The section reads thus:
45 Encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed
A person commits an offence if—
(a)he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; and
(b)he believes—
(i)that the offence will be committed; and
(ii)that his act will encourage or assist its commission.
If this is correct and complete it is a simple exercise to work out defences. Leon could work them out in seconds. As could Philp, Farage and Cleverley. I note also from the website that Jones used the firm of solicitors I would like to use if in trouble of this sort - Birnberg Peirce.
https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/jury-acquits-defendant-of-encouraging-violent-disorder-at-anti-racist-protest/
Incidentally, long before deep fakes, you could manipulate footage. Iraq after the fall of Saddam, a massive crowd of excited Iraqis tearing down the statue of Saddam and beating it with their shoes. Unprompted. Joyous. Then years later we see the wide angle. The video wasn't fake, but the context was - the "mass" of people was small, and was corralled in by the US army.
So yes, the video footage. Part of the evidence submitted by both sides.
Here the problems. Angry people like you demanding blood and not getting it. The precise reason why we have trial by jury and not trial by mob.
“Pistols for two upon Hyde Park. Breakfast for one at White’s”
He’s a raddled old twat showing his pectoral implants to another raddled old twat. In Bone Spurs’ head the USAF is him.
My contention is that the government explicitly proscribed this particular group only weeks ago, yet their overt supporters are being let off and not prosecuted.
The problem is the inconsistency, which only adds to the allegations of “two-tier” justice.
It’s the mystery of consciousness. How can molecules and atoms - meat and blood - get together and make memory that makes “sadness” that makes salt water run down my face? And why? What’s the evolutionary purpose? To discourage divorce?!
And these are thoughts, not even thoughts in the moment - memories of previous thoughts….
* I wasn’t only watching them, obviously.
I love my country.
It's just teaching people not to reply to the call-up letters.
I am suspicious of couples that never argue. There's some weird dynamic usually, such as an oppressive partner, or simply extreme fragility as if one sharp word would end things. It must be so wearing to be walking on eggshells the whole time. Not universally of course, Foxy jr and his partner claim to have never argued in 8 years and seem perfectly content.
8/10