If anyone wants a pure dopamine hit of exquisite quality, try teaching Buddhism to several monks and nuns, fifteen regular attendees and half a dozen newbies on a Saturday morning. Paying. Then having a Q+A afterwards. Without mentioning politics even if they do. It's a delicious hit. Am doing tranquil abiding next.
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 1h Trump: “They gave me a list of names. Sir, pick the name you like, sir! The name of what? The name of the attack on Iran, sir. They gave me like, 20 names. I'm like, falling asleep, I didn't like any of them.
Sure its farcical but its a long sight better than Trump actually picking the bombing targets as LBJ did in Vietnam.
For every horror from Donald Trump you are somehow able to reach back into history and find something from the Dems to compare it favourably with. It really is pretty impressive.
True though isn't it.
Landslide Lyndon going through the photos with his magnifying glass.
At least with Trump's short attention span we are spared that.
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.
So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.
If this had been the law, none of the subpostmasters would have been able to opt for trial by jury. If this had been the law, protesters who have been let off by sympathetic juries after committing offences would have been convicted. The 97% currently heard by magistrates are minor offences such as minor assault, motoring offences, shoplifting, criminal damage, etc. This change dramatically expands the scope of offences where the accused cannot opt for a jury trial and, at the same time, reduces the chances of the innocent getting justice when wrongly accused of such offences. It is pretty much guaranteed that this change will see many more miscarriages of justice. And it is being sold to us on a false premise. It will not make any significant dent in the backlog in the criminal courts.
As I've posted below, I don't agree with the change and I don't think it will achieve the objective. They got an expert to review and recommend, there are no alternative recommendations, the system is failing currently so they're implementing the recommendation they have. The LDs and Conservatives created the problem and then the Conservatives did nothing to resolve it. Labour want to resolve it, other parties could engage constructively to find the best solution. It's not really a partisan issue, presumably all parties want more trials completed.
Except they have gone well beyond what the expert recommended. And bear in mind there are a huge number of other experts who deal with the courts on adaily basis - judges, barristers and others - who say this will not achieve the time savings that ahve been claimed and will lead to more miscarriages of justice.
The Bank of England is replacing Winston Churchill with a picture of a beaver on our bank notes.
This is the definition of woke.
The precise animals haven’t been chosen yet.
Are they interviewing or just going off C.V ?
I hope they will be thoroughly vetted.
They better be indigenous. Any fucking grey squirrels or signal crayfish get on and we riot
Surely it has to be a bulldog?
Sounds like an elegant compromise.
(Amongst all the hooh and hah, worth noting(!) that Churchill has only been on a banknote since 2016, and we're probably due a change anyway. Without looking, does anyone remember who came before him?)
There's a change every few years for security reasons apparently.
Animals will be selected down to a short list by "experts" and then public will vote.
This avoids the public voting on masse for the dodo or gungan for example.
Nah, the public would vote for a shag or a tit.
Thank god this is not New Zealand. Or it would be Leucocarbo carunculatus- the rough-faced shag.
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
OK, so I've been here since 2006/2007 and anybody who is a long term PB'er will know I haven't got a racist bone in my body... Indeed, I was always one of the "PB Tories" that "intensely relaxed" about immigration and although I voted LEAVE, it was for me, never anything to do with immigration.
So, lets cut the "racist" crap out right there!
So trial by jury is being "restricted" rather than abolished? Well, OK. Lets restrict it rather than abolish it. But we all know where this "restriction" is going don't we?
We'll "restrict" it.
But then, welllllll, as we've restricted it once we'll restrict it again. And then we'll restrict a little bit more... And then, eventually. we don't even need to talk about abolition , as the thing is basically dead anyway.
Like, do you think we're all fucking idiots? Do you think we're all fucking fools? We've lived through the Blair era, we know how this works. You salami slice everything we've known for hundreds years until there's nothing left [of it]
But you answer me this: Why does Labour and the "left" generally, so enjoy pissing on the ancient rights and traditions of this country?
The "right" to trial by jury was first established by Magna Carta, more than 800 years ago... But some useless, here today, gone tomorrow PM/government decides we're going to erode that right/freedom. Why?
I honestly don't understand why anyone with half a brain would ever want to even consider opening up this can of worms but as they have been stupid enough to open it up, it's now up to everyone else (left, right and center) to act accordingly!
And, just for the record, if I thought voting GREEN would bring back my right to be tried by a jury if I was ever accused of a crime, I probably would vote GREEN.
It's not a left/right issue it's a right/wrong issue. And for me, very, very, very fundamental!
Levinson has advocated for this for years. Why do you think he was chosen to lead the review?
The right to a jury trial is a non-negotiable red line for me and *could* potentially see me voting REF at the next election, even though long-term PB'ers will know I've never liked Farage going back to 2010 and even before it but if a REF government is what it takes to bring back the right to trial by jury I'll probably hold my nose...
Hopefully it won't come to that!
Any excuse to go full racist.
It's being restricted, not abolished.
Currently 3% of prosecutions go to trial by jury, MOJ estimated that under the proposals 25% of those wouldn't.
So reducing from 3% to 2.25% going to trial by Jury.
Yes, its only a *restriction* of ancient liberties - not a wholesale abolition - people are so f***ing touchy aren't they?
Well yes, it does seem so. Currently prosecutions are taking 4 years or longer to get to trial, which means that many of them fall apart because witnesses are lost contact with or their memory has faded, victims and accused have their lives put on hold, some are on remand for far longer than they'd be sentenced to if found guilty. That is unacceptable and it isn't a problem of Labour's making, it's the fault of the LDs and mainly the Conservatives, who did nothing to address it. Labour are trying to resolve the delays, I don't agree with their solution, I don't expect it will work, and I don't think a Judge was the right person to review the system and make recommendations. However, I think your objection is partisan rather than sincere. What would you propose to resolve the backlog?
The issue is there are too many moving parts and scheduling falls apart.
I forget the precise details but I believe a lot of the delay is down to the pre-sentence reports that are now required. They add an extra loop of court time that really isn’t necessary in most cases.
You also have issues with things like demanding translators and other limited services when they don’t necessarily need them plus the unwillingness to pay legal aid barristers a reasonable sum.
Basically the issue is that the treasury likes to run things at 103% capacity when they should really be running at 85% even if some spreadsheet somewhere says that’s inefficient
Pre-sentencing reports would be post-verdict and not on the critical path, the Judge can read them before / after court or in the breaks. The convicted prisoner would be remanded awaiting the reports and sentencing.
If the accused needs a translator, that would be arranged beforehand, there might be adjournments because a translator becomes unavailable but if you're on trial not in your first language then a translator is not a luxury, a basic tenet is the right to a fair trial, which means a right to understand fully what is being said.
There is definitely inefficiency in court preparation, both times there were adjournments for witness screens to be brought in. The professionals could be less verbose. My second stint, we got started about 11.30 on a Thursday, heard the opening statements, screen not prepared for 1st witness. Adjourn for lunch, and the week, Judge had something in the afternoon and Friday, Monday trooped in to court at 11am to be told by new Judge that original Judge had taken ill, so the case would have to be rescheduled but he'd felt the need to explain this to us in person blah blah blah. So nothing productive happening in that court with that Judge for the morning. Accused and plaintiff both having to wait months / years for another date, all for charges that based on the opening prosecution statement shouldn't have been brought.
I was just reporting what someone who has been intimately involved in the court system for decades told me (they were Starmer’s counterpart when he was DPP).
A lot of it is gaming the system and people not turning up. Each time you add - for example - and translator you add another point of failure. And the issue with translators specifically is people demanding them when they don’t need them (access to justice is important) in order to delay the process.
The general point is that there are many many things that could be done to improve efficiency before you start removing protections like trial by jury
Comments
Paying.
Then having a Q+A afterwards.
Without mentioning politics even if they do.
It's a delicious hit.
Am doing tranquil abiding next.
I was in the Gardeners Arms 1987-90.
He never reciprocated. Bastard.
Landslide Lyndon going through the photos with his magnifying glass.
At least with Trump's short attention span we are spared that.
It will stop.
A lot of it is gaming the system and people not turning up. Each time you add - for example - and translator you add another point of failure. And the issue with translators specifically is people demanding them when they don’t need them (access to justice is important) in order to delay the process.
The general point is that there are many many things that could be done to improve efficiency before you start removing protections like trial by jury
That’s the point that it -… er… jumped the…
* I’m with @SandyRentool