It doesn't seem to matter what the Report contains because, apparently, nothing matters to the mainstream media anymore besides access and faux controversy. Now here's Floopy with the celebrity weather...
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
The Kremlin has Boris by the balls, I'm convinced of it.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...er-lebedev-without-security-after-nato-summit
But, like Steve says, nobody seems to give a feck anymore.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...er-lebedev-without-security-after-nato-summit
But, like Steve says, nobody seems to give a feck anymore.
Like the BAME report was leaked - somebody will hopefully leak the Russia report....they defo interfered with Brexit
"I'm backing Britain!" says man who sold Britain to the Russians.
Exactly how I feel, I don’t care if the report comes out because it will be watered down, redacted, and even if it wasn’t it won’t land. No one will care, it won’t move the needle.
I can't see this has been posted before and I just came across it this morning.
Apparently the UK government are considering temporarily abolishing Jury trials and it's being dressed it up as neccesity due to covid, when the backlog is due to under funding. This is very worrying for any one living in the UK.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/l...-could-be-passed-within-weeks/5104739.article
There's a good thread on it here:
Apparently the UK government are considering temporarily abolishing Jury trials and it's being dressed it up as neccesity due to covid, when the backlog is due to under funding. This is very worrying for any one living in the UK.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/l...-could-be-passed-within-weeks/5104739.article
There's a good thread on it here:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yep, when it was backlog of 50,000 it wasn’t a problem, but now it’s 41,000 it needs urgent change.
Lock up anyone that sounds a bit funny
Wouldnt be surprised if the government is floating the worst case scenario so taking option one then seems reasonable - even possibly option two but a limit of 1 year etc.
Given that my own experience of being on a jury was utterly depressing and dashed my faith in the system, what are the pros of sticking with a jury system?
Is this a serious question?
I think the benefits of being judged by your peers rather than a certain section of society with all their inherent biases should be obvious?
The issue isn't jurys. My missus deals with employment tribunals and even they have an 18 month backlog despite no jury. Property and underfunding are the causes.
bluster from boris at pmq's a couple of decent shots from keir but no big hit
I was a 19 year old black guy when I did jury service (I'm still black, but, well, you get what I mean) and doing jury service was the exact moment I realised that the justice system was stacked against outsiders. It was depressing. The voting on Britains Got Talent had more rigour. A handful of loud middle aged white men bossed the room and said they didn't like the defendant because he looked "shifty". The rest just went along because they didn't understand what was going on and were desperate to leave since the weather was hot. The guy got sent down when he shouldn't have done, because they didn't like the look of him. I was too young to argue much against them. I felt guilty for ages afterwards for not doing so.
Even accepting that my experience might have been at the edge of the bell curve, it left me very little faith in the current system. While jurors vs judges isn't something I would particularly argue to the death over, i do see it as a 'least worst' kind of argument.
Yet another PMQs where Boris cannot answer any questions. Farcical how he is allowed to get away with it.
I've got to admit, based on a lot of the anecdotal horror stories I've heard, I've long been unconvinced that jury trials are suitable to ensure that justice is actually carried out. In fact, I'm more and more convinced that all they do is channel mob justice from the sort who post ill informed facebook esque rants in to a quasi legal framework.
I'm also unconvinced that systematic issues with the justice system would be addressed if we replaced juries with a panel of judges, mind.
PMQs has long been about embellishment and selective truths, but Johnson just makes up some total lie on the spot and moves on. It'll be interesting to see how either Labour or the Speaker responds over time. May as well not bother with PMQs if he's going to do that.
I hear you. My own experiences showed me that most people are too dumb to be able to follow the law as they are instructed. On my jury we had two women who wanted to let a murderer get off because her kids had suffered enough after she murdered their dad and they had had a tough childhood.
Thankfully the sane amongst us didn't give up and convinced them that we were there to apply the law and not to let our own feelings dictate the outcome. But it could easily have gone to a hung jury and she would have walked.
Fair point. With how polarised society has become these days I guess it's harder and harder to find members of society willing to set aside their own predjudices and make a judgement purely on the evidence at hand. I guess I just have an inate distrust that some out of touch old white man in a wig would be able to do likewise.
Perhaps they should be decided on Twitter. That always seems balanced and reasonable.
The thing with professionals is that you can assess their performances over time because they stick around. That provides for some limited scope for accountability at least. Plus they’re trained and understand the system they’re working within. Whatever limitations they may have, you have some levers to pull. Jurors come in, do it once with no training, then leave with no accountability whatsoever.
I think celebrity trial shows are the way forward. Let Simon Cowell and Cheryl Cole decide.
This, he spends the entire time floundering and making up lies, heckling the opposition and pretending he is outraged, and complaining that the opposition are opposing.
Honestly he’s an embarrassment.
He treats mild-ish criticism as an impertinent annoyance. Which is telling. 'Born to rule'? He can't even rule himself...
'It's not illegal!' cry the ministers who change the law whenever the government rightly loses a court case.
He is clearly uncomfortable with being expected to answer even the most basic question.
Starmer is doing well with the limited opportunity.
I would like to see starmer pushing much harder for a public inquiry on the government handling of the Corona virus situation.
But. But. Surely it is just a coincidence....
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Blair at his best there. Wipes the floor with this BS.
I agree. Think he may be waiting for the virus to die down a bit more but we definitely need one.
Standard Tory conduct isn't it? They use their influence to profit and gain future favour. They're usually only in the role for a few years and the worst thing that happens if caught is they get demoted without much of a salary drop. Any other industry they get prosecuted for some of the behaviour.
This story isn't half as dodgy as all the covid contracts. 11m they managed to spend on the app, anyone remotely involved in IT projects is well aware that's not possible in the timeframes.
Who has the last laugh?
I’d say in 2020, Farage is more influential and more loved than Blair.
Imagine how you’d have to fcuk up from that point in 2005 to reach that point!
The sheer arrogance (or stupidity) to think British app developers could beat a global apple/google joint venture for quality, cost or speed!
£11m spent in 2 months!!! With companies owned by Cummings Leave campaign mates.
It must be a rigged piece of nepotism, with back handers to Cummings. And happens in plain sight in 2020 British Government.
Last edited:
People should be outside the homes of these cnuts protesting their stupidity/corruption/BS.
If I lived in London I would
If I lived in London I would
Desmond referring to the council as ‘Marxist’ is hilarious. Columnist in The Telegraph called the Nazis ‘far-left’ today, too. Conservatives really need to read more books.
Can’t see Jenrick riding this one out, after Cummings survived I imagine they’ll satiate the public’s bloodlust by sacrificing him.
Does it really matter, though? Once again the public/press focus on the individual rather than the putrid system which permits stuff like this on a regular basis. This case became public knowledge but I’d wager for every case like this there’s another 99 shady deals that go completely undetected.
Can’t see Jenrick riding this one out, after Cummings survived I imagine they’ll satiate the public’s bloodlust by sacrificing him.
Does it really matter, though? Once again the public/press focus on the individual rather than the putrid system which permits stuff like this on a regular basis. This case became public knowledge but I’d wager for every case like this there’s another 99 shady deals that go completely undetected.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Or how fecked up the world has to be
My wife has been tasked the last several weeks on writing an opinion on this very subject (she's a criminal barrister). Whilst your negative experience isn't isolated trust me when I say that having this power solely in the hands of judges would be a truly bad idea.
Whatever you think about the positives and negatives of Jury trials trust me when I say that the alternative is unfathomably worse. The alternative always has political connotations, irrespective of how much you try to draw the line between the legislature and the judiciary (this has been proven in conviction rates also). The power of the American Executive branch over the last 15 years has been turbo charged because of their power over the Judiciary.
That's not to say Jury trials are perfectly equitable, of course they aren't as they're a mirror image of society. However we're not talking about the perfect system, we're talking about an imperfect but impartial (relative to society) system compared with an imperfect and clearly corruptible system.
When lockdown was announced I believed that the crises would be politically hijacked for an authoritarian and controlling agenda. I heard the platitudes that it was a temporary seige on civil liberties but necessary for our security (when have we heard that before), but I was waiting for the Coup de Grâce... Trust me when I say that this is that very moment and that the failure to prevent this siege on our freedoms would be devastating for us all. Coincidentally I haven't heard the BLM movement talk about this at all (I may be wrong), but it's something that in the UK affects this community far more aggressively than police brutality.
/Edit: Essentially from how the figures can be interpreted BAME and the poorest in society are punished more severely and white collar crime is punished more leniently in the absence of jury trials
Last edited:
At least the Court of Appeal is never politically influenced.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
More evidence for what is largely already suspected: Johnson himself is going be implicated in the deal some way or another. Jenrick will be forced to go to take the flak.