Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » 12 Good Men

SystemSystem Posts: 8,258
edited June 24 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » 12 Good Men

I loved Latin at school. My award for Latin poetry recital is carefully preserved and I remain mildly hopeful that, one day, it might even prove useful. Poetry aside, it was then seen as necessary to become a lawyer. For the first few years of practice those Latin sayings encapsulating legal rules became firmly lodged in my head. Then they were no longer compulsory, plain clear English becoming the rule. Quite right. But one saying seems particularly apt these days: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio – no-one can make a claim based on their own dishonourable conduct. More widely, it expresses the idea – or, perhaps, the hope – that people, governments even, should not be able to take advantage of the damage caused by their failings to do that which they would not otherwise get away with.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Ave_itAve_it Posts: 2,215
    I am not in favour of suspending trial by jury. There needs to be another way to deal with this.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,845
    .. and true
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,905
    The system does not always do the right thing.

    Jury trials are a must
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030
    I had lunch yesterday with two very senior magistrates. Jury trials are a must - but they felt that 7 would be as good as 12.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 33,796
    FPT:




    Remember that Johnson's girlfriend is supposed to have yelled at him during a fight over a ruined sofa that 'he didn't have a clue about money'.

    Could potentially apply to the financing of his mega plans.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 3,845
    Lord Sumption was on R4 today expressing a dissenting view.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 6,897
    I have to say when I saw that picture of Boris Johnson on the cover of the Express, I was taken back to the 1970s and Benny Hill's wonderful character Fred Scuttle.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 14,933
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Tory MPs reported to be on Parler, (the alternative to Twitter):

    Paul Howell (Sedgefield)
    Maria Caulfield (Lewes)
    Mark Jenkinson (Workington)
    Ranil Jayawardena (NE Hants)
    Dean Russell (Watford)
    James Cleverly (Braintree)
    Angela Richardson (Guildford)
    Nadine Dorries (Mid Beds)
    Steve Baker (Wycombe)
    Henry Smith (Crawley)
    Ben Bradley (Mansfield)

    I thought Gab was the alternative to Twitter...
    Gab is for cucks.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    The familiar pattern of Westminster criticising the Scottish Government and then doing a similar thing.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,128
    geoffw said:

    Lord Sumption was on R4 today expressing a dissenting view.

    Silenced again I see.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,286
    So, is this Cummings finally getting his program underway to destroy radically change the UK?

    What makes me laugh is that the Brexiteers claimed that if we did not leave the EU, Britain would become unrecognisable. Now those same conmen are in charge and we start by jettisoning Jurys.

    And no... this is not a plea to rejoin or anything like it. We have made our Brexit bed and now we have to lie in it, but I laugh every time those who promised to save Britain put another bit of it through the blender...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 11,760
    I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?

    20% maybe?
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,286
    kinabalu said:

    I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?

    20% maybe?

    I wonder how often the outgoing govt disagrees with the electorate ;)

    Juries are just the start.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 20,573
    geoffw said:

    Lord Sumption was on R4 today expressing a dissenting view.

    Given their boycotting of him, presumably Sumption battered his way in, took a presenter hostage and barricaded himself into a studio.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    First the test and trace system was “world beating”. Today it is a “stunning success”.

    Embarrassing hyperbole seems to be a key part of The Clown’s repertoire. It’ll be painful by the end of his disastrous tenure.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 2,633
    kinabalu said:

    I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?

    20% maybe?

    Doesn't mean the judge is right though. Having been on a jury and been impressed at how seriously it took its duty I am a big fan of jury trials, they are a cornerstone of our justice system.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,437
    Latin poetry?

    I love reciting Catullus 16.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,584
    edited June 24
    geoffw said:

    Lord Sumption was on R4 today expressing a dissenting view.

    He's a very smart man, I agreed with a lot of what he said in Trials of the State: Law and the Decline of Politics, but everyone can be wrong sometimes.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,437

    geoffw said:

    Lord Sumption was on R4 today expressing a dissenting view.

    Given their boycotting of him, presumably Sumption battered his way in, took a presenter hostage and barricaded himself into a studio.
    Does that prize goof Hitchens talk about Sweden as much these days as he does about Sumption being silenced?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,584
    HYUFD said:
    That is uncomfortably close as far as I am concerned, and probably means they will be able to do it.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,286

    Under no circumstances should trial by jury be limited or end. None whatsoever. No if's, no buts.

    There are zero grounds I would support this on and if the government proposes this I would be disgusted. Hopefully this is a kite quickly shot down this must not happen.

    Given the number of transgressions that seem to be going on, the Govt need to replace juries with some other system that will not result in them all going to jail for corruption ;)
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,584

    The familiar pattern of Westminster criticising the Scottish Government and then doing a similar thing.

    It's never happened the other way around? Seems unlikely, though I can easily accept it definitely happens this way round.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,286
    BTW @Cyclefree - good post :+1:
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,584

    FPT:




    Remember that Johnson's girlfriend is supposed to have yelled at him during a fight over a ruined sofa that 'he didn't have a clue about money'.

    Could potentially apply to the financing of his mega plans.
    We already probably couldn't afford it before, but we're about to blow up economically anyway and be indebted forever anyway, so might as well tack on all manner of spending.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,286

    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?

    It says "Cyclefree"
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,584
    MaxPB said:

    A truly awful idea. Being judged by a jury of one's peers is a an inalienable right in this country. Whatever virus bullshit excuse isn't going to cut it when suspending or removing such a basic right.

    Supposedly 50 Tories got up in arms about Sunday trading laws. Hopefully more can be exercised about something like this.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,437
    Boris Johnson is much of a liberal as I am a fan of pineapple on pizza.

    Next he'll be proposing the widespread suspension of habeas corpus on mainland Britain.

    Sic semper tyrannis.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,286

    Latin poetry?

    I love reciting Catullus 16.

    Poetry belongs in Room 101. Latin poetry in Locus CI or some such :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,584

    Under no circumstances should trial by jury be limited or end. None whatsoever. No if's, no buts.

    There are zero grounds I would support this on and if the government proposes this I would be disgusted. Hopefully this is a kite quickly shot down this must not happen.

    Given the number of transgressions that seem to be going on, the Govt need to replace juries with some other system that will not result in them all going to jail for corruption ;)
    Being serious, I would have thought it's easier to avoid that with a jury trial. More people involved in the decision means more who can potentially be swayed to save you.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    kle4 said:

    The familiar pattern of Westminster criticising the Scottish Government and then doing a similar thing.

    It's never happened the other way around? Seems unlikely, though I can easily accept it definitely happens this way round.
    The architects of devolution (primarily Labour, the Liberals/Lib Dems, the trades unions and the churches) argued that one of the key benefits of devolution was that different governments could copy good ideas from each other and thus improve governance everywhere. The only problem is that Westminster and Whitehall never come up with any good stuff NI, S and W can nick.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,766

    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?

    Er no, it’s by me.

    I am FURIOUS about this proposal.

    It’s a disgrace.

    Starmer should have pummelled Johnson for this at PMQs.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,437
    Cyclefree said:

    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?

    Er no, it’s by me.

    I am FURIOUS about this proposal.

    It’s a disgrace.

    Starmer should have pummelled Johnson for this at PMQs.
    My big fear is that this will get wrapped into some wider tough on law'n'order nonsense and the public start backing it.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,286
    Cyclefree said:

    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?

    Er no, it’s by me.

    I am FURIOUS about this proposal.

    It’s a disgrace.

    Starmer should have pummelled Johnson for this at PMQs.
    Was it announced some time ago or sometime today?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,584

    kle4 said:

    The familiar pattern of Westminster criticising the Scottish Government and then doing a similar thing.

    It's never happened the other way around? Seems unlikely, though I can easily accept it definitely happens this way round.
    The architects of devolution (primarily Labour, the Liberals/Lib Dems, the trades unions and the churches) argued that one of the key benefits of devolution was that different governments could copy good ideas from each other and thus improve governance everywhere. The only problem is that Westminster and Whitehall never come up with any good stuff NI, S and W can nick.
    It seems rather implausible that they never come up with any good stuff. I'm no fan of Whitehall in particular, but just by accident they're bound to have a good idea now and then.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,766

    Under no circumstances should trial by jury be limited or end. None whatsoever. No if's, no buts.

    There are zero grounds I would support this on and if the government proposes this I would be disgusted. Hopefully this is a kite quickly shot down this must not happen.

    It has been proposed - by the Lord Chancellor - who should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958

    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?

    It says "Cyclefree"
    Aha. Ta. I cannot see an author at all. But I have horrific problems reading this blog full stop. It is nigh on impossible. A dinosaur from the era of primeval blogging.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,584
    Cyclefree said:

    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?

    Er no, it’s by me.

    I am FURIOUS about this proposal.

    It’s a disgrace.

    Starmer should have pummelled Johnson for this at PMQs.
    He has a chance every week. What I don't get is why Tories would not be upset. Nothing to do with ideology, I think all parties are fooling themselves if they believe they have but the barest slither of ideological underpinning of any relevance that is not overwritten by practical considerations, but the shamelessness of the proposal.
  • kle4 said:

    Under no circumstances should trial by jury be limited or end. None whatsoever. No if's, no buts.

    There are zero grounds I would support this on and if the government proposes this I would be disgusted. Hopefully this is a kite quickly shot down this must not happen.

    Given the number of transgressions that seem to be going on, the Govt need to replace juries with some other system that will not result in them all going to jail for corruption ;)
    Being serious, I would have thought it's easier to avoid that with a jury trial. More people involved in the decision means more who can potentially be swayed to save you.
    Except the currently operating system is "Does Boris like you? If so, the matter is closed. Have a nice day."
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,982

    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?

    It says "Cyclefree"
    Aha. Ta. I cannot see an author at all. But I have horrific problems reading this blog full stop. It is nigh on impossible. A dinosaur from the era of primeval blogging.
    Are you still using Netscape?
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,286
    kle4 said:

    Under no circumstances should trial by jury be limited or end. None whatsoever. No if's, no buts.

    There are zero grounds I would support this on and if the government proposes this I would be disgusted. Hopefully this is a kite quickly shot down this must not happen.

    Given the number of transgressions that seem to be going on, the Govt need to replace juries with some other system that will not result in them all going to jail for corruption ;)
    Being serious, I would have thought it's easier to avoid that with a jury trial. More people involved in the decision means more who can potentially be swayed to save you.
    No, I suspect not. There are many examples of dictatorships with tame judges that rubberstamp whatever decisions their masters required. It is common enough to have its own name - Show trials.

    The very strength of a jury trial is that it is harder to throw the result and because of that, people trust juries.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958

    One of the advantages of the jury system is that the judge decides what evidence is admissible, and if it is not admissible the jury don't get to hear it. In a trial decided by a judge alone, he or she hears the inadmissible evidence, and then has to pretend not to have heard it.

    Good point.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030

    Under no circumstances should trial by jury be limited or end. None whatsoever. No if's, no buts.

    There are zero grounds I would support this on and if the government proposes this I would be disgusted. Hopefully this is a kite quickly shot down this must not happen.

    Financial crimes should be in front of an expert tribunal
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,286

    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?

    It says "Cyclefree"
    Aha. Ta. I cannot see an author at all. But I have horrific problems reading this blog full stop. It is nigh on impossible. A dinosaur from the era of primeval blogging.
    Are you still using Netscape?
    Or Mosiac? :D:D
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 33,796
    edited June 24

    Boris Johnson is much of a liberal as I am a fan of pineapple on pizza.

    Next he'll be proposing the widespread suspension of habeas corpus on mainland Britain.

    Sic semper tyrannis.

    "Boris Johnson Dom Cummings is much of a liberal as I am a fan of pineapple on pizza."

    Corrected for you.

    Johnson hasn't a clue what's going on.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,082

    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?

    It says "Cyclefree"
    Aha. Ta. I cannot see an author at all. But I have horrific problems reading this blog full stop. It is nigh on impossible. A dinosaur from the era of primeval blogging.
    If the thread header is a mini thesis, you can be sure it is Cyclefree
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,930
    edited June 24
    MaxPB said:

    A truly awful idea. Being judged by a jury of one's peers is a an inalienable right in this country. Whatever virus bullshit excuse isn't going to cut it when suspending or removing such a basic right.

    The virus may have (I have no idea in truth) how a jury functions in practice but the principle of being judged by 12 ought to remain.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,437
    My other fear is that this proposal will strengthen the position of police officers to force innocent people to accept a caution.

    This is something where far too many cops fall into the ACAB category.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 40,757
    kinabalu said:

    I wonder in what % of trials the judge privately disagrees with the verdict of the jury?

    20% maybe?

    Asked a Barrister friend "how often do Juries get it right" - "almost always" was the reply.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    The familiar pattern of Westminster criticising the Scottish Government and then doing a similar thing.

    It's never happened the other way around? Seems unlikely, though I can easily accept it definitely happens this way round.
    The architects of devolution (primarily Labour, the Liberals/Lib Dems, the trades unions and the churches) argued that one of the key benefits of devolution was that different governments could copy good ideas from each other and thus improve governance everywhere. The only problem is that Westminster and Whitehall never come up with any good stuff NI, S and W can nick.
    It seems rather implausible that they never come up with any good stuff. I'm no fan of Whitehall in particular, but just by accident they're bound to have a good idea now and then.
    I agree with the probability argument, but off the top of my head, I can’t think of any examples.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,930
    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Tory MPs reported to be on Parler, (the alternative to Twitter):

    Paul Howell (Sedgefield)
    Maria Caulfield (Lewes)
    Mark Jenkinson (Workington)
    Ranil Jayawardena (NE Hants)
    Dean Russell (Watford)
    James Cleverly (Braintree)
    Angela Richardson (Guildford)
    Nadine Dorries (Mid Beds)
    Steve Baker (Wycombe)
    Henry Smith (Crawley)
    Ben Bradley (Mansfield)

    I thought Gab was the alternative to Twitter...
    Gab is for cucks.
    Gab's dead.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 33,796
    :lol:

    Newsnight: "Jenrick not available"
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,286

    My other fear is that this proposal will strengthen the position of police officers to force innocent people to accept a caution.

    This is something where far too many cops fall into the ACAB category.

    I presume you are worrying about the UK taking on a version of the US system where you get offered 10 years with parole in 5, but if you go to trial they will be asking for 50 years without parole (and next time, do not park on the double yellow lines or it is no more Mr Nice Guy?)
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958

    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?

    It says "Cyclefree"
    Aha. Ta. I cannot see an author at all. But I have horrific problems reading this blog full stop. It is nigh on impossible. A dinosaur from the era of primeval blogging.
    Are you still using Netscape?
    I think they gave up several years ago.

    I could list the many flaws in this site, but what’s the point? Nothing will be done anyway. This is an astonishingly conservative place. In more ways than one.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,027
    ‪Looks like we need to add corrupt to incompetent, mendacious, hubristic, anti-democratic and arrogant when we describe this Tory government. ‬
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,982
    edited June 24

    My other fear is that this proposal will strengthen the position of police officers to force innocent people to accept a caution.

    This is something where far too many cops fall into the ACAB category.

    Whilst I share your concerns on cautions, aren't they mostly with respect to alleged offences which wouldn't be heard by a jury? (I'm no expert, so I might be completely wrong on this).
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 33,796
    Labour spokesman hitting on the One Rule for us, another rule for the plebs.

    Over Jenrick.

    Labour need to keep on that theme - I suspect it will have traction after the Barnard Castle escapade.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 3,771

    First the test and trace system was “world beating”. Today it is a “stunning success”.

    Embarrassing hyperbole seems to be a key part of The Clown’s repertoire. It’ll be painful by the end of his disastrous tenure.

    It's the same play book as Trump. Make outrageous statements in the hope that your core voters believe you and can't be bothered to verify whether it is true or not. By and large it seems to work, sadly.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,437

    My other fear is that this proposal will strengthen the position of police officers to force innocent people to accept a caution.

    This is something where far too many cops fall into the ACAB category.

    I presume you are worrying about the UK taking on a version of the US system where you get offered 10 years with parole in 5, but if you go to trial they will be asking for 50 years without parole (and next time, do not park on the double yellow lines or it is no more Mr Nice Guy?)
    No quite, what happens is basically the rozzers tell frightened people

    'Accept a caution and you'll be able to leave here without a stain on your reputation or you'll have a public trial with your name in the papers and on TV.'

    What they fail to tell you is if you accept a caution you'll have criminal record which rules you out of so many jobs, and in some instances invalidates things like your car insurance or stops you having a bank account with most banks.

    On the latter point you don't even realise until you have an accident.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,982

    ‪Looks like we need to add corrupt to incompetent, mendacious, hubristic, anti-democratic and arrogant when we describe this Tory government. ‬

    It's very puzzling. Robert Jenrick's career seems a really odd hill to make a stand on. I'd have thought that if you were looking for a definition of 'expendable', Mr Jenrick would be one of the first examples to come to mind.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    A truly awful idea. Being judged by a jury of one's peers is a an inalienable right in this country. Whatever virus bullshit excuse isn't going to cut it when suspending or removing such a basic right.

    The virus may have (I have no idea in truth) how a jury functions in practice but the principle of being judged by 12 ought to remain.
    Actually it’s virtually impossible to socially distance a group of 12 with the space available. 7 or 8 you can manage using the press box and the jury box for the hearing and spacing around the walls in the jury room
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    Charles said:

    Under no circumstances should trial by jury be limited or end. None whatsoever. No if's, no buts.

    There are zero grounds I would support this on and if the government proposes this I would be disgusted. Hopefully this is a kite quickly shot down this must not happen.

    Financial crimes should be in front of an expert tribunal
    No they should be put in front of a jury but arguably with a right for the defendant to then appeal to an expert tribunal if they're convicted.

    Better for ten guilty men to walk free than one innocent to be wrongly convicted. The right to a jury trial should never be qualified.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,613

    ‪Looks like we need to add corrupt to incompetent, mendacious, hubristic, anti-democratic and arrogant when we describe this Tory government. ‬

    Not just corruption and incompetence, it is incompetent corruption!
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    HYUFD said:

    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?

    It says "Cyclefree"
    Aha. Ta. I cannot see an author at all. But I have horrific problems reading this blog full stop. It is nigh on impossible. A dinosaur from the era of primeval blogging.
    If the thread header is a mini thesis, you can be sure it is Cyclefree
    Ooh, get her.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030

    ‪Looks like we need to add corrupt to incompetent, mendacious, hubristic, anti-democratic and arrogant when we describe this Tory government. ‬

    I’ll put you down as a maybe, shall I?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    A truly awful idea. Being judged by a jury of one's peers is a an inalienable right in this country. Whatever virus bullshit excuse isn't going to cut it when suspending or removing such a basic right.

    The virus may have (I have no idea in truth) how a jury functions in practice but the principle of being judged by 12 ought to remain.
    Actually it’s virtually impossible to socially distance a group of 12 with the space available. 7 or 8 you can manage using the press box and the jury box for the hearing and spacing around the walls in the jury room
    Then use the bubble principle and accept the jury can't be socially distanced. Give those at risk the right to excuse themselves from jury service. Don't tamper with it.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 14,933

    geoffw said:

    Lord Sumption was on R4 today expressing a dissenting view.

    Given their boycotting of him, presumably Sumption battered his way in, took a presenter hostage and barricaded himself into a studio.
    Does that prize goof Hitchens talk about Sweden as much these days as he does about Sumption being silenced?
    TRENDING STRONGLY DOWNARDS.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,437

    My other fear is that this proposal will strengthen the position of police officers to force innocent people to accept a caution.

    This is something where far too many cops fall into the ACAB category.

    Whilst I share your concerns on cautions, aren't they mostly with respect to alleged offences which wouldn't be heard by a jury? (I'm no expert, so I might be completely wrong on this).
    Plenty are, but most people aren't aware about the distinctions you raise.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 40,757
    Excellent thread @Cyclefree - this backlog is primarily the result of underfunding - yes, COVID makes it more difficult - but that's no excuse. Even in WWII Jury trials continued with 7 jurors - and this is nowhere near as dire a situation as that.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 33,796
    OllyT said:

    First the test and trace system was “world beating”. Today it is a “stunning success”.

    Embarrassing hyperbole seems to be a key part of The Clown’s repertoire. It’ll be painful by the end of his disastrous tenure.

    It's the same play book as Trump. Make outrageous statements in the hope that your core voters believe you and can't be bothered to verify whether it is true or not. By and large it seems to work, sadly.
    Personally, it is really beginning to grate. Everything is "world beating", "terrific", "brilliant", "stunning" etc.

    It's like rereading Jennings and Darbyshire as they finally make it into the local cake shop.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 14,933

    ‪Looks like we need to add corrupt to incompetent, mendacious, hubristic, anti-democratic and arrogant when we describe this Tory government. ‬

    It's very puzzling. Robert Jenrick's career seems a really odd hill to make a stand on. I'd have thought that if you were looking for a definition of 'expendable', Mr Jenrick would be one of the first examples to come to mind.
    I reckon if they expended him you wouldn't be able to find a minister to defend the next government fuckup.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030

    Charles said:

    Under no circumstances should trial by jury be limited or end. None whatsoever. No if's, no buts.

    There are zero grounds I would support this on and if the government proposes this I would be disgusted. Hopefully this is a kite quickly shot down this must not happen.

    Financial crimes should be in front of an expert tribunal
    No they should be put in front of a jury but arguably with a right for the defendant to then appeal to an expert tribunal if they're convicted.

    Better for ten guilty men to walk free than one innocent to be wrongly convicted. The right to a jury trial should never be qualified.
    The problem is that most juries don’t understand financial crimes. They try to get round it with allocating expert jurors but it’s hard.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,437
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    A truly awful idea. Being judged by a jury of one's peers is a an inalienable right in this country. Whatever virus bullshit excuse isn't going to cut it when suspending or removing such a basic right.

    The virus may have (I have no idea in truth) how a jury functions in practice but the principle of being judged by 12 ought to remain.
    Actually it’s virtually impossible to socially distance a group of 12 with the space available. 7 or 8 you can manage using the press box and the jury box for the hearing and spacing around the walls in the jury room
    You can ditch/reduce the public gallery and put the jury there in the court estate where it is possible.
  • houndtanghoundtang Posts: 410
    Unfortunately Covid is being used to remove freedoms of all sorts - jury trials just another absurd example.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    A truly awful idea. Being judged by a jury of one's peers is a an inalienable right in this country. Whatever virus bullshit excuse isn't going to cut it when suspending or removing such a basic right.

    The virus may have (I have no idea in truth) how a jury functions in practice but the principle of being judged by 12 ought to remain.
    Actually it’s virtually impossible to socially distance a group of 12 with the space available. 7 or 8 you can manage using the press box and the jury box for the hearing and spacing around the walls in the jury room
    Then use the bubble principle and accept the jury can't be socially distanced. Give those at risk the right to excuse themselves from jury service. Don't tamper with it.
    And the 12 families the go home to in the evening?

    What’s the magic about 12?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,036
    I watched a David Icke video the other day, and compared to most American politicians he sounded pretty reasonable most of the time.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    A truly awful idea. Being judged by a jury of one's peers is a an inalienable right in this country. Whatever virus bullshit excuse isn't going to cut it when suspending or removing such a basic right.

    The virus may have (I have no idea in truth) how a jury functions in practice but the principle of being judged by 12 ought to remain.
    Actually it’s virtually impossible to socially distance a group of 12 with the space available. 7 or 8 you can manage using the press box and the jury box for the hearing and spacing around the walls in the jury room
    You can ditch/reduce the public gallery and put the jury there in the court estate where it is possible.
    Not sure - I think the jury should all be able to look at the defendant’s eyes
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    OllyT said:

    First the test and trace system was “world beating”. Today it is a “stunning success”.

    Embarrassing hyperbole seems to be a key part of The Clown’s repertoire. It’ll be painful by the end of his disastrous tenure.

    It's the same play book as Trump. Make outrageous statements in the hope that your core voters believe you and can't be bothered to verify whether it is true or not. By and large it seems to work, sadly.
    But over the long term it risks seriously pissing off even core voters. Then you’re up effluent canyon with no mean of propulsion.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    A truly awful idea. Being judged by a jury of one's peers is a an inalienable right in this country. Whatever virus bullshit excuse isn't going to cut it when suspending or removing such a basic right.

    The virus may have (I have no idea in truth) how a jury functions in practice but the principle of being judged by 12 ought to remain.
    Actually it’s virtually impossible to socially distance a group of 12 with the space available. 7 or 8 you can manage using the press box and the jury box for the hearing and spacing around the walls in the jury room
    Then use the bubble principle and accept the jury can't be socially distanced. Give those at risk the right to excuse themselves from jury service. Don't tamper with it.
    And the 12 families the go home to in the evening?

    What’s the magic about 12?
    The 12 families will have to be careful.

    We are at the point of reopening schools and workplaces with bubble concepts where necessary, if they need to be necessary for trials then so be it. Should be easy to track and trace if anything goes wrong.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,613
    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    A truly awful idea. Being judged by a jury of one's peers is a an inalienable right in this country. Whatever virus bullshit excuse isn't going to cut it when suspending or removing such a basic right.

    The virus may have (I have no idea in truth) how a jury functions in practice but the principle of being judged by 12 ought to remain.
    Actually it’s virtually impossible to socially distance a group of 12 with the space available. 7 or 8 you can manage using the press box and the jury box for the hearing and spacing around the walls in the jury room
    We are not exactly short of empty buildings at the moment if that is all thats needed.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 2,971

    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?

    It says "Cyclefree"
    Aha. Ta. I cannot see an author at all. But I have horrific problems reading this blog full stop. It is nigh on impossible. A dinosaur from the era of primeval blogging.
    Are you still using Netscape?
    Well in the sense that Netscape spawned Firefox, yes.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378

    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?

    It says "Cyclefree"
    Aha. Ta. I cannot see an author at all. But I have horrific problems reading this blog full stop. It is nigh on impossible. A dinosaur from the era of primeval blogging.
    Are you on mobile?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,579
    On a tangential note, I sometimes wonder whether juries should be drawn from places that are not local to the trial. When Alex Salmond was tried, it would have been utterly impossible to draw a jury from Scotland that didn't have strong personal views on the man. I could understand Salmond not wanting an all English jury either, but perhaps a Welsh jury would have been the best way of getting a fair trial.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    A truly awful idea. Being judged by a jury of one's peers is a an inalienable right in this country. Whatever virus bullshit excuse isn't going to cut it when suspending or removing such a basic right.

    The virus may have (I have no idea in truth) how a jury functions in practice but the principle of being judged by 12 ought to remain.
    Actually it’s virtually impossible to socially distance a group of 12 with the space available. 7 or 8 you can manage using the press box and the jury box for the hearing and spacing around the walls in the jury room
    Then use the bubble principle and accept the jury can't be socially distanced. Give those at risk the right to excuse themselves from jury service. Don't tamper with it.
    And the 12 families the go home to in the evening?

    What’s the magic about 12?
    The 12 families will have to be careful.

    We are at the point of reopening schools and workplaces with bubble concepts where necessary, if they need to be necessary for trials then so be it. Should be easy to track and trace if anything goes wrong.
    What’s the magic about 12?

    I agree with you on the importance of the jury trial, but why is 7 not acceptable during this temporary period? As Carlotta noted it was ok in WWII
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Under no circumstances should trial by jury be limited or end. None whatsoever. No if's, no buts.

    There are zero grounds I would support this on and if the government proposes this I would be disgusted. Hopefully this is a kite quickly shot down this must not happen.

    Financial crimes should be in front of an expert tribunal
    No they should be put in front of a jury but arguably with a right for the defendant to then appeal to an expert tribunal if they're convicted.

    Better for ten guilty men to walk free than one innocent to be wrongly convicted. The right to a jury trial should never be qualified.
    The problem is that most juries don’t understand financial crimes. They try to get round it with allocating expert jurors but it’s hard.
    So the prosecution has to make its case and the defence make theirs and the judge can provide guidance.

    If someone is wrongfully convicted they should be able to appeal. If someone is wrongfully acquitted that is a price worth paying to keep the right of trial by jury.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,930
    I think 12 socially distanced (Say video call) jurors would find less unanimous verdicts than 12 in a room. There might be something in that. Often wonder how much of a role peer pressure plays in reaching a verdict.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,286

    My other fear is that this proposal will strengthen the position of police officers to force innocent people to accept a caution.

    This is something where far too many cops fall into the ACAB category.

    I presume you are worrying about the UK taking on a version of the US system where you get offered 10 years with parole in 5, but if you go to trial they will be asking for 50 years without parole (and next time, do not park on the double yellow lines or it is no more Mr Nice Guy?)
    No quite, what happens is basically the rozzers tell frightened people

    'Accept a caution and you'll be able to leave here without a stain on your reputation or you'll have a public trial with your name in the papers and on TV.'

    What they fail to tell you is if you accept a caution you'll have criminal record which rules you out of so many jobs, and in some instances invalidates things like your car insurance or stops you having a bank account with most banks.

    On the latter point you don't even realise until you have an accident.
    Interesting - and the cops are lying because a caution therefore is a stain on your reputation?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,027

    ‪Looks like we need to add corrupt to incompetent, mendacious, hubristic, anti-democratic and arrogant when we describe this Tory government. ‬

    It's very puzzling. Robert Jenrick's career seems a really odd hill to make a stand on. I'd have thought that if you were looking for a definition of 'expendable', Mr Jenrick would be one of the first examples to come to mind.
    Not at all, you have to draw a line in the sand and stick to it. If the PM starts sacking people for corruption, misleading, law breaking, dishonesty and incompetence, there would not be many left in the cabinet, including the PM.
    Indeed - how can Boris Johnson fire anyone for being an incompetent, arrogant liar?

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,766

    Cyclefree said:

    I assume this post is by Antifrank, despite being unsigned?

    Er no, it’s by me.

    I am FURIOUS about this proposal.

    It’s a disgrace.

    Starmer should have pummelled Johnson for this at PMQs.
    Was it announced some time ago or sometime today?
    A few days ago.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,286
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    A truly awful idea. Being judged by a jury of one's peers is a an inalienable right in this country. Whatever virus bullshit excuse isn't going to cut it when suspending or removing such a basic right.

    The virus may have (I have no idea in truth) how a jury functions in practice but the principle of being judged by 12 ought to remain.
    Actually it’s virtually impossible to socially distance a group of 12 with the space available. 7 or 8 you can manage using the press box and the jury box for the hearing and spacing around the walls in the jury room
    Then use the bubble principle and accept the jury can't be socially distanced. Give those at risk the right to excuse themselves from jury service. Don't tamper with it.
    And the 12 families the go home to in the evening?

    What’s the magic about 12?
    Occasionally, juries are put up in hotels. Make that a standard approach for the duration of COVID
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 7,673
    Thanks Cyclefree. This is the sort of topic I enjoy very much.

    One problem you might have in your defence of the current jury system is that many of us have sat on juries. Whilst my own experiences did not make we wish to abolish trial by jury, they did make me think there is a lot wrong with them that could and should be addressed. The list is long so I'll stick to one fairly uncontroversial question.

    Why does it have to be 12 jurors? What is special about that number? why not, say, 10, or perhaps the 7 that others have suggested?

    And if I may be allowed a supplementary.... What is wrong with having specialist jurors for certain types of trial where specialist knowledge would be a distinct advantage? I am thinking particularly of fraud or similar financial offences where the technicalities may be beyond most people but straight forward enough for people with a financial background. Why would it be wrong for the jury to ;know its subject'?

    Got to go out for a bit but back in about an hour.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 82,437

    My other fear is that this proposal will strengthen the position of police officers to force innocent people to accept a caution.

    This is something where far too many cops fall into the ACAB category.

    I presume you are worrying about the UK taking on a version of the US system where you get offered 10 years with parole in 5, but if you go to trial they will be asking for 50 years without parole (and next time, do not park on the double yellow lines or it is no more Mr Nice Guy?)
    No quite, what happens is basically the rozzers tell frightened people

    'Accept a caution and you'll be able to leave here without a stain on your reputation or you'll have a public trial with your name in the papers and on TV.'

    What they fail to tell you is if you accept a caution you'll have criminal record which rules you out of so many jobs, and in some instances invalidates things like your car insurance or stops you having a bank account with most banks.

    On the latter point you don't even realise until you have an accident.
    Interesting - and the cops are lying because a caution therefore is a stain on your reputation?
    Yes, a caution is a stain on your reputation, whilst the caution becomes spent straight away it will always show on a DBS check.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 14,649
    They can’t sack Jenrick. He is very distilled essence of Toryism. This sort of favour and back scratching has played out in the Conservative party in its various forms across the nation for years. It’s what Toryism is.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 35,177
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    A truly awful idea. Being judged by a jury of one's peers is a an inalienable right in this country. Whatever virus bullshit excuse isn't going to cut it when suspending or removing such a basic right.

    The virus may have (I have no idea in truth) how a jury functions in practice but the principle of being judged by 12 ought to remain.
    Actually it’s virtually impossible to socially distance a group of 12 with the space available. 7 or 8 you can manage using the press box and the jury box for the hearing and spacing around the walls in the jury room
    Then use the bubble principle and accept the jury can't be socially distanced. Give those at risk the right to excuse themselves from jury service. Don't tamper with it.
    And the 12 families the go home to in the evening?

    What’s the magic about 12?
    The 12 families will have to be careful.

    We are at the point of reopening schools and workplaces with bubble concepts where necessary, if they need to be necessary for trials then so be it. Should be easy to track and trace if anything goes wrong.
    What’s the magic about 12?

    I agree with you on the importance of the jury trial, but why is 7 not acceptable during this temporary period? As Carlotta noted it was ok in WWII
    Nothing magic but the right to justice is frankly more important than the virus.

    A temporary reduction in size of juries to permit social distancing is something I feel uncomfortable with, but so long as it follows WWIIs precedence and is swiftly lifted as soon as social distancing is lifted that's a different matter entirely to ending trial by jury which is inexcusable.
Sign In or Register to comment.