egg

On that we agree. Floyd are phenomenal, the others not far behind.

Talented, diverse, great characters, yep, and although some songs are amazing, I can't listen to an album without getting bored or irritated by weird sounds. Just not for me.

Ditto. I love indie music, but I've never got the appeal. Liam's whiney voice and their persona's irritate me too. The Beatles don't float my boat either.

Bake

I'm aware that rape is crown court only, but the male/female single judge point remains. A judge conferring with another judge re a decision does not and will not happen. Precedent and legal research is entirely different. The magistrates will confer, in the same way as the judge and specialist members do in Tribunals. That's not the same as the trial judge phoning his mate to chat things through.

Judges suffer conscious and unconscious bias. Just one of them trying you is just one person's approach being taken. On your rape example, that's just one man or woman. In a magistrates system you've got 3, and probably both genders. In a jury, there's 12, and it won't be just men or women. There's a wider dilution of individual views in a jury system, and none at all in a one judge process. On the latter point, Judges will not and cannot confer with judges not involved in the case. Wrong to suggest otherwise. Any decision will be made independently - judicial independence is part of the role. Where we do agree is that some jurors can't give a monkeys, and take no real interest in the case. That's not, imo, a reason to remove the right to elect trial by jury though.

I take your point, and justice can happen without a jury system. Although I don't think it should happen, this can work, if well managed and properly funded at all levels of the system. That's a big ask.

The quality of the tribunal determining a case is an altogether different issue to a massive change to the criminal justice system. For what it's worth, I'd prefer 3 lay magistrates deciding a less complex case to a single judge.

For me, the line on either way cases was about right. Burglary, most assaults, theft, all of that and more should remain triable by jury.

Quite. The only thing being changed is how and where people are being tried. Resources are needed across the system to accommodate it. The CPS will need staff and money, police witnesses will need to attend, defendant's will need funded solicitor and barrister representation, probation will need to report then assist after sentence, prison space and staff will be needed for those imprisoned, etc. Billions are needed to deal just with the above. That's before we address minor issues like the judiciary to hear the cases, and court space. The only advantage in that respect is that there's scarce court space with juror seating, and I'm assuming the many civil courts will be slightly repurposed to accommodate criminal cases which is doable without a need to accommodate jurors. The jury system is not the issue though.

That's the whole point. The jury system is about being tried by our peers.

Bless. Bad day poppet?

It goes deeper, but yes, there aren't enough magistrates. If there were, they'd need court rooms and a legal advisor. There's not enough of them. The alternative is Judges, but there aren't enough of them either and the JAC recruitment process takes forever. That's before you get to the lack of prosecution and defence lawyers, and the budget to fund them. Then prison, probation, etc etc. The backlog needs addressing to give justice to all concerned, but throwing a new layer into the court system isn't the answer. The system needs root and branch reform, including a serious look at a partial shift to rehabilitative justice to address re offending.

Very sad news. Splendid batsman and a thoroughly nice bloke. He and a few other players once randomly tagged onto a stag group I was out with. Great fun. I hadn't appreciated the issues he had, and may he RIP.

Risk