egg

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

Different issues. We're talking political labelling. I won't stop calling a shovel a shovel.

Brilliant! 👏

Yep. I'm mostly left of centre, but sway right ish on some things. I have no idea why people feel the need to label people though.

Scheduled

There's not been a ceasefire to speak of. Add in the behaviour in the West Bank, and forays into Lebanon, and doubtless Syria, Iraq as well. They'll never stop.

Stanley

Yeah. Matsuki would have been a better option.

Yep. We need proper defenders on both sides. I wouldn't be surprised to see Edwards come on as a RB, and push Fellows forward to give us an outlet and a player to stretch them.

Yep. Away at a good side, having to replace our two best players. Pass this test and that's audition over for me.

Yep. They're a good side. Decent test today. If we come away with something we'll have done well.

I'd take a draw here. Perfectly acceptable away to a team chasing promotion, and with our best 2 players out.

Stephens is a far better shout than Quarshie imo. Agreed re Matsuki. Offers something different off the bench.

Was thinking the same. Injury hasn't been mentioned. It may just be that the manager prefers the young lad.

Tawny

Indeed. We get nothing of note from them.

If you have resources to get by, the money by definition isn't needed. A means test in terms of benefits is usually just a simple threshold. You are asking for a means assessment, which is a different thing. Ultimately, your suggested way would involve all sorts of staff, delay, assesment, evidence, reviews, appeals, and all sorts. What we have is a simple if you have less than X you qualify, with the point being that if you have more than X then there is presumed to be no actual need. Where we fundamentally disagree is your belief that benefits should supplement a need that we can meet from our own resources. If we can paddle our own canoe, we should. You mentioned holidays, and I offered no opinion on the rights or wrongs of your wife's decision. The benefits system did though, and you got by without that. And please cut the patronising noise re living on benefits. I've lived it. You haven't as you didn't need it.