sadoldgit

It doesn’t have to be his mate. 😉

Yes, I agree about the judge but at least that person is very experienced and wants to be there. There will still be an appeals system if it is believed that the judge has got it wrong for whatever reason. The rape example - they are not tried in a magistrate’s court - was just to demonstrate that a jury will never give you a perfectly balanced cross section of society (not that there is such a thing) and there will always be elements of bias in a group of people with different life experiences. A jury’s strength (a peer group) can also be its weakness. I didn’t know if the conferring had been suggested as part of the new system. Judges do take advice. They look up similar previous cases. Where does judicial independence work on the magistrate’s bench?

Good point. As said, no system is perfect and there will always be miscarriages of justice for a variety of reasons. Trial by jury does not guarantee that defendants will receive a better type of justice. It just means that 12 people will decide your fate. If you are lucky you might receive a jury who takes the process seriously and give the trial process and the evidence their full consideration. You might also get a jury who can’t wait to get home and will go with the loudest voice or the strongest opinion in the group. Just a personal opinion, but I think that you are less likely to get unsafe verdicts under an experienced judge who, I think, will be able to confer with other judges if they are struggling to reach a decision) than random groups of people whose level of engagement in the process and general suitability is undetermined. Another thing to consider, rape cases will continue to be tried by jury. How would you feel about them being tried by all male or all female juries? If you think there might be an unconscious bias in either, at what point does that cease to be a concern in a mixed sex jury?

Which is why I am defending my position here now. Another definition of what the far right is from The Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right. It says that far right politics include “persons or groups who hold extremist, nationalistic, xenophobic, homophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or other reactionary views.” Is it unreasonable to conclude that anyone who expresses the views above or jump in to defend the people (examples; Trump, Farage, Robinson, Hopkins) who are called out for espousing the views above, support/share these far right ideologies? Would you jump in to attack a poster who posts against something you were also deeply opposed to? I wouldn’t. Why would you unless you shared the same opinions?

So Reeves wasn’t lying after all. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czj0ngnkl2vo.amp

For those who do not trust ChatGPT, here is a more in depth look at the “far right” ideologies. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d8b882740f0b6098d33fefa/Joe_Mulhall_-_Modernising_and_Mainstreaming_The_Contemporary_British_Far_Right.pdf

Is it wrong? It takes information from elsewhere and it no different from other definitions elsewhere. As for being a fool, I will let the guy who takes our philosophy class know that he is a fool as he uses ChatGPT to précis points of Plato’s Republic for us.

Not all cases are tried by our peers so where do you draw the line?

Exactly. Anything that speeds up the process and fewer trials by jury will do that. Putting a jury trial together is a very time consuming process administratively. I know, I used to manage the process. Multiply that by 8 to 10 courts every day with 12 jurors in each. There hasn’t been a trial by jury in Northern Ireland for decades, for obvious reasons. The justice system still works there. The legal system in this country in very averse to change and it is no wonder there is a measure of resistance. When we worked for the CPS my wife was responsible for implementing the use of electronic files in court in the SE Area (Kent, Surrey & Sussex). It was long overdue but the resistance from the courts, chambers and a number of our own lawyers still gives her nightmares years later. For those who think that the jury system is sacrosanct I suggest that they watch The Jury: Murder Trial. The only thing you can be sure of with a jury trial is that there will be a verdict (unless there is a hung jury of course). It will not necessarily be the right verdict and I will refer back to the OJ Simpson verdict as evidence that even the most clear cut case can produce the wrong verdict by jury. Juries are fallible. Judges are fallible, but have a much greater depth of experience. To look at it simplistically we are actually taking 12 fallible components out of the trial process in not so serious cases and replacing them with one not so fallible component. ………….. How long before AI gets involved?

It’s a start and something has to be done. As we know, no one is going to take to the streets and demand that we all pay more taxes to pay for these things so the money isn’t there to do what needs to be done to make up for 14 years of neglect. A very experienced appeal court judge put these recommendations to Lammy so it comes from inside and someone who knows the system well. In fact Lammy rowed back on one recommendation which was 5 years sentences and less rather than 3 and less for doing away with the jury. Doing away with the either way option was a good move. Defendants used to think that they stood a better chance with a jury so usually chose that. If you are innocent you should be confident of proving that in court whether it is a magistrate, judge or jury. The jury system is far from perfect. There is no perfect system. It is admin heavy and long over due for reform. The reforms may not please everybody, but something had to be done and the Tories did nothing but let the system decline for years.

Here you go Ralph. I wouldn’t normally spend an evening giving someone homework, but I think you need educating. I asked ChatGPT to give me a definition of far right ideology in the UK and this is what it says:- Core characteristics - The belief that political power and national identity should be centred around a particular ethnic, cultural or “native” group. Often opposes immigration and multiculturalism. Favouring strict law enforcement, strong state powers and sometimes a belief in natural social hierarchies. Claiming that the country is threatened by corrupt elites, global institutions or minority groups. Opposition to Liberal democratic norms such as minority protections, independent institutions or equal civic status for different groups. Hostility towards specific groups which may include xenophobia, Islamophobia or anti immigrant sentiment. In extreme cases it includes racial supremacy or overt racism. Tick many boxes? No surprise to see a laughing emoji from nic. He ticks some of these boxes. 😂

I do understand what far right is. You seem to have a problem with it though. People like Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins have far right agendas. If you don’t understand that then you need to do more research. You don’t have to wear black and wave flags with swastikas on them to be “far right” in your opinions. If people defend them and make excuses for people like Farage, why would they do that if they weren’t sympathetic to their agendas? I have voted for the Liberal Democrat’s for most of my life and as I have explained before, I only stopped doing so when Clegg chose to go into coalition with the Tories. I voted Labour tactically in the last 3 elections to get the Tories out, although the last time I was happy to vote for Starmer as he is clearly centre left. You don’t call me far left because I am clearly not. Liberals are not Lefties. Liberals are liberal. There is a reason why Lefties are called Lefty. It is because their views are well left of the centre. Liberals are centralists. This stuff is all very basic. Which of my views are extreme in your view? I have never posted against basic capitalism and don’t have a problem with the creation of wealth. If I am a Leftie I am not very good at it.

I think that anyone who supports those kinds of views or speaks out in support of the people who support those views should expect to be tarred with the same brush. You weren’t here when this happened, but hypochondriac used to have Pepe Le Frog as his avatar. An image that is used by the alt right. When I read your (all three of you) posts I see sympathy with views expressed by people who identify as “far right.” All of you draw fire from posters in here who would probably identify as liberal with a small L. I would include myself in that definition. Draw your own conclusions.

Some sort of centrist. What is that? 😂 You seem to suffer from the same cognitive fog that he has too. “Socialism is dangerous” is his refrain. He conflates Socialism with Stalin and Lenin, bless him. As I have tried to explain to your other half (nic). Being apposed to far right ideology does not make you a Marxist or a Communist. It just makes you a reasonable, decent human being.

He is constantly supporting people whose politics are far right. Why would you do that if you weren’t sympathetic to them? Of course you have a favourable view of him. You share his opinions. Define far left? Being opposed to far right opinions? Given I have voted for the LibDems in most elections I don’t think that qualifies as being “far left.” By the way, it is very difficult to see any difference between you and nic.