The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Farmer Saint]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Sounds like two tier justice to me. 

Yes, but we have that already - Magistrates Courts don't have juries.

[sadoldgit]

47 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

We have a broken/long/expensive system at the moment - this may help.

Thanks to the austerity years the Criminal Justice System is on its knees and measures need to be taken to sort out the back log. Cutting staff in the courts, probation, the CPS and the police every year for years has created this situation. If Badenoch/The Tories kick off about it they need to remember why we are in this state in the first place.

[hypochondriac]

16 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

But if this clears the backlog of cases, where are the increased numbers of the convicted going to go ? The prisons are full.

Release some to make room for the social media villains the judges will Convict that jurys generally don't.

[egg]

54 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

We have a broken/long/expensive system at the moment - this may help.

I'm not sure how. There's an abundance of jurors out there, and removing them from the equation still leaves a trial, which still requires a judge, a court room, an usher, prosecution and defence counsel, etc. 

There isn't that court space, those Judges or the budget in the system. I also doubt sufficient underpaid legal aid defence lawyers would be available, ditto prosecutors. 

That's all aside from stripping away the right to elect a jury trial in many cases, which is a massive part of our legal system. 

Terrible decision for me. 

 

[egg]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Release some to make room for the social media villains the judges will Convict that jurys generally don't.

Ha! The correct solution imo is to have a complete rethink of our sentence structure, and invest heavily into a rehabilitative justice system. Prison is of course necessary, but rarely helps rehabilitate and prevent repeat offending. 

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Scary stuff. The right to be tried by a jury a key plank in a free society.

[sadoldgit]

There has been talk about doing away with juries for some time now, in complicated fraud cases for example. 
Cases, especially serious sexual cases are taking an age to get to court leading to some victims walking away. Something needs to be done.

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

Ha! The correct solution imo is to have a complete rethink of our sentence structure, and invest heavily into a rehabilitative justice system. Prison is of course necessary, but rarely helps rehabilitate and prevent repeat offending. 

Fine as long as we agree that this proposal is not the answer. Imagine what certain groups would be saying if Farage had proposed this. No surprise that Starmer wants to give more power to judges though.

Edited 22 hours ago by hypochondriac

[egg]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Fine as long as we agree that this proposal is not the answer. Imagine what certain groups would be saying if Farage had proposed this. No surprise that Starmer wants to give more power to judges though.

Different issues entirely. Whatever Trial system we have, our sentencing approach needs overhaul. 

[hypochondriac]

28 minutes ago, egg said:

Different issues entirely. Whatever Trial system we have, our sentencing approach needs overhaul. 

Like you say it's a separate issue and not one being proposed at the moment unlike this one.

Edited 21 hours ago by hypochondriac

[Weston Super Saint]

13 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yeah, the issue is money - 100%. But we have no money, so we can't solve it that way.

She wrote an article 5 days ago telling the Government to pull their finger out and come up with a plan. She's now seen it and she's not happy - she seems to be a regular columnist for the Times.

I can't find anything where she is proposing anything other than increasing funding, which we know isn't really possible.

It's almost like the person who represents criminal barristers has an alterior motive...

[egg]

10 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

It's almost like the person who represents criminal barristers has an alterior motive...

Criminal legal aid rates are shocking, despite the review. Counsel and Solicitors don't want to do the work, and understandably so. We'll eventually move to an employed public defender model is imagine, but under the current system more cases will mean more adjournments due to unrepresented defendants, and a lack of prosecutors. 

[whelk]

Hysterical tarts

[Farmer Saint]

41 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

It's almost like the person who represents criminal barristers has an alterior motive...

Indeed.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Indeed.

?

Where's the suggestion that criminal legal aid rates will increase? Without that, an increase of cases means more criminal legal aid lawyers are expected to work for terrible rates. 

I'm missing your point. 

[badgerx16]

In other news, you now can't get Mercs or BMWs on Motability.

[egg]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

In other news, you now can't get Mercs or BMWs on Motability.

Good. I saw the whining from someone in the media. We're in a world of expectation, rather than needs, and any form of welfare should be more about the latter. 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Hysterical tarts

You think every move labour makes is overreacted to. I would suggest you aren't entirely neutral here.

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

?

Where's the suggestion that criminal legal aid rates will increase? Without that, an increase of cases means more criminal legal aid lawyers are expected to work for terrible rates. 

I'm missing your point. 

Essentially Riel wants more investment, that's all.

Edited 6 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

15 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Essentially Riel wants more investment, that's all.

So no one from the legal profession could object to this for any other reason?

[Farmer Saint]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

So no one from the legal profession could object to this for any other reason?

No, not sure where I said that? But considering she wrote an article a few days earlier calling for an increase in investment I think that may well be a large contributory factor.

Edited 6 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[whelk]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

You think every move labour makes is overreacted to. I would suggest you aren't entirely neutral here.

I actually think you are the opposite 

[egg]

24 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

No, not sure where I said that? But considering she wrote an article a few days earlier calling for an increase in investment I think that may well be a large contributory factor.

Its where the investment goes. On one hand there's the judges to service the work. On the other there's the lawyers and the budget. I can say with certainty that there isn't a pool of either, and nobody wants to do legal aid crime. KC's are paid less than trainee solicitors in high street firms. Just chucking more money at the legal aid budget but at current rates won't get the work serviced. 

[Farmer Saint]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

Its where the investment goes. On one hand there's the judges to service the work. On the other there's the lawyers and the budget. I can say with certainty that there isn't a pool of either, and nobody wants to do legal aid crime. KC's are paid less than trainee solicitors in high street firms. Just chucking more money at the legal aid budget but at current rates won't get the work serviced. 

I'm unsure what we're debating here tbh 😂

I don't really have an opinion having not touched law since my degree, and not having ever worked in the sector. All I am saying is that someone who has called consistently for more investment into the sector as the solution is unlikely to like reform without further investment. From what I have read/heard though, the whole sector needs proper reform.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I'm unsure what we're debating here tbh 😂

I don't really have an opinion having not touched law since my degree, and not having ever worked in the sector. All I am saying is that someone who has called consistently for more investment into the sector as the solution is unlikely to like reform without further investment. From what I have read/heard though, the whole sector needs proper reform.

You agreed with a comment that someone was calling for change to help criminal lawyers. My point is that this doesn't help criminal lawyers. 

Edited 5 hours ago by egg

[hypochondriac]

37 minutes ago, whelk said:

I actually think you are the opposite 

You think I think that every move labour makes isn't reacted to enough? I'd say there's a fairly reasonable outcry for a large number of things labour have done. It's one of the reasons they are so unpopular and why they've frittered away their commanding election win in a year and a half. 

I've seen plenty on the left of politics react with consternation at this move against Jury trials though. I don't think it's a left or right thing. I'd consider it a very bad idea no matter who was proposing it.

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You think I think that every move labour makes isn't reacted to enough? I'd say there's a fairly reasonable outcry for a large number of things labour have done. It's one of the reasons they are so unpopular and why they've frittered away their commanding election win in a year and a half. 

I've seen plenty on the left of politics react with consternation at this move against Jury trials though. I don't think it's a left or right thing. I'd consider it a very bad idea no matter who was proposing it.

Hold tight. More madness is about to start in an hour. Watching Rachel Reeves talk about the economy will be the equivalent of Russell Martin explaining the dynamics of long ball football.

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You think I think that every move labour makes isn't reacted to enough? I'd say there's a fairly reasonable outcry for a large number of things labour have done. It's one of the reasons they are so unpopular and why they've frittered away their commanding election win in a year and a half. 

I've seen plenty on the left of politics react with consternation at this move against Jury trials though. I don't think it's a left or right thing. I'd consider it a very bad idea no matter who was proposing it.

Yep. It's daft regardless of who proposed it. That it's labour is surprising and disappointing. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

Hold tight. More madness is about to start in an hour.

Yep!! I think that's the first on here that'll get universal support. 

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Hold tight. More madness is about to start in an hour. Watching Rachel Reeves talk about the economy will be the equivalent of Russell Martin explaining the dynamics of long ball football.

I'll look at the summary at the end. I can't be bothered with all the waffle.

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep!! I think that's the first on here that'll get universal support. 

I'm stockpiling McD's milkshakes, sold the house, given up my job and banging out some more kids in anticipation

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. It's daft regardless of who proposed it. That it's labour is surprising and disappointing. 

I'd say it's maybe surprising for Labour but not surprising at all for Starmer the technocrat and his style of politics. I do wonder how much longer he will survive though and if any of these ideas he's floated or had a hand in will actually come to fruition (assisted suicide, no trial by jury, ID cards etc).

[egg]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep!! I think that's the first on here that'll get universal support. 

Like revoked. It was for the pre edited version. 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

I'd say it's maybe surprising for Labour but not surprising at all for Starmer the technocrat and his style of politics. I do wonder how much longer he will survive though and if any of these ideas he's floated or had a hand in will actually come to fruition (assisted suicide, no trial by jury, ID cards etc).

Yep. Starmer is no lefty, and that's becoming clearer. He wants to be something to everyone, but he's the opposite. 

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Like revoked. It was for the pre edited version. 

Alright, sorry - my bad, it will be worse than watching Martin talk long ball tactics 😉

[Farmer Saint]

38 minutes ago, egg said:

You agreed with a comment that someone was calling for change to help criminal lawyers. My point is that this doesn't help criminal lawyers. 

No, Weston's comment was in regards to Riel wanting more investment (IE pay for Barristers) because she is Head of the CBA and works on behalf of Barristers. That's how I read it anyway? 

Edited 4 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[whelk]

34 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I'm stockpiling McD's milkshakes, sold the house, given up my job and banging out some more kids in anticipation

You were born in the wrong era. You’d have loved the poverty of the Victorian times

Edited 4 hours ago by whelk

[whelk]

I feel I need to be here to support Sir Ralph through what, without doubt, is going to be a traumatic experience for him 

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, whelk said:

I feel I need to be here to support Sir Ralph through what, without doubt, is going to be a traumatic experience for him 

I’m on my third bottle of vodka hiding behind the sofa. The milkshakes are helping to keep me more sober. Just wishing I’d had a dozen more kids

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’m on my third bottle of vodka hiding behind the sofa. The milkshakes are helping to keep me more sober

I guess Rachels milkshakes wont bring all the boys to the yard

Edited 4 hours ago by Turkish

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

I guess Rachels milkshakes wont bring all the boys to the bar

Talking of Cabinet Ministers singing disturbing songs

 

[tdmickey3]

8 minutes ago, whelk said:

I feel I need to be here to support Sir Ralph through what, without doubt, is going to be a traumatic experience for him 

He is longing for the heady days of the Truss and Kwarteng budget aftermath

[whelk]

6 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’m on my third bottle of vodka hiding behind the sofa. The milkshakes are helping to keep me more sober. Just wishing I’d had a dozen more kids

All been leaked now. 

[Farmer Saint]

We've been absolutely butt-fucked by this budget 😂

Oh well, hope they spend it well.

[whelk]

Cowards not tackling the income tax thresholds

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, whelk said:

All been leaked now. 

What a shit show. People will just block up the system on the mansion tax by all appealing their valuations. They will be gone in a few years and it will be reversed so probably won’t have much of an impact. 
 

No cuts on anything. Clowns

Edited 4 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[whelk]

Alastair Campbell would be having head on spikes for this OBR leak. Fucking hell someone is going to cop it

[tdmickey3]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

What a shit show. People will just block up the system on the mansion tax by all appealing their valuations. They will be gone in a few years and it will be reversed so probably won’t have much of an impact. 

Yeah, we cant have the rich paying anymore ffs

[whelk]

Disband the OBR

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, tdmickey3 said:

Yeah, we cant have the rich paying anymore ffs

An incredibly articulate justification for your position. Impressive.