Do you want to discuss boring politics? (47 Viewers)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Just out of curiosity, is the same crowd outraged at plans to leaving the ECHR as disgusted at Labour’s plans to withdraw the right of trial by jury for many crimes?

They seem to be arguing that it’s necessary to get through the backlog of trials that are overdue by years. How do you solve such a problem otherwise? Asking as a layperson in this area.

 

---

[Sky Blue Pete]

Just out of curiosity, is the same crowd outraged at plans to leaving the ECHR as disgusted at Labour’s plans to withdraw the right of trial by jury for many crimes?

Yes
And the same people want to pay less tax and improve public service
And keep pensions and reduce immigration to nil

 

[SBAndy]

Just out of curiosity, is the same crowd outraged at plans to leaving the ECHR as disgusted at Labour’s plans to withdraw the right of trial by jury for many crimes?

Only heard a snippet of this on the radio and haven't had chance to look into it, but optically at the very least it's an awful idea. Will only amplify the whole "two-tier justice" malarkey which I think is a nonsense anyway.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

They seem to be arguing that it’s necessary to get through the backlog of trials that are overdue by years. How do you solve such a problem otherwise? Asking as a layperson in this area.

The irony is many crimes are not dealt with by a jury in magistrates courts up and down the country

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The irony is many crimes are not dealt with by a jury in magistrates courts up and down the country

Brother in law is currently standing in a jury at the moment as it happens. Employer not giving him pay for it and the compensation you get from the government is nowhere near enough to cover his lost earnings.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Just out of curiosity, is the same crowd outraged at plans to leaving the ECHR as disgusted at Labour’s plans to withdraw the right of trial by jury for many crimes?

Yes. It's weird that you see justice as a left v right issue.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Brother in law is currently standing in a jury at the moment as it happens. Employer not giving him pay for it and the compensation you get from the government is nowhere near enough to cover his lost earnings.

That’s so unfair

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

That’s so unfair

It should be mandatory for employers to cover wages for that time for what is pretty much going to be a one off.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

They seem to be arguing that it’s necessary to get through the backlog of trials that are overdue by years. How do you solve such a problem otherwise? Asking as a layperson in this area.

The backlog is a pretext to make the change. It’s quite ironic seeing a fundamental right outlined in our laws since the Magna Carta be taken away despite the HRA and ECHR.

Only heard a snippet of this on the radio and haven't had chance to look into it, but optically at the very least it's an awful idea. Will only amplify the whole "two-tier justice" malarkey which I think is a nonsense anyway.

Forget optics, it’s just a terrible idea full stop.

Yes. It's weird that you see justice as a left v right issue.

The ECHR is not a left v right issue just as Brexit wasn’t. Maurice Glasman is a figure on the left who calls on us to withdrawing from the ECHR.

As I see, I’m just pointing out the irony of people crying about leaving the ECHR as if it’d be the end of human rights…

 

[PVA]

Currently only 1% of prosecuted crimes go to a jury trial.

 

[chiefdave]

I think the point was that Farage is accused of directing this sort of stuff at individuals, by the affected parties. So it goes beyond it just being an outdated figure of speech, casually used.

The stuff coming out about Farage seems to be more than ‘it was like that back then’.

Seems he was telling descendants of Jews who fled Germany that “Hitler was right” and to “gas them”.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The stuff coming out about Farage seems to be more than ‘it was like that back then’.

Seems he was telling descendants of Jews who fled Germany that “Hitler was right” and to “gas them”.

Long time ago
It’s no story if he says I was young and wrong and my options were abhorrent
In fact if he doesn’t say that you have to think does he still have opinions like that

It’s no surprise that us and the us and Germany were the eugenics kings in the 30’s many people would have agreed that normal people (however that is defined) inherit all and non normal ones need destroying

 

[chiefdave]

Just out of curiosity, is the same crowd outraged at plans to leaving the ECHR as disgusted at Labour’s plans to withdraw the right of trial by jury for many crimes?

Even going back pre-covid there was a huge backlog. I can recall the Cameron government making changes which had those involved up in arms as they would cause chaos. Of course they were ignored and things appear to have played out pretty much as predicted with covid compounding the problem.

At the moment this appears to just be a government briefing from the MoJ so a huge amount of detail is lacking and the response from the legal profession has been that it won't resolve the issue which would render the whole exercise pointless.

From what I can see of the plans its seems it would only change for cases where a sentence of less than 5 years is on the cards. If you were arrested today and held for trial you'd be inside for 5 years while you waited so I guess there's some logic from that point of view but fundamentally it seems a bad look to be removing the right to a trial by jury.

 

[Farmer Jim]

Brother in law is currently standing in a jury at the moment as it happens. Employer not giving him pay for it and the compensation you get from the government is nowhere near enough to cover his lost earnings.

Which is why anyone with half a brain will try and get out of Jury service.

It`s the exact same for witness expenses too.

I`ll use an example.

A taxi driver gets assaulted and robbed.

For everyday he is in court, as the complainant and chief witness, he has to fill in a load of forms to prove how much he earns per week, just so he can get paid a set amount, which nine times out of ten won`t cover his earnings.

Hence why taxi drivers are very reluctant to make any kind of formal complaint.

This also applies to anyone who is self employed too.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

He’s clearly been told to do these to improve his standing but it’s a tough watch

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Even going back pre-covid there was a huge backlog. I can recall the Cameron government making changes which had those involved up in arms as they would cause chaos. Of course they were ignored and things appear to have played out pretty much as predicted with covid compounding the problem.

At the moment this appears to just be a government briefing from the MoJ so a huge amount of detail is lacking and the response from the legal profession has been that it won't resolve the issue which would render the whole exercise pointless.

From what I can see of the plans its seems it would only change for cases where a sentence of less than 5 years is on the cards. If you were arrested today and held for trial you'd be inside for 5 years while you waited so I guess there's some logic from that point of view but fundamentally it seems a bad look to be removing the right to a trial by jury.

Right so, because there’s a backlog, it’s justifiable to upend centuries of civil liberties?

Using that logic, perhaps the temporary suspension of the refugee convention and withdrawal of the ECHR is justified?

After all, it seems like we’ve established that we can curtail certain rights and liberties when it’s expedient to do so.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Right so, because there’s a backlog, it’s justifiable to upend centuries of civil liberties?

Using that logic, perhaps the temporary suspension of the refugee convention and withdrawal of the ECHR is justified?

After all, it seems like we’ve established that we can curtail certain rights and liberties when it’s expedient to do so.

What is the solution?

 

[Sbarcher]

Office of Budgetry Control have relased their response 2 hours before normal and even before the Budget!
What a whopper!

 

[CCFCSteve]

Office of Budgetry Control have relased their response 2 hours before normal and even before the Budget!
What a whopper!

Shambles. The government has been leaking it for ages anyway so doubt there’s many major surprises

 

[chiefdave]

Right so, because there’s a backlog, it’s justifiable to upend centuries of civil liberties?

Using that logic, perhaps the temporary suspension of the refugee convention and withdrawal of the ECHR is justified?

After all, it seems like we’ve established that we can curtail certain rights and liberties when it’s expedient to do so.

That's not what I've said at all. I've said we don't know the details and on the face of it a bad look to be removing the right to trial by jury.

If you're spending 5 years inside awaiting trial by jury I can see why, if you were given the option to get to court quicker if it was trial without a jury, you might take it but that would be on the basis of it being offered as an option not forced upon you. Its not like every case is trial by jury at present.

Personally I would need to look in much greater detail in what the criteria is at present for a jury trial and what changes are being proposed.

Not really sure how making changes to the scope of which offences are heard in front of a jury has any relevance on how we deal with refugees or why we should or shouldn't be in the ECHR.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

That's not what I've said at all. I've said we don't know the details and on the face of it a bad look to be removing the right to trial by jury.

If you're spending 5 years inside awaiting trial by jury I can see why, if you were given the option to get to court quicker if it was trial without a jury, you might take it but that would be on the basis of it being offered as an option not forced upon you. Its not like every case is trial by jury at present.

Personally I would need to look in much greater detail in what the criteria is at present for a jury trial and what changes are being proposed.

Not really sure how making changes to the scope of which offences are heard in front of a jury has any relevance on how we deal with refugees or why we should or shouldn't be in the ECHR.

The point was more posters like BSB, SBD, Shmmee and others have compared leaving the ECHR with authoritarianism, Russia and North Korea get invoked. This is characteristic of the liberal-left as a whole btw. I was causing mischief by bringing up the ECHR tbf to highlight some ‘inconsistencies’ (or hypocrisies, depending on POV) of these positions.

The right to a trial by jury has been on the statute books for 800+ years is a disgrace. It also ties into previous points I’ve made that our ancient traditions are much more robust than the ECHR.

 

[chiefdave]

Good to see the deputy speaker giving the government a bollocking over how much of the budget has been in the media in the last few days and weeks (prior to the absolute fuck up by the OBR).

Same thing happened with the last government and it really undermines how the process is supposed to work.

 

[fernandopartridge]

He’s clearly been told to do these to improve his standing but it’s a tough watch

 

[fernandopartridge]

Good to see the deputy speaker giving the government a bollocking over how much of the budget has been in the media in the last few days and weeks (prior to the absolute fuck up by the OBR).

Same thing happened with the last government and it really undermines how the process is supposed to work.

The entire Westminster politician and media clique is a disaster for this country, fuck the lot of them.

 

[Captain Dart]

Just out of curiosity, is the same crowd outraged at plans to leaving the ECHR as disgusted at Labour’s plans to withdraw the right of trial by jury for many crimes?

And where is the outrage about the extremely serious stories about former MP Nick Brown's or Clr. Irfan Mohammed's sexual proclivities ?

I'm not going to repeat anything about Nick Brown (pictured below) as apparently there is a super injunction out and what I've heard is all hearsay on that has been repeated on Twitter & Telegram.

A Lambeth Council spokesperson said:

“Following notification to the council from the police of an arrest and subsequent criminal charges, Councillor Irfan Mohammed has been removed from his position as a Deputy Cabinet Member and all council committees, pending resolution of the allegations against him.

“His membership of Lambeth Labour Group has also been suspended.

“We are unable to make further comment due to the ongoing criminal investigation.”

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Waffle waffle waffle, how much has Reeves increased taxes over two budgets? £50+ bn in two budgets?

Shambles.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The point was more posters like BSB, SBD, Shmmee and others have compared leaving the ECHR with authoritarianism, Russia and North Korea get invoked. This is characteristic of the liberal-left as a whole btw. I was causing mischief by bringing up the ECHR tbf to highlight some ‘inconsistencies’ (or hypocrisies, depending on POV) of these positions.

The right to a trial by jury has been on the statute books for 800+ years is a disgrace. It also ties into previous points I’ve made that our ancient traditions are much more robust than the ECHR.

Did you see the stats on how many

 

[chiefdave]

The right to a trial by jury has been on the statute books for 800+ years is a disgrace. It also ties into previous points I’ve made that our ancient traditions are much more robust than the ECHR.

It has but while its not really something I've ever given much thought a quick lunchtime google suggests that over those 800+ years what offences are covered by that right to trial have changed on many occasions so I'm not sure that if it gets changing again in the future its quite the 'sky is falling' moment some are making out.

The devil will be in the detail and that detail is not available at present so its hard to form an opinion one way or another. #

What we certainly can't have is potentially innocent people being locked up for 5 years waiting to get to trial.

 

[duffer]

The point was more posters like BSB, SBD, Shmmee and others have compared leaving the ECHR with authoritarianism, Russia and North Korea get invoked. This is characteristic of the liberal-left as a whole btw. I was causing mischief by bringing up the ECHR tbf to highlight some ‘inconsistencies’ (or hypocrisies, depending on POV) of these positions.

The right to a trial by jury has been on the statute books for 800+ years is a disgrace. It also ties into previous points I’ve made that our ancient traditions are much more robust than the ECHR.

Our "ancient traditions" do not incorporate human rights as such. Just a limited concept of habeas corpus, trial by peers, and protection against the monarch. (A brief history of this is linked to below, if you're interested).

Quite clearly then, "ancient tradition" cannot replace codified law.

And I'm absolutely not in favour of removing the right to trial by jury, by the way.

If you support me in that, then the first step is obviously to unwind the huge underfunding of the justice system by successive governments, not least of which were the previous lot of course.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/history-human-rights-britain

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

The point was more posters like BSB, SBD, Shmmee and others have compared leaving the ECHR with authoritarianism, Russia and North Korea get invoked. This is characteristic of the liberal-left as a whole btw. I was causing mischief by bringing up the ECHR tbf to highlight some ‘inconsistencies’ (or hypocrisies, depending on POV) of these positions.

The right to a trial by jury has been on the statute books for 800+ years is a disgrace. It also ties into previous points I’ve made that our ancient traditions are much more robust than the ECHR.

With respect I have never made that comparison unless you can find a post of mine to the contrary.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Our "ancient traditions" do not incorporate human rights as such. Just a limited concept of habeas corpus, trial by peers, and protection against the monarch. (A brief history of this is linked to below, if you're interested).

Quite clearly then, "ancient tradition" cannot replace codified law.

And I'm absolutely not in favour of removing the right to trial by jury, by the way.

If you support me in that, then the first step is obviously to unwind the huge underfunding of the justice system by successive governments, not least of which were the previous lot of course.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/history-human-rights-britain

English common law is developed over centuries of codified laws passed in parliament. By contrast, the ECHR is a set of ‘conventions’ i.e. not a law. It’s the HRA that codifies this but more significantly, the role of the European Court of Human Rights in the interpretation of the conventions. That’s the fundamental issue at play here.

The ECHR only has teeth because of Human Rights Act, to be clear, a law based by parliament.

The UK’s traditions on human rights and civil liberties predates the ECHR (1953). Need proof? Canada, Australia and NZ are not signatories of the ECHR, have strong HR traditions and the basis of their legal systems is English Common Law.

 

[chiefdave]

And I'm absolutely not in favour of removing the right to trial by jury, by the way.

Thats my gut feeling on it as well.

Having said that I do wonder if I was an innocent person looking at sitting in jail for 5 years awaiting trial by jury who was offered a much quicker route to court if I elected to go for a trial without a jury what my response would be.

 

[CCFCSteve]

Budget pretty much as expected as most had been leaked even before OBR. Bottled the big calls due to party pressure which would’ve been to increase income tax and try to reduce the rapid increase of welfare (triple lock and long term sickness claimants). But enough tax increases elsewhere to plug the gap and increase headroom

Said it before the government will live or die by three things growth, immigration and public services.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Kemi is smoking Reeves, I quite like listening to her as leader of the opposition. It’s just a great shame that the Tory party is a damaged brand.

 

[duffer]

English common law is developed over centuries of codified laws passed in parliament. By contrast, the ECHR is a set of ‘conventions’ i.e. not a law. It’s the HRA that codifies this but more significantly, the role of the European Court of Human Rights in the interpretation of the conventions. That’s the fundamental issue at play here.

The ECHR only has teeth because of Human Rights Act, to be clear, a law based by parliament.

The UK’s traditions on human rights and civil liberties predates the ECHR (1953). Need proof? Canada, Australia and NZ are not signatories of the ECHR, have strong HR traditions and the basis of their legal systems is English Common Law.

And until the HRA was codified, where were human rights in English Common Law let alone "ancient traditions"? They weren't. Aren't you shooting down your own argument here, you were claiming ancient traditions would suffice, now you've shifted to the HRA.

Basically, it seems to me you're saying you're in favour of human rights being enshrined in law, just not for all humans.