Non AMP
Sky Blues Talk
  • Home
  • Forums
  • General Discussion
  • Off Topic Chat
This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Do you want to discuss boring politics? (45 Viewers)

  • Thread starter mrtrench
  • Start date Jun 14, 2020
Forums New posts
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 1685
  • 1686
  • 1687
  • 1688
Next
First Prev 1687 of 1688 Next Last

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 10:24 AM
  • #59,011
Mucca Mad Boys said:
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?
Click to expand...
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

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 10:24 AM
  • #59,012
Mucca Mad Boys said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes
And the same people want to pay less tax and improve public service
And keep pensions and reduce immigration to nil
 

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 10:26 AM
  • #59,013
Mucca Mad Boys said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Reactions: Farmer Jim and Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 10:26 AM
  • #59,014
Brighton Sky Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
The irony is many crimes are not dealt with by a jury in magistrates courts up and down the country
 
Reactions: CCFCSteve

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 10:28 AM
  • #59,015
Sky Blue Pete said:
The irony is many crimes are not dealt with by a jury in magistrates courts up and down the country
Click to expand...
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.
 
Reactions: Farmer Jim

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 10:28 AM
  • #59,016
Mucca Mad Boys said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes. It's weird that you see justice as a left v right issue.
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 10:29 AM
  • #59,017
Brighton Sky Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s so unfair
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 10:30 AM
  • #59,018
Sky Blue Pete said:
That’s so unfair
Click to expand...
It should be mandatory for employers to cover wages for that time for what is pretty much going to be a one off.
 
Reactions: Sky Blue Pete and CCFCSteve

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 10:31 AM
  • #59,019
Brighton Sky Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

SBAndy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Forget optics, it’s just a terrible idea full stop.

fernandopartridge said:
Yes. It's weird that you see justice as a left v right issue.
Click to expand...
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…
 
P

PVA

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 10:44 AM
  • #59,020
Currently only 1% of prosecuted crimes go to a jury trial.
 
Reactions: Sky Blue Pete

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 11:02 AM
  • #59,021
duffer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 11:05 AM
  • #59,022
chiefdave said:
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”.
Click to expand...
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

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 11:24 AM
  • #59,023
Mucca Mad Boys said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Reactions: Sky Blue Pete

Farmer Jim

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 11:33 AM
  • #59,024
Brighton Sky Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Reactions: Sky Blue Pete

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 11:41 AM
  • #59,025
He’s clearly been told to do these to improve his standing but it’s a tough watch

 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 11:49 AM
  • #59,026
chiefdave said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 11:59 AM
  • #59,027
Mucca Mad Boys said:
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.
Click to expand...
What is the solution?
 

Sbarcher

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 12:00 PM
  • #59,028
Office of Budgetry Control have relased their response 2 hours before normal and even before the Budget!
What a whopper!
 
Reactions: chiefdave and Sky Blue Pete
C

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 12:20 PM
  • #59,029
Sbarcher said:
Office of Budgetry Control have relased their response 2 hours before normal and even before the Budget!
What a whopper!
Click to expand...

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

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 12:21 PM
  • #59,030
Mucca Mad Boys said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 12:29 PM
  • #59,031
chiefdave said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 12:41 PM
  • #59,032
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.
 
Reactions: Sky Blue Pete and CCFCSteve

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 12:44 PM
  • #59,033
Brighton Sky Blue said:
He’s clearly been told to do these to improve his standing but it’s a tough watch

Click to expand...
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 12:44 PM
  • #59,034
chiefdave said:
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.
Click to expand...
The entire Westminster politician and media clique is a disaster for this country, fuck the lot of them.
 
Reactions: Ccfc_Addy, Captain Dart and chiefdave

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 12:45 PM
  • #59,035
Mucca Mad Boys said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.”
Click to expand...
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 12:58 PM
  • #59,036
Waffle waffle waffle, how much has Reeves increased taxes over two budgets? £50+ bn in two budgets?

Shambles.
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 1:08 PM
  • #59,037
Mucca Mad Boys said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did you see the stats on how many
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 1:17 PM
  • #59,038
Mucca Mad Boys said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Reactions: Sky Blue Pete

duffer

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 1:21 PM
  • #59,039
Mucca Mad Boys said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 1:28 PM
  • #59,040
Mucca Mad Boys said:
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.
Click to expand...
With respect I have never made that comparison unless you can find a post of mine to the contrary.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 1:39 PM
  • #59,041
duffer said:
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
Click to expand...

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

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 1:39 PM
  • #59,042
duffer said:
And I'm absolutely not in favour of removing the right to trial by jury, by the way.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Reactions: Sky Blue Pete
C

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 1:50 PM
  • #59,043
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.
 
Reactions: Sky Blue Pete and Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 1:52 PM
  • #59,044
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

Well-Known Member
  • Today at 1:55 PM
  • #59,045
Mucca Mad Boys said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 1685
  • 1686
  • 1687
  • 1688
Next
First Prev 1687 of 1688 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • MartyA moment ago
  • chiefdaveA moment ago
  • Blind-Faith1 minute ago
  • SBT2 minutes ago
  • SBAndy5 minutes ago
  • CCFCSteve13 minutes ago
  • carina_ann13 minutes ago
  • ... and 3 more.
  • Total: 39 (members: 10, guests: 29)
    Share:
    Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email
    • Home
    • Forums
    • General Discussion
    • Off Topic Chat
    • Default Style
    • Contact us
    • Terms and rules
    • Privacy policy
    • Help
    • Home
    Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2021 XenForo Ltd.
    Menu
    Log in

    Register

    • Home
    • Forums
      • New posts
      • Search forums
    • What's new
      • New posts
      • Latest activity
    • Members
      • Current visitors
    • Donate to the Season Ticket Fund
    X

    Privacy & Transparency

    We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

    • Personalized ads and content
    • Content measurement and audience insights

    Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

    X

    Privacy & Transparency

    We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

    • Personalized ads and content
    • Content measurement and audience insights

    Do you accept cookies and these technologies?