I actually agree with the electric car tax tbh.
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I cannot believe how little comment this measure has attracted. It is a massive regression of rights that stem from 13th century. It needs to be vigorously contested.
I can understand that there are issues during complex fraud cases but surely juries are essential for quotidienne crimes like shop lifting , theft or murder where the fundamental elements are straightforward. I am really disappointed in this government and shocked if they seriously pursue this.
There has been alot of publicly over the course of last week about the delay in processing shop lifting cases. It was quite interesting with the conclusion that prosecution is not effective and takes top long. As the prisons are also full , prosecution is difficult to enforce.
I find it fascinating because we have reached a situation where it is too expensive and protracted to prosecute and there is nowhere to put the people found guilty of crimes. Am I alone in thinking that it is pointless pursuing criminals and that the endemic of shop lifting should be stopped by wealth distribution or reducing prices so shoplifting is no longer 'logical' for some?
On a wider scale , dispensing with juries will allow greater political control of the courts. It needs to be contested. The clauses of crime is the thing the government needs to address.
I don't see why, really. They're not intrinsically less polluting than low emission petrol vehicles; batteries are a problem, electricity isn't particularly clean energy as things stand, and electric cars are most unlikely to be the future of motoring.
Changing road tax to a mileage based system was inevitable once EV uptake rose. It's been floated for years and not surprised in the slightest.
An overhaul of the whole system within the next 10 years seems pretty likely.
An overhaul of the whole system within the next 10 years seems pretty likely.
Doesn't seem like a party position from the article?
They're not even close to the top 3 worst governments in the last 5 years, let alone history.
Your hyperbole on this labour government is routinely hilarious.
If you don't understand the importance of jury trials then that's your problem not mine. There's no need for hyperbole. As the former Appeal Court judge Lord Devlin put it "Trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than a wheel of the constitution, it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives." This government proposes to put out that lamp, taking away a centuries-old right that was forcibly extracted from the hands of tyrant. That alone makes it the worst government in our history.
Nice straw man you got there.
I don't think it should or will happen.
It does however highlight the backlog of trials in the UK justice system. The article you link suggests that crimes committed now won't see trial until 2029. That is an aberration and it is clear some kind of reform is required to expidite this. I won't pretend to know anything about how this can be achieved and I doubt you will either given your position of grandstanding about it.
Reading your post I think you've missed a lot of detail and there's certainly been plenty of comment across media.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy7vdvrnnvzo
"Secretary David Lammy is proposing to massively restrict the ancient right to a jury trial by only guaranteeing it for defendants facing rape, murder, manslaughter or other cases passing a public interest test.or other cases passing a public interest test.
But the MoJ said no final decision had been taken by the government.
Lammy, who is also deputy prime minister, wants to ask Parliament to end jury trials for defendants who would be jailed for up to five years." Three years recommended in the Leveson report on reform.
Read the Leveson report BBC article, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2m808kml0o note it's recommendations, and understand these are proposals for discussion about a much needed overhaul of the justice system. Some points:-
"Sir Brian has suggested having judge-only trials for certain cases such as fraud and bribery. Another recommendation involves having more out of court resolutions like cautions. He wants a new division of the Crown Court with two magistrates and a judge to handle less serious offences, and to increase the number of sentence reductions for guilty pleas at the first opportunity offered."
Among the recommendations are:-
- A reclassification of certain offences
- The creation of a new division of the Crown Court with two magistrates and a judge to handle "less serious offences", which would include some theft, burglary, and fraud offences
- Greater use of out of court resolutions - which would allow the police to deal quickly with lower level, often first time offending - including increased use of cautions and conditional cautions
- Removal of the right to elect trial in cases where the maximum sentence is two years' imprisonment with reclassification of some offences to "summary only" (meaning they will only be heard in a magistrates' court)
- The threshold for criminal damage being dealt with as a summary only offence to be increased from £5,000 to £10,000.
- Maximum sentence reduction increased to 40% for guilty pleas at first opportunity, encouraging quicker case resolution
- Judge-alone trials introduced either by election on the part of the defendant or for the most complex cases
Slippery slope to breaking ancient right of trial by your peers or pragmatic systemic changes to make the system more efficient - I am more of the second opinion
Yeah me too. Any attempts to politise the judiciary would met with huge opposition from all quarters.
The current crisis was largely triggered by the Covid lockdowns which shut the court system down, although it's clear there are other problems and productivity is lower than pre-Covid. Justice is one of the areas where government spending is actually worthwhile so in the short term you have to spend money on increasing capacity to bring down the backlog caused by shutting the system down for a long period. Recruit temporary admin staff, if necessary use judges from countries with similar legal systems, make use of alternative locations (from what I've seen council chambers don't get used that much) to run new courts. From memory, court rooms typically only operate from 10am to 4pm so extend those hours as well. Where necessary get the court buildings sorted out.
I've never worked in the court service itself and it's a long time since I worked for the probation service so I can't speak about the post-Covid fall in productivity (I know people working from home causes problems where I work, is it an issue here?) but I'm sure there are things that can be improved there.
Longer term I'd like to see a whole range of constitutional changes that I'd broadly describe as giving power back to elected representatives rather than unaccountable officials and those should reduce the number of court cases, but I really can't be bothered to get into all that because it'll lead to the same tedious conversations as usual.
Second ex UKIP and Farage associate (who lives in a chateau in France) suspected of receiving money from Russia.
It would be interested to explore where Farage gets his money from.
It would be interested to explore where Farage gets his money from.
Interesting reply!
Lots of things at play for sure and I have no doubt covid played some part in creating a backlog. I was actually in a jury during November 2020 at Southampton Magistrates Court and it was a bleak experience, 6 hours isolated in a plastic perspex box on day 1 with no phone signal being the lowlight!
I left thinking it was a slow and inefficient system with colossal amounts of historical traditions that if they really wanted to speed it up, they probanly could. Didn't help the case I was involved in was complete bullshit and the kid was acquitted inside 4-days following 3-years waiting for the trial with his life on hold. Probably took a week of about 40 people's time.
You must log in or register to see images
Former UKIP, then Brexit party MEP who spent years telling people in the UK to leave the EU but now lives in a chateau in France
David Coburn has not been charged with anything and there is no evidence that he has accepted bribes, but he is named in a series of WhatsApp messages with Nathan Gill who now sits in jail for 10.5 years for taking bribes from Russia
Why isn't the Labour government investigating Russian interference in UK politics?
Imagine, he tells people to leave the EU, the vote for it, and he hides away in a chateau in France - Brexit for you, not for him
David Coburn has not been charged with anything and there is no evidence that he has accepted bribes, but he is named in a series of WhatsApp messages with Nathan Gill who now sits in jail for 10.5 years for taking bribes from Russia
Why isn't the Labour government investigating Russian interference in UK politics?
Imagine, he tells people to leave the EU, the vote for it, and he hides away in a chateau in France - Brexit for you, not for him
You must log in or register to see media
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75vzp6kyzdo
Manchester to London train to run without passengers.
How stupid is this?
Manchester to London train to run without passengers.
How stupid is this?
How wrong is this? There must be someway they can be held accountable.
"Twelve retired police officers would have faced gross misconduct proceedings under today's laws over the Hillsborough disaster, a long-awaited report has found. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y9r863k4eo
Ex-South Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Peter Wright and ex-Ch Supt David Duckenfield are among officers who would have had cases to answer over the death of 97 Liverpool fans in the 1989 stadium crush.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct report found there were "fundamental failures" and "concerted efforts" to blame fans. Families say they "will never get justice".
The law was changed in 2017 so that ex-officers are able to answer misconduct charges, but not retrospectively. All 12 retired before investigations began in 2012.”
"Further vindication of what we knew already” say Garden Court North Chambers who represented some of the families.
https://gcnchambers.co.uk/further-v...polices-mishandling-of-hillsborough-disaster/
“The police promulgated a false narrative that the disaster was caused by late, drunk, ticketless fans – those are the three pillars of what was an industrial-scale cover-up”, Pete continued. “For the Head of the IOPC to not call it a cover-up, I find very surprising indeed, because through the Hillsborough Independent Panel and two years’ of inquest evidence, all three of those pillars of false narrative were completely taken apart. There was undoubtedly a cover-up. South Yorkshire Police themselves have accepted that senior officers told lies in the aftermath of the disaster.”
"Twelve retired police officers would have faced gross misconduct proceedings under today's laws over the Hillsborough disaster, a long-awaited report has found. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y9r863k4eo
Ex-South Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Peter Wright and ex-Ch Supt David Duckenfield are among officers who would have had cases to answer over the death of 97 Liverpool fans in the 1989 stadium crush.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct report found there were "fundamental failures" and "concerted efforts" to blame fans. Families say they "will never get justice".
The law was changed in 2017 so that ex-officers are able to answer misconduct charges, but not retrospectively. All 12 retired before investigations began in 2012.”
"Further vindication of what we knew already” say Garden Court North Chambers who represented some of the families.
https://gcnchambers.co.uk/further-v...polices-mishandling-of-hillsborough-disaster/
“The police promulgated a false narrative that the disaster was caused by late, drunk, ticketless fans – those are the three pillars of what was an industrial-scale cover-up”, Pete continued. “For the Head of the IOPC to not call it a cover-up, I find very surprising indeed, because through the Hillsborough Independent Panel and two years’ of inquest evidence, all three of those pillars of false narrative were completely taken apart. There was undoubtedly a cover-up. South Yorkshire Police themselves have accepted that senior officers told lies in the aftermath of the disaster.”