Off Topic Politics Thread

I actually agree with the electric car tax tbh.

 

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.

 

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.