All Activity

For those who do not trust ChatGPT, here is a more in depth look at the “far right” ideologies. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d8b882740f0b6098d33fefa/Joe_Mulhall_-_Modernising_and_Mainstreaming_The_Contemporary_British_Far_Right.pdf

The quality of the tribunal determining a case is an altogether different issue to a massive change to the criminal justice system. For what it's worth, I'd prefer 3 lay magistrates deciding a less complex case to a single judge.

For me, the line on either way cases was about right. Burglary, most assaults, theft, all of that and more should remain triable by jury.

Is it wrong? It takes information from elsewhere and it no different from other definitions elsewhere. As for being a fool, I will let the guy who takes our philosophy class know that he is a fool as he uses ChatGPT to précis points of Plato’s Republic for us.

Antiscienza, love it 🤣

Presumably everyone thinks there are untold miscarriages of justice currently being presided by magistrates?

Not all cases are tried by our peers so where do you draw the line?

Exactly. Anything that speeds up the process and fewer trials by jury will do that. Putting a jury trial together is a very time consuming process administratively. I know, I used to manage the process. Multiply that by 8 to 10 courts every day with 12 jurors in each. There hasn’t been a trial by jury in Northern Ireland for decades, for obvious reasons. The justice system still works there. The legal system in this country in very averse to change and it is no wonder there is a measure of resistance. When we worked for the CPS my wife was responsible for implementing the use of electronic files in court in the SE Area (Kent, Surrey & Sussex). It was long overdue but the resistance from the courts, chambers and a number of our own lawyers still gives her nightmares years later. For those who think that the jury system is sacrosanct I suggest that they watch The Jury: Murder Trial. The only thing you can be sure of with a jury trial is that there will be a verdict (unless there is a hung jury of course). It will not necessarily be the right verdict and I will refer back to the OJ Simpson verdict as evidence that even the most clear cut case can produce the wrong verdict by jury. Juries are fallible. Judges are fallible, but have a much greater depth of experience. To look at it simplistically we are actually taking 12 fallible components out of the trial process in not so serious cases and replacing them with one not so fallible component. ………….. How long before AI gets involved?

It is a real shame as he's shown he's a good player on the rare occasion, so is it just consistency or laziness or indeed both?

Alright mate, calm down. I don’t like the speak either but I used that terminology just off the cuff.

I'd play Hopkins ahead of Downs and see how Evans worked out on a radio phone in show.

That’s all well and good, but do you fancy Katie Hopkins and do you think Ched Evans was a good player?

I beg it happens!

They've been watching, they've been waiting, in the shadows for their time.

@sockeye fair enough. Just trying to tempt back some of the good posters who haven't posted since 2009 (and you can see why!)

When the fuck did the world decide to start talking about football as if they're a management consultant?? "sequences" so you mean attacks, "cycle of the ball" so you mean passing? It's this sort of god awful nerd speak that's let idiots. like Ramus and Martin to get a foothold in the game

Quite. The only thing being changed is how and where people are being tried. Resources are needed across the system to accommodate it. The CPS will need staff and money, police witnesses will need to attend, defendant's will need funded solicitor and barrister representation, probation will need to report then assist after sentence, prison space and staff will be needed for those imprisoned, etc. Billions are needed to deal just with the above. That's before we address minor issues like the judiciary to hear the cases, and court space. The only advantage in that respect is that there's scarce court space with juror seating, and I'm assuming the many civil courts will be slightly repurposed to accommodate criminal cases which is doable without a need to accommodate jurors. The jury system is not the issue though.

Like clockwork 👌

Not sure, but as the current system is absurdly slow i think we have to try anything within reason.

Just get rid of laws and crime will go away in no time.

If there are shortages of Judges Barristers, and Magistrates, and a lack of resource within the CPS how do the changes help ?

Something had to be done, the new verison isn't perfect but unless you invest billions in the system it will continue to drag trials out for years which isn't fair on the victims or the accused.

That's the whole point. The jury system is about being tried by our peers.

And don't forget Nick Leeson's more historic tenuous link with Saints. I'm sure I read that Rupert Lowe first employed him in his banking career.

I was talking to @pornhub the other day, they didn’t seem to add a lot of information of any value on this particular subject, although we did find other common areas of interest, so it wasn’t a total waste of time.