egg

You ain't Turkish, that much has been established. You're Farmer Saint. Anyways, welcome!

My posts related to Farmer's point that cases will be kept in the mags court meaning no jury trial. Pretty much everything that the protestors are likely to be charged with gives them the right to elect crown court trial if they want. The mags have limited sentencing powers though, so will push up an either way offences up to crown court if they feel it should be tried there, or after a guilty plea for sentence if they feel it could warrant a stronger sentence than they can impose.

Not sure why, but I was convinced ages ago that Turkish and Farmer Saint might be one and the same. I got that wrong!

Although I may talk nonsense about lots of things, I know what I'm talking about on this one. Arson, affray, criminal damage, violent disorder, assault (except GBH with intent), possession of an offensive weapon, assault police, are amongst the offences that you'd expect these people to be charged with. They are all either way offences. That gives the defendant the choice of crown court trial even if the magistrates think they can deal with it. Here's a bit more detail. Defence "right of election" to the Crown Court after not guilty plea 23. Where the magistrates consider the offence is suitable for summary trial, the defendant is told of this, and warned that, even after a summary trial, the magistrates may nevertheless send the defendant to the Crown Court for sentence where they feel the offence merits greater punishment than they have the power to impose. The defendant will then be asked: "Do you wish to be tried by this court or do you wish to be tried by a jury?" 24. A defendant therefore has to agree to a summary trial if this is the course of action to be followed, but has the right to "elect" or choose jury trial. In simple terms this means that the defendant still has the choice to elect a Crown Court trial even if the magistrates' court decides that a case is suitable for summary trial.

Cheers. You haven't sold it me!

No. The court doesn't decide in either way cases. A defendant has the right to elect crown court trial. Rape and murder are indictable only (crown court only) but the stiff these folks will be charged with will mostly be either way. It's only lesser crimes that are summary only (magistrates only).

Colour, and religious prejudice although I'd hazard a guess that a white Muslim wouldn't get any grief out there. I'd also suspect that a black Christian would get more grief than a white one. These idiots see white immigration differently. Nobody is telling me that a blond Australian doctor is be targeted walking around Southport. No way. If that doctor is a Syrian Muslim, he's bang in trouble.

The vast majority of cases that these people will be charged with are "either way" offences meaning that they can elect trial by jury. To remove that option, our whole criminal justice system would need ripping up, and our right to be tried by our peers for most offences taken from us. It ain't happening.

True, although being upset is a million miles away from what we're seeing now. My guess is that the people who were upset by Poles coming here to work will be even more upset that non white people are now doing that work. Would we have this nonsense if Brexit hadn't happened and the immigrant workers were white Europeans. Is suspect not, and although I may be wrong, my guess is that many of these protestors see black and white immigrants differently.

Genuine question - what would you be concerned about, and why?

I don't remember the riots mate.

What's that got to do with Alcaraz not being good enough with the ball when he has it?!

Are people opposed to mass immigration of white people, or is it just the brown ones? I get the impression that they're ok with the Aussies and Germans, but not the Syrians and Sudanese. Racism is at the core of this imo.

It doesn't matter what we think of ABK. Sounds like Martin and the players think he's a bit of a cock, and for that reason alone, he has to go. As for Alcaraz, I agree with Blackmore. He's decent running with the ball, busy with his running off the ball, pretty poor with the ball, and lacking in discipline. In a possession based team, that's no good, so he may as well go.

In principle, that's sensible. What do you have in mind?

As I say, at times like this, people show their true colours.

That's a hornets nest badger! I'm not going there - this place is already too much about posters rather than the posts and the issues.

Any chance of staying on topic Del rather than dredging up some random shite from years ago that everyone else had forgotten about, and couldn't give two shiny shits about in 2024.

SoG's back on the payroll so they're up to speed. (Sorry SoG, couldn't resist).

It wouldn't surprise me to see changes to statute and process to fast track where possible, but trial of either way or indictable offences without jury would need a revolutionary change to our legal system that I don't see happening. That said, there are a lot of part time judges out there who could be ticketed to here cases outside of their usual remit, so if nothing else its possible to push more people through the system with some thought and ingenuity. Starmer knows the system well, and has a very astute DPP, so let's see what happens.

Yep. Conflation is an easy tool for tools who ain't the sharpest tools. Stupid people, on here and out there, are showing themselves at the moment. Sad times.

I don't care what they believe they're good at, I judge them (and the players, and managers) on what they actually do. SR cannot be criticised for not putting money into the club. They went hell for leather at trying to keep us up. The problem is that the people they trusted to spend money wisely, spent it on absolute dross. No disrespect intended, but I'm not interested in VA FC.

Arson with intent carries a very long stretch, and should. The interesting thing is going to be whether the attitudes of the jurors trying these muppets is aligned to said muppets, or of normal people.

There's something in that. The bloke is dangerous and needs moderation.

Times like this are a great opportunity to cull social media "friends" and followers. The amount of people who I thought were decent have shown themselves to be proper eejits. One lass today posted that this is all justified because we don't want our country overrun by rapists and terrorists, whilst people like her old dad have to sit in the cold. A wee bit of conflation going on there. Apparently Farage will sort it out in five minutes. And that's the more sensible end of the posting spectrum.