The Plain People of Britain don’t agree with me

Therefore the Plain People of Britain should have no say:

Why do away with one of the fundamentals of a decent justice system? Is the jury system not set up in order to better ensure fairness and justice, rather than relying on a crusty old Etonian in a wig?

Not in rape cases. If jurors were to receive the level of training and awareness-raising necessary to challenge the deep-rooted and highly persuasive myths about rape, the jury system would be more effective in dealing with sex crimes – but this would take more than a few words from the judge at the beginning of a trial, which is how it works at the moment.

That’s Julie Bindel and Julie Bindel can fuck right off.

For she’s missing the very point of the jury system itself. Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done. And that means that the Plain People of Britain get to decide, each and every time, whether a crime has been committed and whether it was ‘im wot done it.

There is vast evidence from the past that juries would not convict of hanging offences, would downgrade the value of thefts for example. There are cases of jury nullification (I can think of at least one Official Secrets Act one) where it was quite obvious that ‘im done it and bang to rights Guv and the jury simply said fuck off, no crime.

That this happens in rape cases is not a fault of the jury system, it’s the very point. There are those out there, perhaps you know one or two Julie, who insist that any penetrative sexual act is either tantamount to rape or is it. That is not the opinion of the Plain People of Britain and it is both they who sit on the juries and also they for whom the justice system is run.

That is, the entire point of the jury system is to have people who are not in receipt of the level of training and awareness’raising necessary to challenge the deep-rooted and highly persuasive myths about rape making the ultimate decision. Because what is a crime and what is the proof of a crime are, quite deliberately, decided by and defined by what those Plain People generally think.

Yes, meeting 12 random Brits is a horrifying experience, entirely agreed, and to have your life in their hands quite terrifying. But that’s as nothing to having the criminal justice system taken over by the Single Issue Fanatics who then get to impose their standards of evidence, definition and procedure upon all.

In fact Julie, that’s what the jury system is for. To stop the government, or any other fanatic like you, imposing a definition of a crime upon actions which the Plain People of Britain do not think is one.

Juries will happily shout Guilty! at those bang to rights on rape. And not so much where it’s a he said, she said, both boozed up and no one quite recalls. And that’s the point, that’s what the jury is for.

25 thoughts on “The Plain People of Britain don’t agree with me”

  1. Bindel is sure that the ‘right results’ aren’t being obtained. But maybe they are?

    Maybe this conviction rate genuinely reflects the right conviction rate for an offence that is often merely a case of ‘he said, she said’..?

  2. Having enabled travesties such as the Old Man trials (and Yewtree in general) the scuntskank sisterhood should now be given the chance to have Juries brainwashed by Marxian feminist garbage before any trial as well?

    Cheaper to just make accusation=guilt which is what the femmi-scum want anyway.

  3. The whole point is that those who have had the training etc can try and convince the jury that xxxx did happen because yyyy.
    But only if called to the stand or a lawyer in court presenting their case.

    I don’t need to have training on a particular thing to be able to be presented with evidence and hearsay then make up my mind based on whats presented.
    Not preconceived ideas, not based on training that says xxxx must have happened. But the information presented.

    You know what sticks in the mind of those people wanting changes? Our system works.
    Doesn’t necessarily work well but it works and it works mostly in the favour of the innocent, the wrongly accused, the ones for whom the evidence is circumstantial.
    There have been trials in the past where a single person decides. Some right travesties of justice. Even the victim claiming it wasn’t the accused.
    I would trust my life to 12 of my peers over monodominant fanatics with the ‘right’ training deciding anything.

  4. I’ve dealt with many cases where the jury plainly (I’ll never know for sure, because what goes on inside the jury room stays in the jury room) nullified a prosecution, for the jury’s own private reasons.

    The CPS has taken to enquiring of prosecutors, after an acquittal, whether the jury’s verdict was thus “perverse”.

    I assume data are therefore being gathered, so legislation can be introduced allowing the Crown to appeal acquittals.

  5. Bloke in North Dorset

    “I assume data are therefore being gathered, so legislation can be introduced allowing the Crown to appeal acquittals.”

    More erosion of double jeopardy and further loss of protection from the state?

  6. I seem to remember reading that majority-female juries are less likely to convict a man of rape that majority-male juries. Would that mean that women are misogynists?

  7. “Is the jury system not set up in order to better ensure fairness and justice, rather than relying on a crusty old Etonian in a wig?”

    The jury system long predates Eton. And wigs.

  8. Jonathan, no, it’s that we are only too well aware just how easy it is to cry ‘rape’ falsely. And just what the consequences are for the victim.

    So you’d better have a bloody good story to tell to convince us that rape is actually what happened.

  9. I’m not a barrister, but I know a bunch of them. My sister handles masses of very serious rape and child sex offences, mostly prosecuting, occasionally defending, and in her opinion most of the changes made to the system have simply encouraged jurors to sympathise with the defendant.

    Juries are not fucking stupid. They know that drunk woman shags drunk man is (mostly) not really rape, regardless of what she or he says the following day, and regardless of any jury direction or MOJ interference. If the defendant looks half decent in the dock he gets off, because the jurors have often been in precisely that situation themselves, and can see the way the wind is blowing.

    Of course, eventually we will probably move to specialist paid juries or judge-only trials, with only certain judges allowed to hear them.

    Again, just as Black Lives Matter is not about black lives but about dividing people, this is not about rape – this is about dividing men and women, because men and women form families and the family is the enemy of the authoritarian state.

  10. I think the double jeopardy law was wrong, once DNA came along. It should be used sparingly, and it has been, but it’s obviously wrong that a guilty murder suspect gets off, and later incontrovertible evidence is uncovered which proves his guilt and he can’t go before the court again.

  11. Another oddity is the offence of sexual assault. Juries *hate* convicting of sexual assault.

    The irony is that 99% of the time the behaviour alleged could be tried as a common assault, most likely left to the convict-him-as-soon-as-look-at-him magistrates, and the convictions so desired by people like Bindel would follow en masse.

  12. Difficult one. Cameras can lie, consent forms can be doctored, some people have special interests…

    I have a solution. All sex acts henceforth are to be conducted in public, duly witnessed by a panel of (say) 12 members of the general public.

  13. Another solution which Mzz Bindel may consider.

    All male babies to have their cocks and balls cut off at birth

  14. Pingback: We Have Such a System – Longrider

  15. Double Jeopardy was created to stop the scum of the state coming back again and again until the get the result they want.

    They should get one go and that is it. Murder as the crime makes sod all difference. They had their one chance and fluffed it–too bad.

  16. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Amen to that. So what if more evidence turns up later? There’s no statute of limitations on murder or rape, so if the prosecution has a weak case they can bloody well wait until they have a better one.

  17. But are juries s worldly as they once were.
    They are reared on reality shows and such like. Families are getting rarer. So limited experience there.
    And the state is heavily involved in sexual propaganda.

  18. Like anyone truly concerned about the welfare of women I’m sure that Bindel has written tirelessly and powerfully about the plight of women in Scandinavia and Europe being raped and assaulted on an unprecedented scale by newcomers of a certain persuasion….

    Oh, wait a moment, Google can’t find a ***ing word she has ever uttered on the subject.

    How curious.

  19. Bloke in North Dorset

    JS,

    Ditto women murdered by their families for supposedly bringing dishonour. Those are some fucked up cultures.

  20. Julie Bindel wants rape trials to be before a jury of twelve Julie Bindels.

    “Training and awareness-raising”. X days of propaganda, lies and brainwashing, with the most promising selected as a crack corps of witchsmellers to be posted around the country.

  21. Ecks honestly, at some point you have to give it a rest with this “scum of the state” rubbish. Of course there are plenty of scum of the state working in the police but the average detective or bobby who turns up to investigate a murder is just an average detective or bobby who wants to arrest the murderer and give the family of the victim, and indeed the victim himself, justice.

    In the days when there was little in the way of evidence, and the best way to secure a conviction was via a dodgy cell confession, double jeopardy had its place. But the fact is that there were people murdered in the 1980s and 90s whose killers simply could not be brought to justice given the state of the forensic arts at the time.

    It turns out that some of those killers left behind evidence which now can be used to convicted them. We should use it because we want to put killers in jail.

    We all know and accept that there will be murderers who are not convicted because the evidence is not there. That is simply something we have to accept. But where new evidence which was not previously available to the prosecution becomes available it should be used – this is not some kind of trick by the “scum of the state”, it is using evidence which was not previously available.

  22. But where new evidence which was not previously available to the prosecution becomes available it should be used – this is not some kind of trick by the “scum of the state”, it is using evidence which was not previously available.

    That’s a fair point. But the process to retry someone acquitted should be bloody difficult. If it became routine, then you and I both know Mr Ecks is right when he says the state will use it maliciously.

  23. @ Bloke in Wales

    ‘That’s a fair point. But the process to retry someone acquitted should be bloody difficult. If it became routine, then you and I both know Mr Ecks is right when he says the state will use it maliciously.’

    Yes, agree totally. (I did say ‘It should be used sparingly’.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *