At least we still have juries, I hear you say? Well, only just. Juries, once held in high esteem by so-called political reformers, are the latest core democratic mainstay to be discarded for bogus and opportunistic reasons by this arbitrary and whimsical form of cabinet governance.
The English criminal jury system was developed and honed over the course of eight centuries. It has become the envy of the world as one of the fairest ways to determine guilt or innocence. A jury of 12 randomly chosen individuals has long been regarded as a vital bulwark against the excesses of government, the threats posed to basic human rights by oppressive legislation and, of course, arbitrary governance. It provides a constitutional and democratic safeguard unlike any other.
Quite so.
So, when do we get to hang them all?
What’s ironic is, if you’re proposing to hang them they should have a trial first. No doubt they’d prefer a jury trial, where a jury might be reluctant to convict on a capital offense, to a politically motivated judge.
So maybe a lynching rather than a formal hanging.?
Lynching does sound like a good idea!!!
How many kids these days know how to tie a noose properly? Can’t even do a sheepshank
The ‘guardian’ did publish a letter warning it was a mistake yesterday by a retired judge – because of the potential effects on ethnic minorities, of course!
But surely the wimmins are the worst affected? And what about the children?
What about the trannies and drag queens
According to the article David Lammy on 20 June 2020 had claimed “Jury trials are a fundamental part of our democratic settlement”.
What has changed since then? Power. He has become secretary of state for justice and lord chancellor. Absolute power.
A horrifying thought. From his “famous” performance on “Mastermind” he looks like he would be intellectually totally out-of-his-depth in a gnat’s bidet. The nearest he should get to a major office of state is to empty the waste-paper baskets.
What I find hugely ironic is the fantasy that sccording to MTK and Hermer it’s the far right that are the evil fascists, when Mr Hilter (c Python) proudly declared to his assembled admirers “I’m a proud socialist!”. And who constructed the law so that trials were no longer necessary and created the concept of “preventative arrest” to stop people the Nazis didn’t like from committing crimes in the future?
Getting rid of the jury is one of the first things to do if you plan tyranny. Not as important as fixing the selection of judges and exclusion of those who have the wrong views. But that part has already been done. So the defendant now will be tried, convicted and sentenced by a judge who works for the state after being prosecuted by a lawyer paid by the state.
I understand they’re thinking of this one in Oz, too.
Hong Kong right now.
British justice is a joke anyway. Counsel do not have the same jury selection powers as in the You Ess and the twelve good and true are just as likely to be biased as a judge may be.
I’m not sure that picking a jury with the intention of getting to an outcome of your choice is any better for determining the right outcome than 12 randoms.
This chap writes rarely but always interestingly.
https://barristerblogger.com/2026/03/08/3656/
If you want justice in Britain, take it.
You’ll do time when they catch you afterwards, but that’s just how it is. What else are you gonna do – phone the police? Lol.
The latest, quite breathtaking example being the staggering decision to allow the United States to use British airbases for an illegal war on Iran.
Why does this fat fool quote “laws” to men bearing JDAMs?
So breathtaking and staggering because it’s an “illegal” war against people who just wanted to peacefully nuke Tel Aviv. Lawyers are very smart, you see. They have concocted this fantasy of something called “international law” that never seems to apply to mass murder enthusiasts in Gaza or Tehran or terrorists but does apply to the only democracy in the Middle East and hapless retired squaddies who did a tour of Northern Ireland in 1992.
It’s all just foolish, gay, £300/hr words, natch. Easily overruled by a humble gravity bomb or a loving punch to the face. But the Western world remains in thrall to people who believe in the magic of words. Debate club kids and theatre gayboys were never meant to be our rulers. Scribes and fools are meant to scriven or entertain.
Beats me why Kier didn’t report Trump to the International Law Police. Isn’t that his legal duty? He’s an accessory now.
For real. I’m sure he’s the type to report things to the council.
But isn’t it amazing how Michael Mansfield QC can just declare things to be internationally illegal in the Guardian?
It’s almost as if “international law” just means the (many) prejudices of the lanyard class and their courts are Comment is Free and BBC News.
Pompey was right about these silly men and their silly beliefs in lexical thaumaturgy. International law was insufficient to prevent Iran enriching uranium to weapons grade and sponsoring international terrorism. International law did nothing to help those innocent Jewish girls dragged away by murderers on October 7th. Where were the rote howls of complacent jurisprudencial outrage then?
But now Israel and the United States are aerosolising ayatollahs, the international lawyers are enraged. Like a guy who watched you take a kicking from a mugger, then screams for the police when you hit back. He has made himself an accomplice of the criminal, wouldn’t you say?
Belief in the magic power of words is at the heart of Western civilisational decline. We reify ridiculous nonce-senses such as Equality, Diversity, and “International Law” (and all their silly subplots, involving “birth giving people”, transgender babies, and the institutional racism of NHS Maternity services) twice as hard when reality fails to play along. A Victorian time traveller would be appalled and disgusted at the state of our cities, but we insist on thinking we are more civilised than the Victorians. It’s only words, and words are all they have to take your heart away.
Doesn’t “International Law” go against Westphalia? Did she die in vain?
Even with a jury Lucy Letby was still sent down for the rest of her life to cover up major failings in the NHS.
A jury convicted Derek Chauvin for being the wrong colour in the wrong place while St Floyd was passing away due to an overdose that would have taken down an elephant.
A jury found Donald Trump guilty of battery and sexual assault despite the complete absence of evidence purely on the word of a crazy old lady.
Over here who would fancy placing their fate in the hands of 12 of their poorly educated and possibly also highly-politicised “peers”?
Have you got the emails in which it was decided she ought to be stitched up?
I dont expect to see them they are filed with the instructions to judges after Southport which went on to lock up Connelly.
If you can be locked up for saying ‘burn down the hotels for all I care*’ I would be careful about saying ‘when do we get to hang them all?’, Tim.
You might think you’re safe in Portugal, but then ‘punch them in the balls’ Linehan thought he was safe until he came home and (utterly scandalously) got nicked at Heathrow by armed cops.
*Yes I know the silly doris took bad legal advice and admitted an offence where clearly there was none, but she was held on remand for months first and warned that her trial might not take place for another year.
Burn down the disco.
Hang the blessed DJ.
She was convicted of disseminating material likely to incite racial hatred.
‘Racial hatred’ is not (yet, strictly speaking) an offence.
So. She was convicted of disseminating material likely to incite something lawful.
What a time to be alive!
The method used for choosing juries should be adopted for choosing the members of the House of Lords. With a time limited service.
Especially when they get rid of the Heredity ones.
You’ll be able to hang them shortly, and you won’t even need a jury to do it.