Utopia Talk / Politics / UK getting rid of trial by jury

Rugian rank	Wed Dec 03 21:40:11 LONDON — Britain will limit the right of some criminal defendants to a trial by jury — a cornerstone of British justice dating to Magna Carta in 1215 — in a bid to clear dangerously clogged court dockets, Justice Secretary David Lammy said Tuesday. Under the changes, defendants facing potential prison sentences of three years or less will no longer have the option of hearing their cases adjudicated by a panel of their peers. Instead, they will stand before a single judge, some in newly created “swift courts” designed to process cases about 20 percent faster than the traditional system, Lammy said in an address to the House of Commons. The proposal will require approval by Parliament, which is dominated by Lammy’s Labour Party, and the changes are expected to take force early next year. Lammy, who also serves as deputy prime minister, cast the changes as an emergency intervention for a judicial system with trials scheduled as far out as 2030, leaving some victims and defendants more than a thousand days from their day in court. Without changes, the bottleneck is on track to reach 100,000 pending cases in the next two years, he said. The shift affects criminal offenses ranging from nonviolent house burglary to threats to kill — crimes that currently can be tried either in magistrates’ courts or, at the defendant’s election, before juries in Crown Court, where criminal cases are tried. Under the new proposal, that choice would disappear for the lower tier of charges. The option of a jury trial will remain for murder, rape, robbery and other more serious charges, the government said.
obaminated rank	Wed Dec 03 21:51:59 Lol
Forwyn rank	Wed Dec 03 22:00:04 So when a Brit comes to the US and takes pics at the gun range and gets arrested when he comes back home, he can go before one of Seb's faggot judges to have it decided unilaterally. Awesome.
Rugian rank	Wed Dec 03 22:01:03 Yep
Pillz rank	Wed Dec 03 22:10:14 I mean, this is clearly so that British jurors don't have to contend with convicting and minority offenders. A jury of law abiding citizens is going to be much more inclined to convict a Somali or Pakistani or an Indian or an Afghan criminal than, say, a politically appointed judge. In the reverse, exactly what forwyn said.
Dukhat rank	Wed Dec 03 23:14:30 Jesus christ. So much made up shit over some random article that Rug didn't even bother to link. Dumb fuck incels.
Rugian rank	Thu Dec 04 00:08:17 Nothing made up. And I even used a leftist paper for the article. http://www...ain-jury-trials-court-backlog/ Do you need a napkin Dukhat? You know, for that egg on your face.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Dec 04 00:19:27 Lol cuckhat caught being retarded again.
Seb rank	Thu Dec 04 01:00:37 They aren't proposing to end jury trial. Magistrates trials are common and have always existed for low level crimes. There are a currently provisions that allow defendants to elect for a jury trial for some of those. Often they do so reflexively - often started counsel - and then wind up pleading guilty. To huge cost all around. This wouldn't be so much an issue except the conservatives (Michael Gove specifically) decided not to put in a spending review bid to HMT for the court system in 2015, resulting in a massive and increasing backlog in the courts due to lack of staff and failure to digitise the administrative processes. Treasury banked the savings and the conservative governments used that to fund tax cuts. We how have a massive backlog of crimes awaiting trial, which then often collapse when they do finally get to court because witnesses etc have moved on and are no longer willing to testify it their testimony is less credible due to the years of delay. At this point even raising more taxes and hiring people in to clear the backlog isn't going to work in any acceptable level of time; so this is the next best proposal. It's not particularly great but babbling on about Magna Carta is histrionic nonsense. Don't like it? Blame the conservatives for underfunding the criminal justice system for 15 years to the point it's more or less collapsed (actual courts *have* collapsed because there's no money to maintain the actual structure of the building) to fund tax cuts and pay for their Brexit wank fest. "So when a Brit comes to the US and takes pics at the gun range" How exactly is this a crime in the UK? ", a politically appointed judge." Judges aren't "politically appointed". This is not America. https://en...dicial_Appointments_Commission Indeed one of the main complaints by the right is that being independent, ministerial input into appointments has almost no weight; and they think actually "democratically elected politicians" should have more power to appoint judges so they can do the whole court stacking thing you do in the US where you find some barely literate corrupt drunkard, push them through law school and stick them in a gown and put them on supreme court provided they can remember to Scrawl "Trump is always right" in Crayon legibly enough for a clerk to type it up with some Latin around the edges to make it look official. I don't think we need taking any lessons from the cargo cult approach to the judiciary taken by the banana-peel republic.
Seb rank	Thu Dec 04 01:24:02 Magistrates courts have existed since before Magna Carta and have always had the power to convict and sentence without trial, by the way; which is why burbling on about Magna Carta (that brave Hungarian peasant girl! - look it up) is a great giveaway that the author doesn't know what they are talking about. You also have fucking bench trials for crimes you class "misdemeanors". In the UK we abolished the distinction a while back so we just have criminal offences that are either summary offences that can be dealt with by a magistrate or taken to trial. There are a range of crimes that are " either way". The effect of the reforms is to remove the right for the defendant in some circumstances for those either way cases to elect for a jury. The full details haven't been published, but I suspect it will be targeting the large number of cases where a defendant with overwhelming evidence against them opts for a jury trial raider than magistrate in the hope a jury might let them off if they tell their sob story of extenuating circumstances; then when they finally sit down with their barrister get told that this is incredibly unlikely, that the juried will normally convict based on the application of the law just like a magistrate, that they don't have a defence, and they'll get a lighter sentence by pleading guilty. Quite how they do this remains to be seen but also needs to be weighed against loads of criminals escaping justice due to court backlogs created by fucking low tax parasites that have run down the state to the point essential services like the CJS are no longer functioning. Sam. You fucktard.
Pillz rank	Thu Dec 04 01:52:03 We're all aware of the fact that for more minor charges, people in the UK and Canada can elect for a trial by judge. You just don't seem to recognize the significance of removing the choice. You are, through and through, a soulless morally deprived bureaucrat.
Forwyn rank	Thu Dec 04 03:48:34 '"So when a Brit comes to the US and takes pics at the gun range" How exactly is this a crime in the UK?' Ask the West Yorkshire police http://www...-arrested-gun-photo-us-holiday
Seb rank	Thu Dec 04 17:57:15 Pillz: "We're all aware of the fact that for more minor charges" Also in the US for misdemeanors. Where they don't have a choice. "You just don't seem to recognize the significance of removing the choice." I do, but also recognise at this point, it is also potentially the least worst option given that so many of those either way cases electing jury trials wind up pleading guilty just before the trial starts. Whereas you seem to think that criminals going free precisely because the prosecution drops the case due to witnesses - including the victim - backing out in the many years it is taking you get to trial. Forwyn: Congratulations on posting a link that explicitly demonstrates this isn't a crime at all, this demonstrating it won't ever come before a "faggot judge". Well done. I'm not sure it's what you intend to show, but congratulations on settling the issue.
Forwyn rank	Thu Dec 04 18:02:16 If one of your kebabs were subjected to that treatment you would cry.
Pillz rank	Thu Dec 04 19:43:29 If it isn't a crime why was he arrested seb???
Sam Adams rank	Fri Dec 05 01:13:41 The process is often the punishment, when corrupt governments know they are wrong but still want to flex their power against undesirables(in this case white people but the UK has a special hatred for white males in particular)
Dukhat rank	Fri Dec 05 04:54:25 Look at these conservative cupcakes triggering themselves and getting extremely angry over nothing. When it's clear the purpose of shit like this is to feed their whataboutism when Republicans do actual things to harm our freedoms inside the US. Cucked through and through.
Pillz rank	Fri Dec 05 06:58:19 Cuckhat is an avid follower of adam22
Pillz rank	Fri Dec 05 13:07:30 https://ha...ineCommunicationOffenceArrests The UK arrests an average of 13k people per year for online posts. "The tendency to police—literally—what people are saying has been encouraged and enabled by not just this Government but their predecessors. The Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, specifically Sections 1 and 127, give the police the power to arrest individuals for what they say online. On average, 30 people are arrested daily. In 2014, under the coalition Government, something called non-crime hate incidents were introduced—words uttered that are not yet criminal in themselves but which the police should officially record none the less and hold against people. Since 2014, more than 133,000 such incidents have been recorded; that is more than 13,000 each year. Some of those who have had their names recorded in police files are children whose words were taken down when they were below the age of criminal responsibility and may be held against them for the rest of their lives. The innocence of youth has been replaced with the presumption of guilt." Guess what the average sentencing guidelines are for the two laws in question? 6 months to 2 years! https://se...unication-network-offences.pdf (Maximum of 6 months) https://ww...pga/1988/27/section/1#:~:text=(a)on%20conviction%20on%20indictment (2 years maximum) Really, what would be good to know is whether or not swift courts we'll have a hard, fixed scope of being a summary judgments, which would bring the maximum down to one year in the case of the malicious communications act of 1998. For some reason, I sincerely doubt that swift court convictions are going to be limited to the sentencing guidelines assigned to summary judgments.
Pillz rank	Fri Dec 05 13:08:06 https://ww...kpga/1988/27/section/1#:~:text(a)on%20conviction%20on%20indictment,a%20fine%20(or%20both).
Pillz rank	Fri Dec 05 13:08:53 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1#
Pillz rank	Fri Dec 05 13:14:11 From the first link: "with 90% of all crime going unsolved in 2023 and 89% of violent or sexual offences going unsolved in 2024" Please justify and defend this seb. Explain to us how the united kingdom is a functional state. Bonus points if you can find a way to use the word democracy in the post without sounding like you have tourettes
Pillz rank	Fri Dec 05 13:30:46 For comparison, in the US, closing of those cases sits at roughly 80%. And the average perpetrator once convicted serves 16 years before parole. In the UK, the average perpetrator is going to serve 4.5 to 5 years before parole. Repeat offenders in the U.S. are going to get life sentences. Life sentences in the United States typically mean life. The offender is going to die in prison. A life sentence in the UK is 15 to 20 years and they only have to serve 65% of that before parole. So they're out in 12 in like pretty much the best case scenario for the UK justice system. percenvism rates for rape in the U.S. sit at 7.7 percent, primarily because offenders spend so much of their lives in prison that they're just typically not physically capable of reoffending. In the UK, the recidivism rate for rape is upwards 11 to 12%. I mean, to be honest with you, just looking at the situation, we should encourage the United Kingdom to continue this. We should encourage SEB to continue this. Because the more they insist on following down this path, the quicker the United Kingdom is going to self-correct and overthrow the liberal elite class that is trying to destroy them.
Pillz rank	Fri Dec 05 13:47:36 I'll do the math for cuckhat and murder and seb and Hrothgar: 20% is almost double 11% 16 years is almost 400% more than 4.5 years 11% is almost 50% more than 7.7%. And all Seb sees when he looks at these numbers is racism towards African Americans.... And equality and social justice for barbarian rapists
Seb rank	Fri Dec 05 18:00:35 Pillz: Because the police incorrectly thought it was a crime and the whole article is about how the police were very wrong.
Seb rank	Fri Dec 05 18:47:00 Sam: Unlike the US, we have somewhat effective measures to hold the police to account. Also the process wouldn't be a punishment if Sam's hadn't decided courts were pointless bureaucracy and cut their budgets so it takes years to take decisions and get to trial. Idiots like you fucked the system. Pillz: How many Americans do US police forces arrest for simply flexing their right index finger. "Guess what the average sentencing guidelines are for the two laws in question?" Lol. Yes it's very meaningful to take the sentence for the most extreme offense under the online communications bill add it to the sentence for the least, divide it by three and then pretend it reflects the sentence for all offences under that bill, the vast majority will be a summary offence with a fine or community service. This is a completely sane and sensible thing to do rather than just post the stats on the median sentence actually awarded for those convicted. But it wouldn't give you the answer you want. But even then you fucked up. The sentencing guidelines for the first link show the custodial sentence would only apply to category 1 offences. N.b. for summary offences under the malicious communications act, the 2003 act would likely be used. The malicious communications act would be used for things like posting revenge porn that were of a more serious nature. "Really, what would be good to know is whether or not swift courts we'll have a hard, fixed scope of being a summary judgments" That's exactly the proposal. For offences that can be tried either way, you'd not have the option of going to a criminal court, you'd go to a magistrates court and magistrates aren't able to provide higher sentences. "Please justify and defend this seb." Firstly, the statement isn't accurate. The statistic refers to a guardian report on crimes in 2023 that were *unresolved* which means "didn't result in a conviction/acquittal" and the main reason for this is a trial not taking pace. https://ww...olved-in-uk-hotspots-last-year Hint: if it takes on average in excess of 5 years for charges to get to criminal trial, then is it unsurprising that most violent and sexual crimes that are not summary offences and require criminal trials committed in 2023 have not gone before a court in 2025. I'll give you a hint. 2025-2023 = 2. 2 < 5. So can I explain? Yes. Can I justify? No. It's unjustifiable but then, is it for me to account for 15 years of conservative governments that have implemented the very policies people like you and Sam call for; lower taxes, lower public spending and getting rid of "bureaucrats". The fact this has had the opposite effect that you would predict is not at all surprising to me. Doubling down on talking points like "we need to spend more on bobbies on the beat and less on pointless back office roles" doesn't Communications offences of the kind you feel are terrible are really easy to prove and prosecute. I already mentioned: Violent and sexual offences without CCTV (reminder, you also hate CCTV) are much harder to prove and require things like forensic evidence, and timely access to medical services to capture that evidence. However, processing that evidence is exactly the backroom roles that have been defunded thanks to the almost homoerotic obsession conservative voters have of crime being fought by big strong manly men on the street. It also means witnesses that are willing to turn up 5 years later when it gets to trial. And what you often find is when you have decided to essentially defund the courts and prosecutors, people don't want to have their lives on hold and basically withdraw cooperation. And then the police, who are being held to efficiency targets set by (again) conservatives focus on crimes they can shove through magistrates courts quickly because they know time spent investigating crimes that will never go to trial makes them look unproductive. The solution? Raise more tax and fund more police. "And the average perpetrator once convicted serves 16 years before parole. In the UK, the average perpetrator is going to serve 4.5 to 5 years before parole." We've looked at this before though, and the category isn't equivalent - there are loads of crimes in the UK category that the US doesn't consider offences but the UK does, but with lower sentences. So for example illegally carrying a knife is considered part of the violent crime category, but does not often result in a custodial sentence. Similarly some of the things the UK considers sexual assault are not considered as such in many US states.
Seb rank	Fri Dec 05 18:49:59 Also note: You hate that we criminalise this activity you are now complaining at don't sentence high enough or bring to court quick enough. You sure make a lot of sense Pillz.
Pillz rank	Fri Dec 05 20:14:28 I don't know where you fell apart reading my posts, but nothing you've said makes any sense. I posted the maximum sentencing guidelines for both of your communication laws. Then I shifted subjects to discuss your nation's failure to enforce law and protected citizenry through effective criminal justice countermeasures. The reason I went from the Communications Act to rape and sexual assault is because your government would prioritize the former. Also, the fact that you're going to claim that you need more CCTV to prosecute more sexual assault when you have far and away more CCTV cameras than the United States does. And I've already proven that the United States is many times more effective at this than you are. None of your posts make sense, because it's all cope and it's very poorly thought out cope. How you read my posts and thought that somehow I was confusing your swift courts with the process that would handle violent and sexual assaults. I have no idea, sir. These are completely unrelated things legally. I understand that distinction. I'm saying that your country is cucked and has misprioritized everything and the difference in Statistics regarding rape and sexual assault between the two countries is evidence of that. On top of the fact that, you know, everyone persecuted under your fucking communications acts is going to end up in a swift court. You stupid bitch.
Pillz rank	Fri Dec 05 20:23:25 "How many Americans do US police forces arrest for simply flexing their right index finger." I called it. I called it, by the way. I ignored this line in my response, but I gotta pointed out. I called it. All you see is racism. And you're going to say that arresting people for giving cops the finger is far worse than arresting people for posting on Facebook. But it is not. You're just morally bankrupt. Your state has some of the worst law enforcement statistics in the civilized world and all of your responses to that problem are illogical and unjust.
Seb rank	Fri Dec 05 20:47:49 Pillz: "Guess what the average sentencing guidelines are for the two laws in question? 6 months to 2 years!" You posted the maximum sentence the law allows, not "the average sentencing guidelines". The median sentence for convictions under the offences you cite would not be custodial at all. They would be a fine and light community service.
Seb rank	Fri Dec 05 20:49:00 I addressed your points in detail. I think the issue here is more that you can't even keep track of what you claimed to post "average sentences" or maximum sentences.
Seb rank	Fri Dec 05 20:55:31 "The reason I went from the Communications Act to rape and sexual assault is because your government would prioritize the former." Except that's not at all correct, and in fact the govt specifically asks the police to prioritise the latter. You don't understand how policing works, what operational independence means and so you attribute what they police do to govt policy. You don't understand the statistics you are posting, so you draw erroneous conclusions about what the police are doing and prioritising based on figures that largely reflect the break down if the court system. You attribute outcomes arising from chronic underfunding (following policies you advocate for and *continue* to advocate for despite the very clear evidence they don't work, evidence that in your ignorance and stupidity you think demonstrates the opposite) and rail against a phantom that doesn't exist. The basic problem here is you are mad that hate crimes exist, so suddenly you are citing stats about sentences for crimes that in other threads *you have said shouldn't be considered crimes* as proof sentencing is too lenient; to cobble up a case that police should stop enforcing laws you don't like while also continuing to support the things that are preventing police investigations of violent and sexual assault actually resulting in prosecutions and convictions.
Seb rank	Fri Dec 05 20:58:40 Pillz: "I called it" You didn't. You clearly misunderstood the point entirely. This has nothing to do with giving people the finger. It was your continued disingenuous trivialisation of offences by describing the mechanism by which the offence was committed rather than the offense itself. I'm referring here to shooting someone as "merely flexing their finger" satirising your dishonesty.
Seb rank	Fri Dec 05 21:13:10 And also, yes, sticking a finger up at a police officer is nowhere near as serious as posting revenge porn or inviting violence, which is the kind of stuff that actually gets prosecuted under the acts you cite.
Pillz rank	Fri Dec 05 21:48:56 Okay we're gonna have to devolve into something a little more crude here because clearly my quote and the sources I linked to list the maximum sentence you're correct I made a grammatical error when I said average I don't know why the average as I I phrased it versus the maximum makes any difference when clearly the point I'm trying to make and this is obvious no matter what way you decide to look at or read this is that under this new Swift Court system, all of these offenses under the Communications Acts of 2003 and 1998 are going to be tried in Swift Courts because the maximums do not exceed three years. Let's just establish that since you're having a very fucking difficult time understanding now. Step. It's not like you're prosecuting 30 cases a day of revenge porn, okay? And even if you wanted to make the case that, you know, one of the greatest obstacles for society and law enforcement in the 21st century is in fact posting revenge porn. Why are the same laws used to prosecute revenge porn being used to prosecute people posting on Facebook and Instagram and Twitter? You're either looking at misappropriation of the legislative and justice systems or its intentional seb. You can't really have your imagined fairy tail way. Also, I, I don't know, okay, since we're going to focus on grammatical errors, I'm going to have to assume that you've made an error in claiming that I'm upset that hate crimes exist. I couldn't be happier that hate crimes as you define them exist. You're the one who's upset that these things exist, and you've decided to categorize them as hate crimes, with no legitimate authority to do so, but hey, that's where we are.
Pillz rank	Fri Dec 05 21:49:51 voice2text failed me, what a run on sentence =/
Pillz rank	Fri Dec 05 21:52:18 Since we're both multi-posting, I'm just gonna go ahead and do this. You see how I looked at what you said, identified that you must be mistaken because it's impossible you think I'm upset that hate crimes exist, and corrected, and addressed it under that correction. You see, but you decided that 'he's talking about maximum sentences. He's posting maximum sentences, but he said average. We've got to focus on the average.' This is just further proof. It's another symptom of the fact that you don't have any place in western civilization, so you are not even a cancer. You're a virus.
Seb rank	Fri Dec 05 23:22:32 Pillz: You didn't make a grammatical error, you were entirely disingenuous - taking a maximum sentence for a category one offence which might be, say, posting non-consensual naked pictures of your ex wife on social media; and pretending it applies to a category 3 summary offence, which as we covered in a previous thread in the last few weeks, still requires something a reasonable person would consider grossly offensive, not just "being rude on Facebook".
Seb rank	Fri Dec 05 23:28:52 "all of these offenses under the Communications Acts of 2003 and 1998" No, firstly the more serious offences under the communications act 1998 aren't "either way" so will go to trial; and the either way offences are now covered by the communications act 2003 offences which are already summary offences tried by, as you put it, "faggot judges". Once again you don't know what you are talking about.
Seb rank	Fri Dec 05 23:30:01 "It's not like you're prosecuting 30 cases a day of revenge porn" And yet you are trying to characterise the sentencing guidelines for that offence as relating to merely being grossly offensive. Don't blame me for the distortions in truth you are making.
Seb rank	Fri Dec 05 23:34:52 "We've got to focus on the average." Well yes. But not because you said "average", but because the kinds of examples of actual offences you are talking about, racists being racist to people in grossly offensive ways, which constitute median type of those figures for the number of prosecutions, *do not carry a custodial sentence* so using the maximum sentence for the worst possible offence to characterise the least severe offence is simply dishonest. Or stupid. Honestly I can't work out with you. Probably both. I think possibly the issue is you don't really understand criminal law at all, but think you do because you can read the plain text but have no idea how it's actually applied and are too thick and lazy to work it out yourself.
Pillz rank	Sun Dec 07 11:58:12 https://ww...itarian-state-trial-by-jury-uk The former chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales and former chair of the Criminal Bar Association Mark Fenhalls KC, 23 Essex Street chambers Mark Fenhalls’ support of juries is unequivocal. “The jury system is a profoundly important process engaging the public in critical decisions that affect the liberty of others. No one has ever presented any convincing evidence that juries do not understand the issues they are resolving even in the most complex of frauds,” he says. As well as believing that jury trials are important for “democracy, social engagement, and participation in society, and not disenfranchising people”, Fenhalls also argues that limiting them would do nothing to address the backlog. “Putting aside all the emotion and rhetoric of this debate, the suggestions leaked and floated by the government will not work,” he says. “The answer lies not in shiny legislation beloved of legislators but in more prosaic efficiency measures that have succeeded in some parts of the country where there is almost no backlog at all.” The retired judge Chris Kinch was the resident judge at Woolwich crown court from 2013 to 2024 and sat on the court of appeal Since being called to the bar in 1976, Chris Kinch has witnessed the workings of many juries. “I’m a huge believer in jury trials and I get very upset when people talk about juries not understanding evidence,” he says. “In the cases I’ve tried, juries really knuckle down to it.” During his career he says there have been many occasions when a barrister has made a statement as fact only for it to be rightly questioned by a juror pointing to evidence heard in the court. “They draw everybody’s attention to a hole in the argument, they pay attention and they pick things up.” Kinch also argues that by removing juries in many trials, judges would be put under a much heavier burden, pointing to an increase in hostility towards the judiciary. “I worry this could go very badly wrong,” he says. “It’s a privilege to manage juries and run that part of the system, and I am very sorry to see it diminished.”
Seb rank	Sun Dec 07 13:58:41 Pillz: "The defendant Abrar Javid, one of the Rotherham 12 who fought with far-right extremists after attending an anti-racism protest in Rotherham and were cleared of violent disorder in 2016 Abrar Javid remembers seeing the jury who would try him and the other men of Pakistani heritage who had been arrested and charged with violent disorder after a clash with Britain First demonstrators. High-profile grooming gang trials had brought infamy to Rotherham and a spotlight on its British Pakistani community. Britain First had organised 14 protests in the town over a year. In August 2015, Mushin Ahmed, 81, was murdered in a racist attack. “As defendants, we were really concerned,” Javid says. “We thought we would be up against a jury with certain stereotypes about Pakistani men from Rotherham, even though we had absolutely nothing to do with the grooming scandal. We thought it was hook, line and sinker, we were done for. Slam dunk.” But over a six-week trial the all-white jury listened carefully, he noticed. “They seemed quite a good mix of young, old, men, women,” he says. Finally, all 10 men who were on trial were found not guilty. Two men who had pleaded guilty applied to change their plea and the prosecution offered no evidence against them. “Before my trial I thought negatively of the criminal justice system,” Javid says. “But my trial restored my faith that there’s a system that, while not perfect, is an opportunity still to be heard fairly. And I think having jury members is an essential and fundamental part of that system.” Kinda the opposite to what you were saying earlier.
Pillz rank	Sun Dec 07 19:04:05 Roflmao Congratulations on finding an anecdote in your favor. Notice how quickly Seb, who is always here to defer to the law and the nuance of regulation and bureaucracy, how quickly he just discards the opinions judges & experts to side with some random Pakistani who's probably raped 18 young girls.
Seb rank	Sun Dec 07 19:20:13 Pillz: I haven't discarded them. I'm merely pointing out your cherry picking your own sources. Nobody is saying trial by jury lacks value. What that are saying is that we have an insurmountable backlog of cases and the crown courts are jammed up.
Seb rank	Sun Dec 07 19:24:47 You'll probably say something about "stop prosecuting thought crimes" even though we have covered explicitly twice now that these crimes are summary offences anyway. Then you'll say something about police should focus more on serious crimes, even though the reason these aren't getting resolved is predominantly the delay of getting to court. The delay is caused by the absence of your hated bureaucrats (be they administrative staff or those doing the kinds of job I used to do going in and fixing processes to be more efficient) and absences of "faggot judges" and crumbling buildings. More spending needed. But that means more tax, but you don't like that either. The story here ought to be "for 15: years ere conservatives neglected one of the primary functions of government to enable tax cutting and pay for its insane Brexit project".
Pillz rank	Mon Dec 08 16:48:18 I'm not even gonna respond to you because you're a corrupt self loathing rodent, seb https://x.com/i/trending/1995923709467463760 Nazi symbolism is 20 months jail. Raping a 14yo is suspended sentence due to over crowding. Meanwhile you have Muslims actively practicing and preaching sharia law every day, and people actively praising communism - so how Nazi symbolism is an issue I can't tell you. I'm sure you can think of some retarded explanation. Your backlog is because your system is broken. The answer isn't to suspend due process (or sentences) or access to juries. It is to fix your system. But that's racist, and implies you've made errors, which is not acceptable to you or your masters. 'If only we raised taxes a little more, we'd have enough!' - this is you. Taking and stealing and withholding, trying to bend the nation and people to your will. Thank god we've done away with the pretense we live in democracies, so I don't have to discuss how that is anti-democratic. Oh shit, inb4 seb says the rapist immigrats are people too and they don't wanna go to jail so it's actually super fair and democratic and equitable.
Pillz rank	Mon Dec 08 16:52:00 Like, just the absurdity that we've had this discussion agreed both of us, that rape doesn't fall under the purview of this law. But then we have to come face to face with the fact that a rape conviction in the United Kingdom actually does not equate to jail time. Because we've got to throw in people who put up offensive fucking posts on X in jail instead. So, as the jails become overcrowded with these magistrate judges and these swift courts, how many more rapists are going to be released, Seb? Are you going to defer jail sentences for people who post Swastikas so that rapists can stay in jail? I don't think so, doesn't seem like the will of the crown.
Seb rank	Mon Dec 08 19:54:42 Pillz: The first guy pleaded guilty and admitted in court that he was actively seeking to incite hatred and violence against Jews. He falsely accused them of 9/11, claimed the Holocaust a fraud, amongst many other things. And he actively sought to monetise his posts. So yes, a very serious crime: somebody admitting to trying to invite violence, make money off of it - well if that's not given a very strong sentence then you'll have everyone doing it. Rees Newman on the utter hand was jailed for rape of a girl of 14. He's 33. That's pretty bad right? Only the rape took place in 2005. 20 years ago. When he was 13. Note that under UK law, even if they consented - that's still rape. I would be interested to understand the circumstances of the case but I can't find it due to all the right wing newspapers trying to pretend this is a case about a paedophile being let off jail because the jail's are full of racist tweeters. Do you understand why there's a significant difference in sentencing now, and why courts would prioritise jailing the first, but see less priority in jailing a 33 year old man for a crime committed as a minor 20 years ago if there's been no re-offence since (and quite possibly the crime may actually be something that some US states do not consider a crime at all). Do you understand how you've been mislead here Pillz? And all you needed to do was use Google. So
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: