Discussion:
Legislation to suspend jury trials could be passed within weeks
(too old to reply)
James Hammerton
2020-06-23 23:55:50 UTC
Permalink
See:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legislation-to-abolish-some-jury-trials-could-be-passed-within-weeks/5104739.article

"Buckland told MPs on the justice select committee
that operating either-way cases without juries is
now under serious discussion, as the backlog of
cases forces radical change to the criminal justice
system.

He confirmed that 200 extra sites were required to
deal with the rising number of cases waiting to be
heard, with 10 alternative venues signed off this
week. Buckland described trials with just a judge
and two magistrates as a ‘last resort’ but said this
option would provide an extra 40% capacity. His
preferred option, which is to reduce the number of
jurors to seven, would increase capacity by only
5-10%. Buckland suggested that a one judge-two
magistrates option would apply only to cases where
the maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment.

He confirmed that the government wants to implemeant
one of the two options by September, which would
require primary legislation to be brought forward
before parliament goes into recess on 21 July."

Regards,

James
MM
2020-06-26 11:07:59 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:55:50 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legislation-to-abolish-some-jury-trials-could-be-passed-within-weeks/5104739.article
"Buckland told MPs on the justice select committee
that operating either-way cases without juries is
now under serious discussion, as the backlog of
cases forces radical change to the criminal justice
system.
He confirmed that 200 extra sites were required to
deal with the rising number of cases waiting to be
heard, with 10 alternative venues signed off this
week. Buckland described trials with just a judge
and two magistrates as a ‘last resort’ but said this
option would provide an extra 40% capacity. His
preferred option, which is to reduce the number of
jurors to seven, would increase capacity by only
5-10%. Buckland suggested that a one judge-two
magistrates option would apply only to cases where
the maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment.
He confirmed that the government wants to implemeant
one of the two options by September, which would
require primary legislation to be brought forward
before parliament goes into recess on 21 July."
I've argued before for the dissolution of the jury system, so if
Covid-19 manages to achieve it, it's all good.

How on earth can one justify a system whereby 12 laymen off the street
get to decide instead of trained, experienced legal minds?

MM
Pancho
2020-06-26 11:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
I've argued before for the dissolution of the jury system, so if
Covid-19 manages to achieve it, it's all good.
How on earth can one justify a system whereby 12 laymen off the street
get to decide instead of trained, experienced legal minds?
Because it ensures the law and its enforcement are acceptable to the man
on the Clapham omnibus.

The trained, experienced legal minds can decide which cases to present
to a Jury.

This is an invaluable check on tyrannical power.

It doesn't seem a particularly onerous burden to me. I have never been
called to jury service, but would regard it as reasonable to sacrifice a
few weeks of my life for this purpose.
Joe
2020-06-26 12:31:15 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:17:17 +0100
Post by Pancho
Post by MM
I've argued before for the dissolution of the jury system, so if
Covid-19 manages to achieve it, it's all good.
How on earth can one justify a system whereby 12 laymen off the
street get to decide instead of trained, experienced legal minds?
Because it ensures the law and its enforcement are acceptable to the
man on the Clapham omnibus.
The trained, experienced legal minds can decide which cases to
present to a Jury.
This is an invaluable check on tyrannical power.
It doesn't seem a particularly onerous burden to me. I have never
been called to jury service, but would regard it as reasonable to
sacrifice a few weeks of my life for this purpose.
Ah, well, you're unusual. Most of the brighter people have their
employers claim that they are indispensable. I've done two stints,less
than a week both times, but in a Crown court there is always a risk of
drawing a six-monther.
--
Joe
Incubus
2020-06-26 14:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:17:17 +0100
Post by Pancho
Post by MM
I've argued before for the dissolution of the jury system, so if
Covid-19 manages to achieve it, it's all good.
How on earth can one justify a system whereby 12 laymen off the
street get to decide instead of trained, experienced legal minds?
Because it ensures the law and its enforcement are acceptable to the
man on the Clapham omnibus.
The trained, experienced legal minds can decide which cases to
present to a Jury.
This is an invaluable check on tyrannical power.
It doesn't seem a particularly onerous burden to me. I have never
been called to jury service, but would regard it as reasonable to
sacrifice a few weeks of my life for this purpose.
Ah, well, you're unusual. Most of the brighter people have their
employers claim that they are indispensable. I've done two stints,less
than a week both times, but in a Crown court there is always a risk of
drawing a six-monther.
I got out of it permanently. It's quite reassuring knowing I will never be
asked again.
c***@gmail.com
2020-06-28 12:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pancho
This is an invaluable check on tyrannical power.
Unless you're on a jury where the judge specifically directs you as to what verdict you are not allowed to reach (as in the case involving that Brazilian electrician who was assassinated).
Keema's Nan
2020-06-28 12:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Pancho
This is an invaluable check on tyrannical power.
Unless you're on a jury where the judge specifically directs you as to what
verdict you are not allowed to reach (as in the case involving that Brazilian
electrician who was assassinated).
I think in that case, the judge had been told beforehand of the verdict he
was required to return; and the dire consequences which would arise if he did
not.

Group 13 would have been rolled into action, in the latter case.

However, don’t go looking for them - they come to you.....

"Gary Murray, author of Enemies of the State had decided to research Group 13
to write a book on them.

He soon changed his mind.

One day during his research phase he was forcibly dragged in to the back of a
Transit van and had a gun stuck to his head. A voice told him it would be
unwise to continue his project.

Sensibly, he decided to abandon the project and instead write a book on an
altogether different subject.”
c***@gmail.com
2020-06-28 14:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Pancho
This is an invaluable check on tyrannical power.
Unless you're on a jury where the judge specifically directs you as to what
verdict you are not allowed to reach (as in the case involving that Brazilian
electrician who was assassinated).
I think in that case, the judge had been told beforehand of the verdict he
was required to return; and the dire consequences which would arise if he did
not.
Group 13 would have been rolled into action, in the latter case.
However, don’t go looking for them - they come to you.....
"Gary Murray, author of Enemies of the State had decided to research Group 13
to write a book on them.
He soon changed his mind.
One day during his research phase he was forcibly dragged in to the back of a
Transit van and had a gun stuck to his head. A voice told him it would be
unwise to continue his project.
Sensibly, he decided to abandon the project and instead write a book on an
altogether different subject.”
Yeah I do remember reading that Group 13 were involved in the murder of David Kelly but given the charade surrounding his death (and how amateurish the perpetrators were in attempting to make it look like suicide) I have my doubts.

The knife he used to "commit suicide" was totally devoid of fingerprints.

Because, after all, when you've slit your wrists you're going to remember to wipe the blade handle and then hide forever the tissue you used.

Aren't you?

Oh, and just as an added punchline, you'll make sure that the post-mortem and toxicology reports should be sealed for 70 years.

You couldn't make it up.
Keema's Nan
2020-06-28 14:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Pancho
This is an invaluable check on tyrannical power.
Unless you're on a jury where the judge specifically directs you as to what
verdict you are not allowed to reach (as in the case involving that Brazilian
electrician who was assassinated).
I think in that case, the judge had been told beforehand of the verdict he
was required to return; and the dire consequences which would arise if he did
not.
Group 13 would have been rolled into action, in the latter case.
However, don’t go looking for them - they come to you.....
"Gary Murray, author of Enemies of the State had decided to research Group 13
to write a book on them.
He soon changed his mind.
One day during his research phase he was forcibly dragged in to the back of a
Transit van and had a gun stuck to his head. A voice told him it would be
unwise to continue his project.
Sensibly, he decided to abandon the project and instead write a book on an
altogether different subject.”
Yeah I do remember reading that Group 13 were involved in the murder of David
Kelly but given the charade surrounding his death (and how amateurish the
perpetrators were in attempting to make it look like suicide) I have my
doubts.
Although, if it was the same crack team who poisoned Sergei Skripal, I would
have no trouble in believing it.

I wonder what chief brown-noser and establishment head boy Starmer has to say
on the subject?
Post by c***@gmail.com
The knife he used to "commit suicide" was totally devoid of fingerprints.
Because, after all, when you've slit your wrists you're going to remember to
wipe the blade handle and then hide forever the tissue you used.
Aren't you?
Oh, and just as an added punchline, you'll make sure that the post-mortem and
toxicology reports should be sealed for 70 years.
You couldn't make it up.
You couldn’t, and yet ‘they' do - but the sad part is 90% actually
believe them and so we get more of the same... ad infinitum
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-06-28 20:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
The knife he used to "commit suicide" was totally devoid of fingerprints.
Because, after all, when you've slit your wrists you're going to remember to
wipe the blade handle and then hide forever the tissue you used.
Aren't you?
Oh, and just as an added punchline, you'll make sure that the post-mortem and
toxicology reports should be sealed for 70 years.
You couldn't make it up.
You did!

the document is here!

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/corporate-reports/MoJ/2010/toxicologist-report-dpa.pdf

The document was presented at the Hutton inquiry which makes it a public document and therefore accessible to all who want to see it.

Because of the desecration of Dr Kelly's grave, by people of similar persuasion to yourself, Dr Kelly's body was exhumed from its final resting place in 2017 at the *request of his family* and his remains subsequently cremated yopreserve the family's peace and anxiety over the matter.
c***@gmail.com
2020-06-30 15:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
the document is here!
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/corporate-reports/MoJ/2010/toxicologist-report-dpa.pdf
The document was presented at the Hutton inquiry which makes it a public
document and therefore accessible to all who want to see it.
Because of the desecration of Dr Kelly's grave, by people of similar
persuasion to yourself, Dr Kelly's body was exhumed from its final resting
place in 2017 at the *request of his family* and his remains subsequently
cremated yopreserve the family's peace and anxiety over the matter.
The stench of whitewash coming off of that document is something else.

The original decision was to hide everything for 70 years:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7066383/David-Kelly-death-evidence-to-be-kept-secret-for-70-years.html

When the legal bods started to circle, the Government backed down and released that fictitious bit of rubbish you linked to.

I don't know what colour the sky is in your world but, guess what, Governments *do* kill troublesome citizens and they *do* lie about it.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-06-30 19:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
the document is here!
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/corporate-reports/MoJ/2010/toxicologist-report-dpa.pdf
The document was presented at the Hutton inquiry which makes it a public
document and therefore accessible to all who want to see it.
Because of the desecration of Dr Kelly's grave, by people of similar
persuasion to yourself, Dr Kelly's body was exhumed from its final resting
place in 2017 at the *request of his family* and his remains subsequently
cremated yopreserve the family's peace and anxiety over the matter.
The stench of whitewash coming off of that document is something else.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7066383/David-Kelly-death-evidence-to-be-kept-secret-for-70-years.html
When the legal bods started to circle, the Government backed down and released that fictitious bit of rubbish you linked to.
I don't know what colour the sky is in your world but, guess what, Governments *do* kill troublesome citizens and they *do* lie about it.
Your incomplete Telegraphs quote such that it is, simply does not say that.

What it does say is that

*Evidence relating to the death of David kelly* with no indication as to what that evidence might be. One is entitled to ask if the correspondent knows what it is then why doesn't he reveal it? Don't now start to rattle on about 'D notices. These are no more than official *requests* by government to news editors. They have no force in law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice

Your quote falls far short of evidence. Indeed we don't even know the name of the correspondent himself he being described as "* it has been reported*"

If you have ant reservations regarding the government released document then I would ask you to note from the very beginning that you are reading an affidavit drawn up under the Criminal Justice Act of 1967.

Every page of that document was signed by ALLAN ALEXANDER RICHARD on the 21st July 2003.

Dr Allan Alexander Richard is an eminent Forensic Consultant.

I would suggest that such a person would not put in danger his career and reputation by uttering a false affidavit.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Dr Kelly died other than by his own hand. Had there been then no doubt Dr Richard would have included it in his report and would be part of the transcript of the evidence given.

Just one last thing. there is no defence under British law to a charge of murder on the grounds that it was ordered by any member or any agent of the British Government. There is no licence to kill.

Had it been the case that Dr Kelly's death came about as the result of foul play, then it would have caused more tha a resignation or two from the British Government. It would have initiated a full police inquiry with a view towards prosecutions and convictions.

Government personnel regardless of their standing are as accountable to the law as are the rest of us.
c***@gmail.com
2020-07-01 16:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
the document is here!
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/corporate-reports/MoJ/2010/toxicologist-report-dpa.pdf
The document was presented at the Hutton inquiry which makes it a public
document and therefore accessible to all who want to see it.
Because of the desecration of Dr Kelly's grave, by people of similar
persuasion to yourself, Dr Kelly's body was exhumed from its final resting
place in 2017 at the *request of his family* and his remains subsequently
cremated yopreserve the family's peace and anxiety over the matter.
The stench of whitewash coming off of that document is something else.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7066383/David-Kelly-death-evidence-to-be-kept-secret-for-70-years.html
When the legal bods started to circle, the Government backed down and released that fictitious bit of rubbish you linked to.
I don't know what colour the sky is in your world but, guess what, Governments *do* kill troublesome citizens and they *do* lie about it.
Your incomplete Telegraphs quote such that it is, simply does not say that.
What it does say is that
*Evidence relating to the death of David kelly* with no indication as to what that evidence might be. One is entitled to ask if the correspondent knows what it is then why doesn't he reveal it? Don't now start to rattle on about 'D notices. These are no more than official *requests* by government to news editors. They have no force in law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice
Your quote falls far short of evidence. Indeed we don't even know the name of the correspondent himself he being described as "* it has been reported*"
If you have ant reservations regarding the government released document then I would ask you to note from the very beginning that you are reading an affidavit drawn up under the Criminal Justice Act of 1967.
Every page of that document was signed by ALLAN ALEXANDER RICHARD on the 21st July 2003.
Dr Allan Alexander Richard is an eminent Forensic Consultant.
I would suggest that such a person would not put in danger his career and reputation by uttering a false affidavit.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Dr Kelly died other than by his own hand. Had there been then no doubt Dr Richard would have included it in his report and would be part of the transcript of the evidence given.
Just one last thing. there is no defence under British law to a charge of murder on the grounds that it was ordered by any member or any agent of the British Government. There is no licence to kill.
Had it been the case that Dr Kelly's death came about as the result of foul play, then it would have caused more tha a resignation or two from the British Government. It would have initiated a full police inquiry with a view towards prosecutions and convictions.
Government personnel regardless of their standing are as accountable to the law as are the rest of us.
I'm not sure what part of that link you're having a problem with?

Or whether you're being deliberately obtuse.....

It says

"Evidence relating to the death of David Kelly, the government weapons inspector, is to be kept secret for 70 years, it has been reported.

A highly unusual ruling by Lord Hutton, who chaired the inquiry into Dr Kelly's death, means medical records including the post-mortem report will remain classified until after all those with a direct interest in the case are dead, the Mail on Sunday said.

And a 30-year secrecy order has been placed on written records provided to Lord Hutton's inquiry which were not produced in evidence.

The Ministry of Justice said decisions on the evidence were a matter for Lord Hutton. But Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has conducted his own investigations into Dr Kelly's death, described the order as ''astonishing''.

Dr Kelly's body was found in woods close to his Oxfordshire home in 2003, shortly after it was revealed that he was the source of a BBC report casting doubt on the Government's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capable of being fired within 45 minutes.

An inquest was suspended by then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, who ruled that Lord Hutton's inquiry could take its place. But in the event, the inquiry focused more on the question of how the BBC report came to be broadcast than on the medical explanation for Dr Kelly's death.

Lord Hutton's report in 2004 concluded that Dr Kelly killed himself by cutting an artery in his wrist. But the finding has been challenged by doctors who claim that the weapons inspector's stated injuries were not serious enough.

One of the doctors seeking a full inquest, former assistant coroner Michael Powers, told the Mail on Sunday he had seen a letter from the legal team of Oxfordshire County Council explaining the unusual restrictions placed by Lord Hutton on material relating to his inquiry.

The letter states: "Lord Hutton made a request for the records provided to the inquiry, not produced in evidence, to be closed for 30 years, and that medical (including post-mortem) reports and photographs be closed for 70 years."

Dr Powers asked: "Supposedly all evidence relevant to the cause of death has been heard in public at the time of Lord Hutton's inquiry. If these secret reports support the suicide finding, what could they contain that could be so sensitive?"

And Mr Baker said: "It is astonishing that this is the first we've known about this decision by Lord Hutton and even more astonishing he should have seen fit to hide this material away."

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "Any decision made by Lord Hutton at the time of his inquiry was entirely a matter for him."

Which bit of "Kelly was killed by Blair's hitmen" is causing you discomfort?
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-07-02 19:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
the document is here!
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/corporate-reports/MoJ/2010/toxicologist-report-dpa.pdf
The document was presented at the Hutton inquiry which makes it a public
document and therefore accessible to all who want to see it.
Because of the desecration of Dr Kelly's grave, by people of similar
persuasion to yourself, Dr Kelly's body was exhumed from its final resting
place in 2017 at the *request of his family* and his remains subsequently
cremated yopreserve the family's peace and anxiety over the matter.
The stench of whitewash coming off of that document is something else.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7066383/David-Kelly-death-evidence-to-be-kept-secret-for-70-years.html
When the legal bods started to circle, the Government backed down and released that fictitious bit of rubbish you linked to.
I don't know what colour the sky is in your world but, guess what, Governments *do* kill troublesome citizens and they *do* lie about it.
Then you shuld have no trouble in citing such an instance in modern times.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Your incomplete Telegraphs quote such that it is, simply does not say that.
What it does say is that
*Evidence relating to the death of David kelly* with no indication as to what that evidence might be. One is entitled to ask if the correspondent knows what it is then why doesn't he reveal it? Don't now start to rattle on about 'D notices. These are no more than official *requests* by government to news editors. They have no force in law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice
Your quote falls far short of evidence. Indeed we don't even know the name of the correspondent himself he being described as "* it has been reported*"
If you have ant reservations regarding the government released document then I would ask you to note from the very beginning that you are reading an affidavit drawn up under the Criminal Justice Act of 1967.
Every page of that document was signed by ALLAN ALEXANDER RICHARD on the 21st July 2003.
Dr Allan Alexander Richard is an eminent Forensic Consultant.
I would suggest that such a person would not put in danger his career and reputation by uttering a false affidavit.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Dr Kelly died other than by his own hand. Had there been then no doubt Dr Richard would have included it in his report and would be part of the transcript of the evidence given.
Just one last thing. there is no defence under British law to a charge of murder on the grounds that it was ordered by any member or any agent of the British Government. There is no licence to kill.
Had it been the case that Dr Kelly's death came about as the result of foul play, then it would have caused more tha a resignation or two from the British Government. It would have initiated a full police inquiry with a view towards prosecutions and convictions.
Government personnel regardless of their standing are as accountable to the law as are the rest of us.
I'm not sure what part of that link you're having a problem with?
Or whether you're being deliberately obtuse.....
It says
"Evidence relating to the death of David Kelly, the government weapons inspector, is to be kept secret for 70 years, it has been reported.
It;s a bit vague as to what this evidence is isn't it? Or the precise source of it?
Post by c***@gmail.com
A highly unusual ruling by Lord Hutton, who chaired the inquiry into Dr Kelly's death, means medical records including the post-mortem report will remain classified until after all those with a direct interest in the case are dead, the Mail on Sunday said.
And a 30-year secrecy order has been placed on written records provided to Lord Hutton's inquiry which were not produced in evidence.
The Ministry of Justice said decisions on the evidence were a matter for Lord Hutton. But Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has conducted his own investigations into Dr Kelly's death, described the order as ''astonishing''.
Dr Kelly's body was found in woods close to his Oxfordshire home in 2003, shortly after it was revealed that he was the source of a BBC report casting doubt on the Government's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capable of being fired within 45 minutes.
An inquest was suspended by then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, who ruled that Lord Hutton's inquiry could take its place. But in the event, the inquiry focused more on the question of how the BBC report came to be broadcast than on the medical explanation for Dr Kelly's death.
The whole of Dr Allens evidence together with that of |Nicholas Hunt the pathologist who attended after discovery of the body was included in full.

The actual incident of death was not witnessed so what more do you want?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Lord Hutton's report in 2004 concluded that Dr Kelly killed himself by cutting an artery in his wrist. But the finding has been challenged by doctors who claim that the weapons inspector's stated injuries were not serious enough.
Not one of whom ever examined the body.
Post by c***@gmail.com
One of the doctors seeking a full inquest, former assistant coroner Michael Powers, told the Mail on Sunday he had seen a letter from the legal team of Oxfordshire County Council explaining the unusual restrictions placed by Lord Hutton on material relating to his inquiry.
The letter states: "Lord Hutton made a request for the records provided to the inquiry, not produced in evidence, to be closed for 30 years, and that medical (including post-mortem) reports and photographs be closed for 70 years."
Dr Powers asked: "Supposedly all evidence relevant to the cause of death has been heard in public at the time of Lord Hutton's inquiry. If these secret reports support the suicide finding, what could they contain that could be so sensitive?"
Dr Kelly was known to be involved with the inteligence community.
Post by c***@gmail.com
And Mr Baker said: "It is astonishing that this is the first we've known about this decision by Lord Hutton and even more astonishing he should have seen fit to hide this material away."
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "Any decision made by Lord Hutton at the time of his inquiry was entirely a matter for him."
Which bit of "Kelly was killed by Blair's hitmen" is causing you discomfort?
There is no evidente that Blair was involved in any way with the death of Doctor Kelly.
Keema's Nan
2020-07-02 20:51:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
the document is here!
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/corporate-reports/MoJ/20
10/toxicologist-report-dpa.pdf
The document was presented at the Hutton inquiry which makes it a public
document and therefore accessible to all who want to see it.
Because of the desecration of Dr Kelly's grave, by people of similar
persuasion to yourself, Dr Kelly's body was exhumed from its final resting
place in 2017 at the *request of his family* and his remains subsequently
cremated yopreserve the family's peace and anxiety over the matter.
The stench of whitewash coming off of that document is something else.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7066383/David-Kelly-death-evidence
-to-be-kept-secret-for-70-years.html
When the legal bods started to circle, the Government backed down and
released that fictitious bit of rubbish you linked to.
I don't know what colour the sky is in your world but, guess what,
Governments *do* kill troublesome citizens and they *do* lie about it.
Then you shuld have no trouble in citing such an instance in modern times.
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Your incomplete Telegraphs quote such that it is, simply does not say that.
What it does say is that
*Evidence relating to the death of David kelly* with no indication as to
what that evidence might be. One is entitled to ask if the correspondent
knows what it is then why doesn't he reveal it? Don't now start to rattle
on about 'D notices. These are no more than official *requests* by
government to news editors. They have no force in law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice
Your quote falls far short of evidence. Indeed we don't even know the name
of the correspondent himself he being described as "* it has been
reported*"
If you have ant reservations regarding the government released document
then I would ask you to note from the very beginning that you are reading
an affidavit drawn up under the Criminal Justice Act of 1967.
Every page of that document was signed by ALLAN ALEXANDER RICHARD on the
21st July 2003.
Dr Allan Alexander Richard is an eminent Forensic Consultant.
I would suggest that such a person would not put in danger his career and
reputation by uttering a false affidavit.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Dr Kelly died other than by his own
hand. Had there been then no doubt Dr Richard would have included it in
his report and would be part of the transcript of the evidence given.
Just one last thing. there is no defence under British law to a charge of
murder on the grounds that it was ordered by any member or any agent of
the British Government. There is no licence to kill.
Had it been the case that Dr Kelly's death came about as the result of
foul play, then it would have caused more tha a resignation or two from
the British Government. It would have initiated a full police inquiry with
a view towards prosecutions and convictions.
Government personnel regardless of their standing are as accountable to
the law as are the rest of us.
I'm not sure what part of that link you're having a problem with?
Or whether you're being deliberately obtuse.....
It says
"Evidence relating to the death of David Kelly, the government weapons
inspector, is to be kept secret for 70 years, it has been reported.
It;s a bit vague as to what this evidence is isn't it? Or the precise source of it?
Post by c***@gmail.com
A highly unusual ruling by Lord Hutton, who chaired the inquiry into Dr
Kelly's death, means medical records including the post-mortem report will
remain classified until after all those with a direct interest in the case
are dead, the Mail on Sunday said.
And a 30-year secrecy order has been placed on written records provided to
Lord Hutton's inquiry which were not produced in evidence.
The Ministry of Justice said decisions on the evidence were a matter for
Lord Hutton. But Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has conducted his
own investigations into Dr Kelly's death, described the order as
''astonishing''.
Dr Kelly's body was found in woods close to his Oxfordshire home in 2003,
shortly after it was revealed that he was the source of a BBC report
casting doubt on the Government's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction capable of being fired within 45 minutes.
An inquest was suspended by then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, who ruled
that Lord Hutton's inquiry could take its place. But in the event, the
inquiry focused more on the question of how the BBC report came to be
broadcast than on the medical explanation for Dr Kelly's death.
The whole of Dr Allens evidence together with that of |Nicholas Hunt the
pathologist who attended after discovery of the body was included in full.
The actual incident of death was not witnessed so what more do you want?
Post by c***@gmail.com
Lord Hutton's report in 2004 concluded that Dr Kelly killed himself by
cutting an artery in his wrist. But the finding has been challenged by
doctors who claim that the weapons inspector's stated injuries were not
serious enough.
Not one of whom ever examined the body.
Post by c***@gmail.com
One of the doctors seeking a full inquest, former assistant coroner Michael
Powers, told the Mail on Sunday he had seen a letter from the legal team of
Oxfordshire County Council explaining the unusual restrictions placed by
Lord Hutton on material relating to his inquiry.
The letter states: "Lord Hutton made a request for the records provided to
the inquiry, not produced in evidence, to be closed for 30 years, and that
medical (including post-mortem) reports and photographs be closed for 70
years."
Dr Powers asked: "Supposedly all evidence relevant to the cause of death
has been heard in public at the time of Lord Hutton's inquiry. If these
secret reports support the suicide finding, what could they contain that
could be so sensitive?"
Dr Kelly was known to be involved with the inteligence community.
Post by c***@gmail.com
And Mr Baker said: "It is astonishing that this is the first we've known
about this decision by Lord Hutton and even more astonishing he should have
seen fit to hide this material away."
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "Any decision made by Lord Hutton at
the time of his inquiry was entirely a matter for him."
Which bit of "Kelly was killed by Blair's hitmen" is causing you discomfort?
There is no evidente that Blair was involved in any way with the death of Doctor Kelly.
Obviously there is another book for you to add to your reading list (if you
dare, that is).

“An Inconvenient Death” by Miles Goslett.

As with the others I have recommended, come back when you have finished them
and tell us you have not changed your 'head in the sand' opinions.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-07-05 09:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is no evidente that Blair was involved in any way with the death of Doctor Kelly.
Obviously there is another book for you to add to your reading list (if you
dare, that is).
“An Inconvenient Death” by Miles Goslett.
As with the others I have recommended, come back when you have finished them
and tell us you have not changed your 'head in the sand' opinions.
Always suspect disciples trying to sell books.

Books are written to make money you know that stuff you despise.

There is no or little money in a book that only tells you things you have heard before.

There is therefore incentive in embroidering false truths and exploring the internet and other sources for obscure hypothesis' counter to conventional wisdom.

Remember to that an author has absolute discretion as to what he includes and just as importantly excludes from his particular hypothesis.

Hutton on the other hand had no such discretion. He had to include everything that was said to his inquiry. He could leave nothing out.

There is only one way to present evidence and that is in open court or inqury, under oath subject to cross examination.

Then nothing can either escape or creep in through a metaphorical back door.
Keema's Nan
2020-07-05 09:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is no evidente that Blair was involved in any way with the death of
Doctor Kelly.
Obviously there is another book for you to add to your reading list (if you
dare, that is).
“An Inconvenient Death” by Miles Goslett.
As with the others I have recommended, come back when you have finished them
and tell us you have not changed your 'head in the sand' opinions.
Always suspect disciples trying to sell books.
I realise you have no intention of reading anything which might disturb your
bigoted view of the world.

However, you can try and justify that as some form of heroism, but basically
it is just a display of narrow minded ignorance.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Books are written to make money you know that stuff you despise.
There is no or little money in a book that only tells you things you have heard before.
I can guarantee you will not have heard most of this before.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is therefore incentive in embroidering false truths and exploring the
internet and other sources for obscure hypothesis' counter to conventional
wisdom.
Remember to that an author has absolute discretion as to what he includes and
just as importantly excludes from his particular hypothesis.
Hutton on the other hand had no such discretion. He had to include everything
that was said to his inquiry. He could leave nothing out.
Oh dear, oh dear oh dear.

If you read the book you might realise just how stupid you are, making
inaccurate comments such as that.

The book details *all* of the things Hutton left out, and believe me there
are lots.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is only one way to present evidence and that is in open court or
inqury, under oath subject to cross examination.
Or no cross examination of certain aspects, in the case of Hutton.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Then nothing can either escape or creep in through a metaphorical back door.
Tony Blair did.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-07-07 08:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is no evidente that Blair was involved in any way with the death of
Doctor Kelly.
Obviously there is another book for you to add to your reading list (if you
dare, that is).
“An Inconvenient Death” by Miles Goslett.
As with the others I have recommended, come back when you have finished them
and tell us you have not changed your 'head in the sand' opinions.
Always suspect disciples trying to sell books.
I realise you have no intention of reading anything which might disturb your
bigoted view of the world.
However, you can try and justify that as some form of heroism, but basically
it is just a display of narrow minded ignorance.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Books are written to make money you know that stuff you despise.
There is no or little money in a book that only tells you things you have heard before.
I can guarantee you will not have heard most of this before.
But can you guarantee it's accuracy and authenticity that's the question!

If so lets have it here!

There is more to bibliographic research than reading a book from cover to cover. How well was it referenced? Have you followed up any of the references? Of course you haven't. You are far too shallow minded.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is therefore incentive in embroidering false truths and exploring the
internet and other sources for obscure hypothesis' counter to conventional
wisdom.
Remember to that an author has absolute discretion as to what he includes and
just as importantly excludes from his particular hypothesis.
Hutton on the other hand had no such discretion. He had to include everything
that was said to his inquiry. He could leave nothing out.
Oh dear, oh dear oh dear.
If you read the book you might realise just how stupid you are, making
inaccurate comments such as that.
The book details *all* of the things Hutton left out, and believe me there
are lots.
But nothing was missed out. At the time of the hearings there was a website that reported the previous day's proceedings verbatim. You could have had a blow by blow account if you were prepared to stay with it. Even today these transcripts exist on line.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/

There is no more authentic account of any inquiry than a transcript where every word uttered is recorded as it is said.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is only one way to present evidence and that is in open court or
inqury, under oath subject to cross examination.
Or no cross examination of certain aspects, in the case of Hutton.
What aspects?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Then nothing can either escape or creep in through a metaphorical back door.
Tony Blair did.
And of course you have evidence of this? Of course you haven't.

You couldn't stand reference for anything or any one.

You couldn't lie straight in bed.
Keema's Nan
2020-07-07 09:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is no evidente that Blair was involved in any way with the death of
Doctor Kelly.
Obviously there is another book for you to add to your reading list (if you
dare, that is).
“An Inconvenient Death” by Miles Goslett.
As with the others I have recommended, come back when you have finished them
and tell us you have not changed your 'head in the sand' opinions.
Always suspect disciples trying to sell books.
I realise you have no intention of reading anything which might disturb your
bigoted view of the world.
However, you can try and justify that as some form of heroism, but basically
it is just a display of narrow minded ignorance.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Books are written to make money you know that stuff you despise.
There is no or little money in a book that only tells you things you have
heard before.
I can guarantee you will not have heard most of this before.
But can you guarantee it's accuracy and authenticity that's the question!
If so lets have it here!
Read the book.

Nowhere in the rules of life does it mention "the contents of all published
literature shall be set before Supreme Judge Rowing on uk.politics.misc
before being listed as suitable for passing into the public domain.”

So why are you suddenly demanding this now?

Have you run out of supremacist argument?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is more to bibliographic research than reading a book from cover to
cover. How well was it referenced?
Read the book.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Have you followed up any of the
references?
Yes. Of course I have.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Of course you haven't.
Liar.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
You are far too shallow minded.
Read the book rather than trying to sound off in total ignorance.

What are you frightened of?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is therefore incentive in embroidering false truths and exploring the
internet and other sources for obscure hypothesis' counter to conventional
wisdom.
Remember to that an author has absolute discretion as to what he includes and
just as importantly excludes from his particular hypothesis.
Hutton on the other hand had no such discretion. He had to include everything
that was said to his inquiry. He could leave nothing out.
Oh dear, oh dear oh dear.
If you read the book you might realise just how stupid you are, making
inaccurate comments such as that.
The book details *all* of the things Hutton left out, and believe me there
are lots.
But nothing was missed out.
How do you know?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
At the time of the hearings there was a website
that reported the previous day's proceedings verbatim.
I know. I read it every day.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
You could have had a
blow by blow account if you were prepared to stay with it.
I did. It was most enlightening.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Even today these
transcripts exist on line.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutto
n-inquiry.org.uk/
There is no more authentic account of any inquiry than a transcript where
every word uttered is recorded as it is said.
If something was missed out, how can a transcript record it?

However, I appreciate your devious attempt to move the goalposts.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is only one way to present evidence and that is in open court or
inqury, under oath subject to cross examination.
Or no cross examination of certain aspects, in the case of Hutton.
What aspects?
Read the book. There are lots of aspects.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Then nothing can either escape or creep in through a metaphorical back door.
Tony Blair did.
And of course you have evidence of this?
He is not in jail, is he?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Of course you haven't.
If he was sensible he would have made sure anything incriminating would have
been locked away for 100 years, or burnt.

Oh wait.....
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
You couldn't stand reference for anything or any one.
You couldn't lie straight in bed.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-07-07 19:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is no or little money in a book that only tells you things you have
heard before.
I can guarantee you will not have heard most of this before.
But can you guarantee it's accuracy and authenticity that's the question!
If so lets have it here!
Read the book.
So the above question is invalid then!
Post by Keema's Nan
Nowhere in the rules of life does it mention "the contents of all published
literature shall be set before Supreme Judge Rowing on uk.politics.misc
before being listed as suitable for passing into the public domain.
In the same vein, why should you be seen as the arbiter of fact particularly when you have a reputation on here that goes back years. Nobody knows who you really are and nobody cares but you've been making a nuisance of yourself on here under various nyms for years.
Post by Keema's Nan
So why are you suddenly demanding this now?
Have you run out of supremacist argument?
I am demanding nothing! My position is simple. All the evidence available appertaining to the incident was assembled and presented in a legalistic fashion to an enquiry. Every word of evidence was recorded and kept for posterity. Nothing said in that inquiry was missed out nothing unsaid was added.

Anyone at all (even you) who thinks that they have anything to add to the matter is free to write to the inquiry and say their piece. It's unlikely they will be called to present their evidence but, depending on its relevance, their contribution will become part of the final report there for all to read.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is more to bibliographic research than reading a book from cover to
cover. How well was it referenced?
Read the book.
I was speaking of the effort you put into studying it.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Have you followed up any of the
references?
Yes. Of course I have.
Don't believe you! Not your style sunshine!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Of course you haven't.
Liar.
Now that is your style!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
You are far too shallow minded.
Read the book rather than trying to sound off in total ignorance.
What are you frightened of?
I am frightened of nothing! It does however, occur to me that the British security services didn't have to kill him in order to silence him. He had already had, in his own eyes, his credibility destroyed by a Commons select committee McKinley's "fall guy" if you remember.

That appearance was known to have severely upset a conscientious and sensitive man man like Kelly. It destroyed his world.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is therefore incentive in embroidering false truths and exploring the
internet and other sources for obscure hypothesis' counter to conventional
wisdom.
Remember to that an author has absolute discretion as to what he includes and
just as importantly excludes from his particular hypothesis.
Hutton on the other hand had no such discretion. He had to include everything
that was said to his inquiry. He could leave nothing out.
Oh dear, oh dear oh dear.
If you read the book you might realise just how stupid you are, making
inaccurate comments such as that.
The book details *all* of the things Hutton left out, and believe me there
are lots.
But nothing was missed out.
How do you know?
Well I dond't go over it word by word but there would be those with a keener interest who id!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
At the time of the hearings there was a website
that reported the previous day's proceedings verbatim.
I know. I read it every day.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
You could have had a
blow by blow account if you were prepared to stay with it.
I did. It was most enlightening.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Even today these
transcripts exist on line.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090128221550/http://www.the-hutto
n-inquiry.org.uk/
There is no more authentic account of any inquiry than a transcript where
every word uttered is recorded as it is said.
If something was missed out, how can a transcript record it?
However, I appreciate your devious attempt to move the goalposts.
No! Youre the devious one! You selectively trim peoples posts. You are the man with mutiple nyms. All to pread the confusion!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There is only one way to present evidence and that is in open court or
inqury, under oath subject to cross examination.
Or no cross examination of certain aspects, in the case of Hutton.
What aspects?
Read the book. There are lots of aspects.
Then you should have no problem identifying one!
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Then nothing can either escape or creep in through a metaphorical back door.
Tony Blair did.
And of course you have evidence of this?
He is not in jail, is he?
No! nore will he be. He was in the Far East at the time of Kelly's death.
Post by Keema's Nan
If he was sensible he would have made sure anything incriminating would have
been locked away for 100 years, or burnt.
Oh wait.....
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
You couldn't stand reference for anything or any one.
You couldn't lie straight in bed.
Joe
2020-06-26 12:27:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:07:59 +0100
Post by MM
I've argued before for the dissolution of the jury system, so if
Covid-19 manages to achieve it, it's all good.
How on earth can one justify a system whereby 12 laymen off the street
get to decide instead of trained, experienced legal minds?
Because judges swallow all kinds of lies that a jury might well see
through. Does the name 'Ernest Saunders' ring any bells?
--
Joe
Farmer Giles
2020-06-28 12:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:07:59 +0100
Post by MM
I've argued before for the dissolution of the jury system, so if
Covid-19 manages to achieve it, it's all good.
How on earth can one justify a system whereby 12 laymen off the street
get to decide instead of trained, experienced legal minds?
Because judges swallow all kinds of lies that a jury might well see
through. Does the name 'Ernest Saunders' ring any bells?
'Swallow' is an interesting term there, I suspect that in that case the
judge might have been given something to aid his digestion.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-06-28 13:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:55:50 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legislation-to-abolish-some-jury-trials-could-be-passed-within-weeks/5104739.article
"Buckland told MPs on the justice select committee
that operating either-way cases without juries is
now under serious discussion, as the backlog of
cases forces radical change to the criminal justice
system.
He confirmed that 200 extra sites were required to
deal with the rising number of cases waiting to be
heard, with 10 alternative venues signed off this
week. Buckland described trials with just a judge
and two magistrates as a ‘last resort’ but said this
option would provide an extra 40% capacity. His
preferred option, which is to reduce the number of
jurors to seven, would increase capacity by only
5-10%. Buckland suggested that a one judge-two
magistrates option would apply only to cases where
the maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment.
He confirmed that the government wants to implemeant
one of the two options by September, which would
require primary legislation to be brought forward
before parliament goes into recess on 21 July."
I've argued before for the dissolution of the jury system, so if
Covid-19 manages to achieve it, it's all good.
How on earth can one justify a system whereby 12 laymen off the street
get to decide instead of trained, experienced legal minds?
Because with expertise and knowledge can come a degree of arrogance and a sense superiority which leads to bias. A decision to deprive a man of his freedom is not to be taken lightly, Different people see the world from different perspectives. It's imperative that when a man is going to be sent down, he is sent down by his peers and not by some self appointed ruling class.

After all he has being charged on behalf of the Queen (e.g Regina v Joe Bloggs) The Queen is the personification of the state i.e. us.

It is therefore appropriate that when justice is dispensed. the 'us' have some say in it. and that Regina has the obligation to convince us that the case against the defendant has been proved and any reasonably doubt removed.

The first thing any would be tyrant would want to do would be to take control of the criminal justice system.

If you are called upon to serve on a jury then you should feel proud and privileged so to do whatever your station in life.
Farmer Giles
2020-06-28 13:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:55:50 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legislation-to-abolish-some-jury-trials-could-be-passed-within-weeks/5104739.article
"Buckland told MPs on the justice select committee
that operating either-way cases without juries is
now under serious discussion, as the backlog of
cases forces radical change to the criminal justice
system.
He confirmed that 200 extra sites were required to
deal with the rising number of cases waiting to be
heard, with 10 alternative venues signed off this
week. Buckland described trials with just a judge
and two magistrates as a ‘last resort’ but said this
option would provide an extra 40% capacity. His
preferred option, which is to reduce the number of
jurors to seven, would increase capacity by only
5-10%. Buckland suggested that a one judge-two
magistrates option would apply only to cases where
the maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment.
He confirmed that the government wants to implemeant
one of the two options by September, which would
require primary legislation to be brought forward
before parliament goes into recess on 21 July."
I've argued before for the dissolution of the jury system, so if
Covid-19 manages to achieve it, it's all good.
How on earth can one justify a system whereby 12 laymen off the street
get to decide instead of trained, experienced legal minds?
Because with expertise and knowledge can come a degree of arrogance and a sense superiority which leads to bias. A decision to deprive a man of his freedom is not to be taken lightly, Different people see the world from different perspectives. It's imperative that when a man is going to be sent down, he is sent down by his peers and not by some self appointed ruling class.
After all he has being charged on behalf of the Queen (e.g Regina v Joe Bloggs) The Queen is the personification of the state i.e. us.
It is therefore appropriate that when justice is dispensed. the 'us' have some say in it. and that Regina has the obligation to convince us that the case against the defendant has been proved and any reasonably doubt removed.
What a joke, considering how many get put into prison without seeing
sight of a jury - and the plan is to vastly increase the number!
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The first thing any would be tyrant would want to do would be to take control of the criminal justice system.
Too late, they already have.
Keema's Nan
2020-06-28 14:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:55:50 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legislation-to-abolish-some-jury-trials-
could-be-passed-within-weeks/5104739.article
"Buckland told MPs on the justice select committee
that operating either-way cases without juries is
now under serious discussion, as the backlog of
cases forces radical change to the criminal justice
system.
He confirmed that 200 extra sites were required to
deal with the rising number of cases waiting to be
heard, with 10 alternative venues signed off this
week. Buckland described trials with just a judge
and two magistrates as a ‘last resort’ but said this
option would provide an extra 40% capacity. His
preferred option, which is to reduce the number of
jurors to seven, would increase capacity by only
5-10%. Buckland suggested that a one judge-two
magistrates option would apply only to cases where
the maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment.
He confirmed that the government wants to implemeant
one of the two options by September, which would
require primary legislation to be brought forward
before parliament goes into recess on 21 July."
I've argued before for the dissolution of the jury system, so if
Covid-19 manages to achieve it, it's all good.
How on earth can one justify a system whereby 12 laymen off the street
get to decide instead of trained, experienced legal minds?
Because with expertise and knowledge can come a degree of arrogance and a
sense superiority which leads to bias. A decision to deprive a man of his
freedom is not to be taken lightly, Different people see the world from
different perspectives. It's imperative that when a man is going to be sent
down, he is sent down by his peers and not by some self appointed ruling
class.
After all he has being charged on behalf of the Queen (e.g Regina v Joe
Bloggs) The Queen is the personification of the state i.e. us.
It is therefore appropriate that when justice is dispensed. the 'us' have
some say in it. and that Regina has the obligation to convince us that the
case against the defendant has been proved and any reasonably doubt removed.
What a joke, considering how many get put into prison without seeing
sight of a jury - and the plan is to vastly increase the number!
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The first thing any would be tyrant would want to do would be to take
control of the criminal justice system.
Too late, they already have.
Yes, while Rowing has sat there pontificating for 80 years, as usual. Edmund
Burke had him sorted....

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing.”
Farmer Giles
2020-06-28 14:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 00:55:50 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legislation-to-abolish-some-jury-trials-
could-be-passed-within-weeks/5104739.article
"Buckland told MPs on the justice select committee
that operating either-way cases without juries is
now under serious discussion, as the backlog of
cases forces radical change to the criminal justice
system.
He confirmed that 200 extra sites were required to
deal with the rising number of cases waiting to be
heard, with 10 alternative venues signed off this
week. Buckland described trials with just a judge
and two magistrates as a ‘last resort’ but said this
option would provide an extra 40% capacity. His
preferred option, which is to reduce the number of
jurors to seven, would increase capacity by only
5-10%. Buckland suggested that a one judge-two
magistrates option would apply only to cases where
the maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment.
He confirmed that the government wants to implemeant
one of the two options by September, which would
require primary legislation to be brought forward
before parliament goes into recess on 21 July."
I've argued before for the dissolution of the jury system, so if
Covid-19 manages to achieve it, it's all good.
How on earth can one justify a system whereby 12 laymen off the street
get to decide instead of trained, experienced legal minds?
Because with expertise and knowledge can come a degree of arrogance and a
sense superiority which leads to bias. A decision to deprive a man of his
freedom is not to be taken lightly, Different people see the world from
different perspectives. It's imperative that when a man is going to be sent
down, he is sent down by his peers and not by some self appointed ruling
class.
After all he has being charged on behalf of the Queen (e.g Regina v Joe
Bloggs) The Queen is the personification of the state i.e. us.
It is therefore appropriate that when justice is dispensed. the 'us' have
some say in it. and that Regina has the obligation to convince us that the
case against the defendant has been proved and any reasonably doubt removed.
What a joke, considering how many get put into prison without seeing
sight of a jury - and the plan is to vastly increase the number!
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The first thing any would be tyrant would want to do would be to take
control of the criminal justice system.
Too late, they already have.
Yes, while Rowing has sat there pontificating for 80 years, as usual. Edmund
Burke had him sorted....
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing.”
He's in cloud-cuckoo-land that one. Although, as I've said before,
sometimes it's difficult to work if he's just plain daft, or a cunning
subversive.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-06-29 14:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It is therefore appropriate that when justice is dispensed. the 'us' have some say in it. and that Regina has the obligation to convince us that the case against the defendant has been proved and any reasonably doubt removed.
What a joke, considering how many get put into prison without seeing
sight of a jury - and the plan is to vastly increase the number!
The majority of these are those who are sentenced by lower (magistrates or District) courts which can only impose maximum sentences of 6 months which after due remissions are shortened to 3 months.

These lower courts lean over backwards not to impose custodial sentences at all preferring sanctions such as fines, probation, unpaid work, binding over, conditional discharge etc. My son (just left the MP) out of interest used to keep a note of how many offences his clients could commit before they received a custodial sentence, His record over 30 years was 154 offences. (~1 /week) He once arrested him twice within the same shift,
Farmer Giles
2020-06-29 14:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It is therefore appropriate that when justice is dispensed. the 'us' have some say in it. and that Regina has the obligation to convince us that the case against the defendant has been proved and any reasonably doubt removed.
What a joke, considering how many get put into prison without seeing
sight of a jury - and the plan is to vastly increase the number!
The majority of these are those who are sentenced by lower (magistrates or District) courts which can only impose maximum sentences of 6 months which after due remissions are shortened to 3 months.
So it's not 'imperative', as you claimed, that a person should be 'sent
down' by a jury of his peers. And you are forgetting all those put in
prison on remand for sometimes a year or more.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
These lower courts lean over backwards not to impose custodial sentences at all preferring sanctions such as fines, probation, unpaid work, binding over, conditional discharge etc. My son (just left the MP) out of interest used to keep a note of how many offences his clients could commit before they received a custodial sentence, His record over 30 years was 154 offences. (~1 /week) He once arrested him twice within the same shift,
He must have dealt mainly with ethnics and woman then. He obviously
didn't deal with that lad recently 'sent down' for peeing in the street.
m***@btopenworld.com
2020-06-30 06:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It is therefore appropriate that when justice is dispensed. the 'us' have some say in it. and that Regina has the obligation to convince us that the case against the defendant has been proved and any reasonably doubt removed.
What a joke, considering how many get put into prison without seeing
sight of a jury - and the plan is to vastly increase the number!
The majority of these are those who are sentenced by lower (magistrates or District) courts which can only impose maximum sentences of 6 months which after due remissions are shortened to 3 months.
So it's not 'imperative', as you claimed, that a person should be 'sent
down' by a jury of his peers. And you are forgetting all those put in
prison on remand for sometimes a year or more.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
These lower courts lean over backwards not to impose custodial sentences at all preferring sanctions such as fines, probation, unpaid work, binding over, conditional discharge etc. My son (just left the MP) out of interest used to keep a note of how many offences his clients could commit before they received a custodial sentence, His record over 30 years was 154 offences. (~1 /week) He once arrested him twice within the same shift,
You go onto remand if you are charged with a very serious offence or present a serious bail risk of some kind which can include likelihood (history) of interfering with witnesses.
Post by Farmer Giles
He must have dealt mainly with ethnics and woman then. He obviously
didn't deal with that lad recently 'sent down' for peeing in the street.
No he didn't! bit he got off lightly.You accept low standards of behaviour, you tend to get them.
Farmer Giles
2020-06-30 07:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It is therefore appropriate that when justice is dispensed. the 'us' have some say in it. and that Regina has the obligation to convince us that the case against the defendant has been proved and any reasonably doubt removed.
What a joke, considering how many get put into prison without seeing
sight of a jury - and the plan is to vastly increase the number!
The majority of these are those who are sentenced by lower (magistrates or District) courts which can only impose maximum sentences of 6 months which after due remissions are shortened to 3 months.
So it's not 'imperative', as you claimed, that a person should be 'sent
down' by a jury of his peers. And you are forgetting all those put in
prison on remand for sometimes a year or more.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
These lower courts lean over backwards not to impose custodial sentences at all preferring sanctions such as fines, probation, unpaid work, binding over, conditional discharge etc. My son (just left the MP) out of interest used to keep a note of how many offences his clients could commit before they received a custodial sentence, His record over 30 years was 154 offences. (~1 /week) He once arrested him twice within the same shift,
You go onto remand if you are charged with a very serious offence or present a serious bail risk of some kind which can include likelihood (history) of interfering with witnesses.
Yes, in prison - without any consultation of any peers. You're confused
again, I'm afraid, no-one is talking about whether it's right or not but
just about your statement about it being 'imperative' that no-one is
'sent down' unless by a jury of his/her peers. You know that is nonsense
- but, once again, instead of acknowledging it you just waffle on and
attempt to change the subject.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Farmer Giles
He must have dealt mainly with ethnics and woman then. He obviously
didn't deal with that lad recently 'sent down' for peeing in the street.
No he didn't! bit he got off lightly.You accept low standards of behaviour, you tend to get them.
But again it flies in the face of your claim that courts 'lean over
backwards' not to send people to prison. In fact we send more people to
prison in this country than most - if not all - other countries in
Europe - and sending more people to prison is not the answer to rising
crime levels. Try America if you disagree with that.

And he certainly didn't get off lightly. Furthermore, it demonstrates
just how ridiculous and inconsistent our 'justice' system is. I
certainly don't approve of his behaviour, but this was by any standards
a minor misdemeanor - unlike the case recently where two woman attacked
a couple with a hammer and a bottle. In the first case, a custodial
sentence - in the second, no custodial sentence.

Our police and our courts are becoming increasingly corrupt and
politicised - if you defend that, then your own morality and standards
must be highly questionable.
Loading...