Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Boring, let's go back to trying to get Rachel Reeves sacked.

Over live to our political correspondent in Westminster.

- Chris, Keir Starmer has a point, doesn't he that the Brexit he strongly opposed has been an economic disaster, and that the only way out of where we are is hard negotiation with tough trade offs?
- Trevor, that's not what I'm hearing from political insiders.
- What are you hearing? That Brexit has been great?
- No, forget all those fancy arguments about trade friction, who's to say who's right about any of that? The real issue is Rachel Reeves.
- Wasn't the Budget last week?
- Trevor, there's a saying in politics that a week isn't a very long time in politics, so the Budget was in effect today.
- So what's the issue? Plunging pound, like after the Brexit vote? The markets have discovered something very bad in the small print?
-Not exactly. The real issue is that the markets reacted fairly well.
- Isn't that good?
- No, the real issue is that reaction was fairly positive because Rachel Reeves misled the public about the economy being bad.
- Surely politicians manage expectations all the time, Chris?
- The real issue is, did she mislead?
- OK. So presumably, as in lots of politics, you pay your money and take your choice, right? That's usually how we do politics on this channel, right?
- No, Trevor, she definitely misled. It's my job to make these judgements.
- Like Boris Johnson's 40 new hospitals? That was a lie, right?
- Well, Boris Johnson would say that upgrading an X-ray department was just like building a new hospital, others might disagree, it's not my job to make these judgements,
- Well OK then. But presumably what's in the Budget is a matter of fact, rather than a matter of judgement it's not up to you to make. I hear there was a massive move to reduce child poverty, and some unpopular tax rises, but also some reasonably popular tax rises, like on gambling and very expensive homes?
- The public doesn't care about that shit, in my judgement, which I'm making because it's my job to make judgements.
- That's very convenient for you, Chris. Perhaps you'd like to sum up.
- Beleaguered Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, failed to move the conversation on to Europe today...
- Hang on, he's failed to move it on to Europe because you're pushing nonsense about the Budget, surely?
- Are you questioning my judgement?

As mentioned earlier by TWA, I'm wondering how long Reeves can stay in post before she faces "resigning because it's a distraction" because of the baying hordes of the Fourth Estate, the broadcast media and their Tory sponsors.

If ever these fuckers needed reining in, it's now.

I think it'd be rather funny were someone to hack sackreeves.com? Give Kemikal a taste of her own medicine.

Reeves isn't going to resign. Not a chance. Not least because if she does, then Starmer falls too. Not going to happen.

I sincerely hope you're right, Abers. There's nothing more the cunts would like than a BOGOF on scalps.

The OBR man being questioned by MPs has said Reeves didn’t say anything inconsistent with their analysis.

Chris Mason should resign.

No, the story isn't that "Starmer stumbled". The story is the confected bullshit.

I see someone of this parish has made this point already.

That other thing we said was going to happen isn't happening. "Screeching U-turn from a government that lacks direction" no doubt.

David Lammy expected to water down plans to scrap most jury trials
Justice secretary suggests he will stick to Leveson’s recommended three-year sentence threshold, after ‘cabinet feedback’

I'm happy enough to go with Leveson, but I'm not generally. a fan of (over mythologized) jury trials. And I'm wondering how longer than three years became "only the most serious offences like murder and rape" in the media discussion. It takes a pretty serious offence to get jailed for three years. Someone I know very well was sentenced (quite a few years ago) to a sentence longer than that. It wasn't a murder or a rape. I'm pleased to say he's doing much better now.

Karl Turner for one was against these changes.

Clearly lots in the Cabinet were too, and they're not happening, which is how the Cabinet's supposed to work. It'll be represented as another U-turn, when the Government never actually said it was doing it. I'm old enough to remember David Cameron repeatedly saying he was doing something then changing his mind. He got a bit of stick for that (including from some of his own MPs who got fed up with defending unpopular positions on the radio, only to be left looking silly) but not as much as this government gets for "mulling" something.

I thinkit was on O’Brien this morning that somebody described his experience of jury service, and his fellow jurors, as this : In any jury, there are always two or three people that clearly don’t want to be there and would rather be anywhere else, two or three conspiracy-thory nutjobs, a couple of right-wing reactionaries, some people who will just go along with anything for the sake of a quiet life, and maybe one or two that you’d want keep sharp objects well away from. Which leaves you with perhaps three or four sane, rational, diligent, and conscientious individuals who will give the evidence presented due consideration and evaluation, and generally deliver the correct verdict. So this handful of people are effectively the ones that the whole system relies on. Maybe that’s why the number of jurors is set at twelve - a number that gives you the best chance of actually ending up with the right outcome.

Labour backbenchers living up to their recent juvenile standards in the debate on reducing jury trials. Burgon said it's like something out of Putin's Russia. Stella Creasey, who doubtless thinks the Greens will gobble her up, says if there aren't many jury trials, they're irrelevant to reducing the backlog.

You can blame the Government for not realizing the problem quicker, but this looks like another shit sandwich that left for them.

Clive Efford worries about judges being prejudiced against working class defendants. Fortunately social prejudice has been eradicated from the general population, who'll do a much better job than judges on this score.

I generally like him, but this is Emma Dent Coed standard rubbish about the Grenfell judge not having experience of tower blocks. He seems to have done a pretty good job considering.

Lammy’s jury trial plans are ‘massive mistake’, say Labour MPs and peers
Only cases such as murder and rape or offences carrying sentence longer than three years would face jury under plans

They're still doing this "rape and murder" lark.

It takes about 5 seconds to find offences (which while still serious) are a long way short of this which can attract sentences longer than 3 years. Unless I'm misunderstanding, this looks like the Guardian is trying to create a misleading impression.

Bit of further research shows that robbery will still have juries. I'd guess there are quite a few more robberies than murders, so perhaps Magna Carta won't have died in vain quite yet. Indeed, the Guardian clarifies

The move means defendants accused of burglary, theft, fraud, sexual assault, stalking, sharing indecent images, drug dealing and criminal damage up to £10,000 could be denied the right to put their case to a jury.

Rape and murder, tho.

I thinkit was on O’Brien this morning that somebody described his experience of jury service, and his fellow jurors, as this : In any jury, there are always two or three people that clearly don’t want to be there and would rather be anywhere else, two or three conspiracy-thory nutjobs, a couple of right-wing reactionaries, some people who will just go along with anything for the sake of a quiet life, and maybe one or two that you’d want keep sharp objects well away from. Which leaves you with perhaps three or four sane, rational, diligent, and conscientious individuals who will give the evidence presented due consideration and evaluation, and generally deliver the correct verdict.

A microcosm of the nation?
I don't like the sound of skimming back on jury trials as an upper middle class judge has a different experience of the honest British copper from working class people, particularly from ethnic minorities. Technically complex cases like fraud probably aren't suited to jury trials, though.

A FB post challenging these suspect farming protests. Considering the amount of issues piling up for farmers, why this single one that won't touch most of them and is nowhere near taking effect.

While the narrative of ancient tradition, Magna Carta and twelve good .en and true has some resonance, the fact is that for a long time defendants have had the choice of a jury trial or just facing a judge. According to those in the know, going for a jury is a bit like gambling on Bully's star prize. Sentences tend to be harsher, but you only have to win round 12 random people, rather than one cynical judge who has seen your sort a zillion times.

Judge only trials also have the advantage of being quicker and cheaper.

Also, when they start bleating about stout yeomen of England and rights enshrined in ancient scrolls, think back to the riots of 2011, or the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland. They weren't so hung up on rights then.

Finally, to become a Crown Court judge, you need about 30 years experience as a barrister, very possibly doing criminal trials. Whether prosecuting or defending, that's time spent with people at the sharp end of crime. The out of touch senile judge myth is precisely that - a myth.

They have juryless trials in the dystopian hellhole that is Canada. They're not even a real country, anyway.

I prefer a system with career judges who can sit in very chunky trials in their forties - blessed with brilliant minds, the lot of them.