The Opening Arguments podcast covered the opening of the trial. They weren’t saying he would be cleared but at the same time they weren’t exactly saying it’s open and shut as some of the jury have said they have a negative view of BLM and are supporters of the Police in their initial jury questionnaires.
1 Like
3 Likes
On other matters Former Prime Minister seems to have gone into hiding following questions starting to being asked with his involvement with Lex Greenshill.
Yet more smelly stuff from our Government.
1 Like
Said it before, sleaze will bring down this government as it did Major’s. Who takes over is unclear. A new party would be good as all the current ones are shit.
1 Like
There may be an element of truth in that paragraph, but at the same time, are all people punished equally for a similar crime? Or do certain classes/races get treated differently?
1 Like
Not just ethnicities but also where you’re from in the country. They did a study a few years ago that indicated people found those who spoke with a Birmingham accent to be least trustworthy 
I mean, I shouldn’t laugh but…come on.
I’ve spoken about it before but I did jury service when I was 19. The lady on trial was white, in her 20s or early 30s. She was accused of driving the getaway vehicle in a burglary. Retiring to consider the verdict with my fellow jurors was like 12 angry men, except that there were 7 men and 5 women. The prejudices were disgusting.
“I knew she was guilty the moment she opened her mouth”
“She’s from Slough, what do you expect?”
“If she’s not guilty of this, she’ll be guilty of something”.
The initial show of hands was split 7:5 in favour of guilty. I was not guilty. On balance I think she probably did it but that’s not the test. The prosecution had, for me, failed to convince me of her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Over the next two days we talked it out. By the end of the first day the split was now 9:3 in favour of guilt. Just myself and two other blokes remained unpersuaded.
When we returned the next morning one of the two other not guilties arrived looking like he was ready for golf. Throughout the morning we continued to discuss it with our fellow jurors and he would occasionally sneak a cursive look at his watch. At about 12.00 he suddenly said, “Ah fuck it, she’s guilty, I’ve got to tee off at 2”.
Fuck. Me.
(I should make it clear that the preference is unanimity but the judge accepted a majority verdict which is 10/12).
1 Like
There’s enough sleaze to sink 5 governments and yet they’re still there.
I had originally thought that Starmer was kind of buying his time in getting stuck into this stuff but now I’m not so sure.
I dont think another party is the answer, it just creates more subdivisions. I’m almost thinking that lib dems etc. all need to go so that all of those votes go to one opposition party but that creates a whole new list of problems.
This is my plan for when I’m leader of the Labour Party (any day now)
-
Begin talks with leaders of opposition parties (Libs, green, Plaid, SNP) to discuss a formal electoral alliance. We would need to reach an agreement about which parties would stand candidates in which area. The critical thing is that we would not actively block each other by fielding candidates in direct competition with each other.
-
Form a manifesto based heavily on democratic reform. Including changing the voting system to a transferable vote system, but also completely attacking parliament - so no more second jobs for MPs, lavish expenses, and just turning up when you like. Bye bye hereditary peers and hello elected second chamber.
-
Go to the country on the promise of a two year Parliament to enact democratic reforms, and then go back to the country with the electoral alliance formally dissolved and the opportunity to vote for whoever you like.
No brainer.
1 Like
Just realised I posted the article in the wrong thread. 
Ah well. But I agree we need some big changes somewhere along the line.
I hate the idea of an elected second chamber, absolutely hate it. But I equally hate the idea of hereditary peers.
I want those in the second chamber to be chosen on experience, field of expertise, and contribution to public life. I don’t want them chosen for their policies or political opinions (hence why I don’t want them to be elected as that implues that they could also be voted out). I’d like their appointment to be for life (or the very minimum a flat term of 15 years, for example) and capable of being ejected only for illegal conduct or breaking Parliament’s code of conduct.
To be chosen from a broad spectrum of specialisms and background. Science, Arts, Economics, Politics, Trade, Sport, Charity, Humanities, Engineering, Law, Education, Health etc.
1 Like
I like the idea of a chamber of expertise, but the problem is that someone has to nominate those people and as soon as that’s the case it becomes political.
2 Likes
Second chamber should be randomly drawn after each general election.
National Insurance numbers from a random generator; Schofield and Willoughby presenting, in order to engender maximum public trust.
Sorted.
3 Likes
Crikey. Imagine if @Klopptimist 's number came up. We’d all be in jail or incinerated before the weeks out.
5 Likes
i know what you mean,
i reckon a 2pm tee off over there would end up with the 18th being played in twighlight, and thats not conducive to a good round.
1 Like
Scholars agree that one of the reasons a full history of Asian Americans has not been incorporated into core U.S. History curricula in K-12 schools is because it doesn’t portray America in a positive light.
3 Likes
What does? 
2 Likes
I guess that settles it then…
Why is that the headline they’ve gone with when it seems they could have gone with,
“Overt discrimination persists in the UK”
Don’t most countries leave out the darker parts of their history?
White countries don’t have any darker parts.
3 Likes
There are no white countries.