It's not a budget ...

[UncleEbenezer]

... it's a stand-up act for his party. A succession of cheap and nasty jibes (some of them well-deserved, but nevertheless inappropriate) at other parties.

[Gerry557]

Multiple property taxes brought an animated response from Angela R.!

[88V8]

Multiple property taxes brought an animated response from Angela R.!

If she were a Conservative the media would have been all over her dishonesty.
As it is she seems to have got a free pass.

V8

[Gerry557]

She didn't do anything wrong.
So it looks like hubby will take one for the team.

[Maroochydore]

... A succession of cheap and nasty jibes ...

Isn't this what goes on all the time in the HoC. If they spent half as much energy working together to improve the country rather than trying to score snidey points off the other side, like little schoolkids, we'd all be much better off.

[Nimrod103]

... A succession of cheap and nasty jibes ...

Isn't this what goes on all the time in the HoC. If they spent half as much energy working together to improve the country rather than trying to score snidey points off the other side, like little schoolkids, we'd all be much better off.

Do you think the same principle should apply in the courts, with prosecution and defence working together to establish the truth?

[servodude]

Isn't this what goes on all the time in the HoC. If they spent half as much energy working together to improve the country rather than trying to score snidey points off the other side, like little schoolkids, we'd all be much better off.

Do you think the same principle should apply in the courts, with prosecution and defence working together to establish the truth?

Do you think the same principle should apply when you're having your "farmer giles" operated on with the surgeon, assistants and nursing staff having different approaches?

[Hallucigenia]

Do you think the same principle should apply in the courts, with prosecution and defence working together to establish the truth?

What, you mean an inquisitorial system? Perfectly normal in major countries like France, Italy etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system

But there's a fundamental asymmetry in politics, as only one side can actually implement anything, whereas in lawsuits the defendant may or may not be guilty.

[UncleEbenezer]

Isn't this what goes on all the time in the HoC. If they spent half as much energy working together to improve the country rather than trying to score snidey points off the other side, like little schoolkids, we'd all be much better off.

Do you think the same principle should apply in the courts, with prosecution and defence working together to establish the truth?

It would be a huge improvement to our courts if anyone there cared about the truth. But it's disallowed, even to the extent that jurors have been jailed for trying to inform themselves.

But I don't see the parallel. Courts have (two) opposing sides because their rules specify it de jure; parliament (multiple sides) because the party system leads to it de facto.

[Lootman]

Do you think the same principle should apply in the courts, with prosecution and defence working together to establish the truth?

It would be a huge improvement to our courts if anyone there cared about the truth. But it's disallowed, even to the extent that jurors have been jailed for trying to inform themselves.

Jurors are specifically instructed not to "inform themselves". They swear an oath to take into account only the evidence presented in court and nothing else. So they should not read newspaper articles about the case, not watch TV coverage of a case, not discuss it with others, and so on.

There are very sound reasons for that and if a juror cannot agree to that then they must recuse themselves or risk being held in contempt of court.

That said most cases are decided by both sides working together to produce a settlement or plea deal, rather than a trial.

[UncleEbenezer]

It would be a huge improvement to our courts if anyone there cared about the truth. But it's disallowed, even to the extent that jurors have been jailed for trying to inform themselves.

Jurors are specifically instructed not to "inform themselves".

Precisely. It's all a game for grossly overpaid actors (aka barristers - others grudgingly tolerated) at the expense of peoples lives. People including victims and jurors, as well as defendants (guilty, innocent, or in some grey area, it's neither here nor there).

There was a woman on t'wireless a week or two ago telling us she found the trial of her assailant more traumatic than her rape. Go figure.

[didds]

There are very sound reasons for that and if a juror cannot agree to that then they must recuse themselves

so can you honestly in the UK just say to the judge "I cannot agree to that" and then you can just go home?

[Nimrod103]

Jurors are specifically instructed not to "inform themselves".

Precisely. It's all a game for grossly overpaid actors (aka barristers - others grudgingly tolerated) at the expense of peoples lives. People including victims and jurors, as well as defendants (guilty, innocent, or in some grey area, it's neither here nor there).

There was a woman on t'wireless a week or two ago telling us she found the trial of her assailant more traumatic than her rape. Go figure.

I raised the question about courts because I had in my mind how the adversarial court system had almost certainly led directly to the Post Office miscarriage of Justice cases. People on the prosecution side must have known that Horizon was unreliable but chose to keep quiet, so that information was not shared with the defence. Not that the court system will ever be changed in the UK.

[UncleEbenezer]

Precisely. It's all a game for grossly overpaid actors (aka barristers - others grudgingly tolerated) at the expense of peoples lives. People including victims and jurors, as well as defendants (guilty, innocent, or in some grey area, it's neither here nor there).

There was a woman on t'wireless a week or two ago telling us she found the trial of her assailant more traumatic than her rape. Go figure.

I raised the question about courts because I had in my mind how the adversarial court system had almost certainly led directly to the Post Office miscarriage of Justice cases. People on the prosecution side must have known that Horizon was unreliable but chose to keep quiet, so that information was not shared with the defence. Not that the court system will ever be changed in the UK.

Indeed.

Quite recently (maybe a week or so ago), I heard something (I think it was Radio 4's Law in Action) had an episode on the Post Office story to discuss whether lawyers might (shock, horror) be complicit. They had a senior commentator (I think a KC) noting some specific failures of disclosure, and speculating on how a lawyer knows that it's required but makes a judgement which in this case was clearly wrong. One or two bad apples?

Erm - no, they routinely do it. Pretty-much every time we hear about a miscarriage of justice (the tip of a huge iceberg) there's failure to disclose crucial evidence. And that's criminal cases, where the defendant has legal representation - someone who at least knows the concept of disclosure. Bullying a litigant-in-person who doesn't even know what to ask for - let alone how to ask for it in an admissible manner - is so routine as to be automatic: the lawyer so honest/idealistic as to play by the rules will be weeded out of the system before they ever get to represent anyone.

[edit to add] Ah, yes, it was https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001wxnv

[Lootman]

There are very sound reasons for that and if a juror cannot agree to that then they must recuse themselves

so can you honestly in the UK just say to the judge "I cannot agree to that" and then you can just go home?

There are a number of reasons why you can withdraw from a jury pool, or why a judge can remove you from service. I do not know what they all are but as an example if you know the accused personally, or have some kind of relationship with one of the lawyers involved, then you cannot serve.

Then there is an oath that you swear and if you cannot in good faith make that oath then you cannot serve.

More generally if you do not want to serve you can volunteer the information that you would be biased (which Uncle presumably would, or at least should) and then you will be excused duty.

If I were a defendant I would be happy with any juror who recused themselves due to bias or who was unwilling to follow the judge's instructions. I would be unhappy if any juror was biased but failed to disclose that. Uncle is a smart guy but I would not want him on my jury if he is willing to ignore the judge by "doing his own research".

[XFool]

so can you honestly in the UK just say to the judge "I cannot agree to that" and then you can just go home?

There are a number of reasons why you can withdraw from a jury pool, or why a judge can remove you from service. I do not know what they all are but as an example if you know the accused personally, or have some kind of relationship with one of the lawyers involved, then you cannot serve.

Then there is an oath that you swear and if you cannot in good faith make that oath then you cannot serve.

Surely, in a UK court, you can simply 'affirm' ?

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/giving-evidence-court#toc-1

[UncleEbenezer]

If I were a defendant I would be happy with any juror who recused themselves due to bias or who was unwilling to follow the judge's instructions. I would be unhappy if any juror was biased but failed to disclose that. Uncle is a smart guy but I would not want him on my jury if he is willing to ignore the judge by "doing his own research".

Uncle would be a good person for you to have on your jury if you were in the dock. But he'd avoid it. Here's from something Uncle wrote back in 2007:

It seems to me that, so long as the loss of time is bearable, the least bad outcome is non-cooperation within the law. That means going through the motions, but discounting everything presented to you by those overpaid spin-doctors in court. You have (by law) to give a verdict, and there’s only one verdict in a criminal case:

• If the accused didn’t do it, they are Not Guilty.
• If the accused did do it, they are still Not Guilty. That’s the lesser of two evils: it’s an injustice, but one that has to be set against complicity in the far bigger crime of the jury system.

... and from 2013 ...

How many jurors out there are wracked with guilt for years – even a lifetime – after being suckered into reaching a verdict that, as soon as the courtroom story fades and the real world re-enters their minds, they know or suspect to be profoundly wrong? I can see it in anyone with the kind of borderline-obsessive personality of a typical geek who gives attention to detail. Or those with a strong enough social conscience to let it affect their lives. Indeed, I wonder if you have to be a full-blown sociopath to do jury service without at least some risk of lasting damage to your psychological wellbeing?

[XFool]

Uncle would be a good person for you to have on your jury if you were in the dock. But he'd avoid it. Here's from something Uncle wrote back in 2007:

It seems to me that, so long as the loss of time is bearable, the least bad outcome is non-cooperation within the law. That means going through the motions, but discounting everything presented to you by those overpaid spin-doctors in court. You have (by law) to give a verdict, and there’s only one verdict in a criminal case:

• If the accused didn’t do it, they are Not Guilty.
• If the accused did do it, they are still Not Guilty. That’s the lesser of two evils: it’s an injustice, but one that has to be set against complicity in the far bigger crime of the jury system.

... and from 2013 ...

How many jurors out there are wracked with guilt for years – even a lifetime – after being suckered into reaching a verdict that, as soon as the courtroom story fades and the real world re-enters their minds, they know or suspect to be profoundly wrong? I can see it in anyone with the kind of borderline-obsessive personality of a typical geek who gives attention to detail. Or those with a strong enough social conscience to let it affect their lives. Indeed, I wonder if you have to be a full-blown sociopath to do jury service without at least some risk of lasting damage to your psychological wellbeing?

Well, speaking as (apparently) a "full-blown sociopath", I confess (guilty conscience or not) that on my first jury service I eventually, somewhat unconvinced, voted "guilty" along with the majority. Only overnight to decide I though she was definitely "not guilty" - but too late, the next day was for sentencing.

Why? A combination of things: It was my first ever jury service case, an impatient judge pressing us for a verdict, I felt I was in possession of all the relevant facts, like pieces of a jig-saw, but confusingly they had not yet had time to form into a picture. This they did overnight. Too late.

[UncleEbenezer]

Well, speaking as (apparently) a "full-blown sociopath", I confess (guilty conscience or not) that on my first jury service I eventually, somewhat unconvinced, voted "guilty" along with the majority. Only overnight to decide I though she was definitely "not guilty" - but too late, the next day was for sentencing.

Why? A combination of things: It was my first ever jury service case, an impatient judge pressing us for a verdict, I felt I was in possession of all the relevant facts, like pieces of a jig-saw, but confusingly they had not yet had time to form into a picture. This they did overnight. Too late.

Thanks for the anecdote of your reluctant complicity in an injustice that must've been crushing to its victim. That's precisely the reason I wouldn't allow myself to be complicit in it.

[Lootman]

Thanks for the anecdote of your reluctant complicity in an injustice that must've been crushing to its victim. That's precisely the reason I wouldn't allow myself to be complicit in it.

So would you refuse to act as a juror? Or take the role and then vote to acquit regardless?

The idea of a trial by a jury of your peers is actually a liberal idea - that you should not be judged by professional/establishment judges but rather by ordinary people like you. So what would you replace the jury system with?