• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A trial .... without a Jury? First time in UK history.

To bare arms? I dont think the monarchy would agree with that, we may end our "subject of the crown" status and become complete citizens.

Well ... we'll edit the US Constitution before implementing it then. I don't think the public would accept legalizing guns.

Besides i love the Queen and so do many others. Charles ... not so much.
 
Because cases like this come up:

Britain was wrong to freeze assets of Abu Qatada, rules EU, clearing way for him to get compensation | Mail Online

EU court orders release of Abu Qatada assets | UK news | guardian.co.uk

We should have the right to freeze the assets of a nutter without Europe jumping down our throats.
It breached his fundemental human rights, the gov accepted the ruling and agreed they were wrong, we all have the same fundemental rights,so do you want them for some, and not for others, if so why did you start this thread?

Next one please
 
Oh please, fundemental rights :roll:

Clearly we will never agree on EU.
We need them economic wise, but they should never have a say on Governmental issues.
 
Congratulations!! You guys voted for all that ****. No guns, no juries and a socialist state.

Lmao.
Look ahead to a few decades and it might just happen to you ... :2wave:

Oh and i would hardly call Labour socialist.
They are almost light blue.
 
Oh please, fundamental rights :roll:

Clearly we will never agree on EU.
We need them economic wise, but they should never have a say on Governmental issues.
Why did you start this thread, you seemed worried that the law lords were removing these fine gentleman's fundamental rights to trial by jury, and then the Government extending its use.

You cant have it both ways and not appear to be a hypocrite
 
Congratulations!! You guys voted for all that ****. No guns, no juries and a socialist state.

Great to live in Europe indeed
 
Why did you start this thread, you seemed worried that the law lords were removing these fine gentleman's fundamental rights to trial by jury, and then the Government extending its use.

You cant have it both ways and not appear to be a hypocrite

A Government should have emergency powers in times of need, what is needed is the ability to keep that Governments use of power in check but i'd much rather it be our legislative/committees who have this ability who are elected and chosen by us the people rather than a hand from Brussels making judgements from afar but for that to happen reform would be needed of the political system which we might be getting if Brown has anything to do with it.
 
BBC NEWS | UK | First trial without jury approved





Dangerous, knowing our Govt. this will become common.
I don't like this at all, what the heck is going on with our system.
Does anyone even know who our law lords are and we are supposed to trust them :roll:

Um did the man request a trial by judge alone? In the U.S. that is ones legal right. Some people feel that they have a better case if they are tried by someone who actually knows the law.
 
A Government should have emergency powers in times of need, what is needed is the ability to keep that Governments use of power in check but i'd much rather it be our legislative/committees who have this ability who are elected and chosen by us the people rather than a hand from Brussels making judgements from afar but for that to happen reform would be needed of the political system which we might be getting if Brown has anything to do with it.
Emergency powers would need a vote,the European Court of Human Rights was established in 1952, it will hear cases from individuals or states, it is a fine safety net.

Again I ask what was your reason for starting this thread?

What is your opinion of the European Court of Justice?
 
In the U.S. trials by jury are usually reserved for Felony (more serious) charges, in what we call "Superior" courts.

Misdemeanor charges are handled in District courts by a single presiding judge. Misdemeanor verdicts can be appealed to a superior court judge for judicial review or for an opportunity to have a jury hear the case, but this usually doesn't happen that often.

In Texas, you can have a jury to fight even a traffic ticket. I have sat on some of those juries too. In municipal court, the jury consists of 6 jurors, not 12.
 
Well ... we'll edit the US Constitution before implementing it then. I don't think the public would accept legalizing guns.

Besides i love the Queen and so do many others. Charles ... not so much.

I would then suggest the Canadian Constitution. A majority of the legislation is British anyhow. It has the Queen, no provisions for guns (so restricting them can be done with ordinary legislation) and more advanced rights regime in the Charter...just sayin'.
 
Again I ask what was your reason for starting this thread?

What is your opinion of the European Court of Justice?

Erm, i know you've been here for a while so i am sure you of all people are aware that this is the NEWS sections. Yes dear, news. That is where we report things that have happened in the world.
Now what we do is find a article we think people should know or might like to comment on and then post it .... shockingly enough, i believed that seeing this is the first time it will be occuring in history it was worth a mention .... :roll:

I don't mind it generally.
 
Last edited:
why? Sometimes there are 3 judges, they "vote" the sentence

but maybe our laws are different. Here, they are quite precise, everything is written and the judges only apply it

Here we use jury as the ultimate check on governmental powers and to ensure that the government is using its ability to use force to suppress the rights of the individual correctly and not for political or power reasons. Thus it is inconceivable to many in the US that you would have a trial without a jury.
 
Lmao.
Look ahead to a few decades and it might just happen to you ... :2wave:

Oh and i would hardly call Labour socialist.
They are almost light blue.
Not because of my vote.
 
Thus it is inconceivable to many in the US that you would have a trial without a jury.

And yet you have things like grand juries that are held in secret, and your whole appeal system is without juries.
 
And yet you have things like grand juries that are held in secret, and your whole appeal system is without juries.
Just say that trail by jury is a bad thing. We don't need a lesson on our own system from you.
 
And yet you have things like grand juries that are held in secret, and your whole appeal system is without juries.

Grand juries are not held in secret, we know where they are at. In fact a friend of mine got assigned to one in Denver. And they don't convict either, the only think a grand jury does is decide if there is enough evidence to proceed with an actual trial. The appeal system is very similar.
 
Erm, i know you've been here for a while so i am sure you of all people are aware that this is the NEWS sections. Yes dear, news. That is where we report things that have happened in the world.
Now what we do is find a article we think people should know or might like to comment on and then post it .... shockingly enough, i believed that seeing this is the first time it will be occuring in history it was worth a mention .... :roll:

I don't mind it generally.
Please dont call me dear, I am very expensive
 
Need I say more
 
Just say that trail by jury is a bad thing. We don't need a lesson on our own system from you.

Trial by jury is by no means a bad thing. We have them in Europe too, but in some cases it is just not needed..
 
Grand juries are not held in secret, we know where they are at. In fact a friend of mine got assigned to one in Denver. And they don't convict either, the only think a grand jury does is decide if there is enough evidence to proceed with an actual trial. The appeal system is very similar.

Grand juries are secret. The accused is usually not informed that they are being held and almost never informed about the basis for why they are being held.

As for the appeal system.. no jury, which was my point.

Also if I remember right, cases like divorce, custody cases.. all without juries.

Every country has a different legal system and legal standards. In some European countries petty crimes are done via 3 to 7 judges instead of a jury, and others it is a jury. In the end the result is no different. That the English system is slowly changing only means that the English system is evolving to accommodate changes in the amount of legal cases. It is not like murder cases are not going by jury...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom