‘Trial by Jury’ is one of the most quoted cornerstones of ‘British Justice’ – or rather, British Justice as we like to believe it exists. Until the last few years of Labour control of the British eduction system, there was scarcely a child in the country who could not have told you that it dated from the hard won protections from the State embodied in the Magna Carta. Most kids today probably imagine that the Magna Carta is to be found in the ice-cream cabinet.

‘The Jury’ as they are colloquially known have undergone many changes over the centuries to reflect social mores of the time. Once they were nobles and knights, protecting others of similar rank from having their lands confiscated by the King. Civil claims as we know them today.

Criminal offences were the province of those men believed ordained by God, the Clergy. Speaking with God’s voice, and thus God’s wisdom, morally equipped to judge those who had transgressed the few criminal crimes of the time – Thou shalt not Kill, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife and especially not his under-age daughter, Thou shalt definitely, emphatically, not covet his son or even thy neighbour himself….

The Clergy dispensed these duties using their mystic powers. Burning a hole in your hand was popular, holding your head under water a foolproof method. Unquestioned methods on account of those mystic powers bestowed by God upon payment of ‘ex’ number of groats to Ye Olde local Theological College.

When the Pope decided that he no longer wished to supply omnipotent agents to ‘divine the truth’, the Jury system that existed in civil disputes was extended to the Criminal Law. The members of The Jury were scarcely the man in the street, definitely not the woman, nor the landless majority – they were local squires expected to research the crime and decide the facts – and still be an infallible method of divining the truth but without the divine intervention.

We have tinkered with the definition of ‘Peers’ ever since; deciding that ownership of property was not a deciding factor in truth divining ability, nor gender, but sanity counted, or a semblance thereof, as did age. Past 70 and you apparently lose the mystical ability to divine the truth, before the age of 18 you are not so blessed. Today The Jury is a random selection of local voters who have lived in Britain for more than 5 years and fit the other qualifications. 

We do not know how Juries decide a matter – they may engage in witchcraft for all we know. Their deliberations are secret. In some areas they may be wildly partisan and given to particular decisions based on which church their great-grandfather worshipped in – alternatively they may come under great pressure to decide in a certain way simply because they live in an area where a particular decision is required of them as a preferable alternative to having their knee-caps shot off. We just don’t know – we can only speculate. That is why the Jury system was abandoned at one point in Northern Ireland in favour of the so-called ‘Diplock Judges’ who sat alone, arbiters of Law and Fact.

The advantage of a Judge is that he is required to record his reasons for making a particular decision, giving the accused more chance of appealing against an apparently irrational decision. You will never know what influenced the Jury that decided you were guilty; it could have been that your eyes were too close together.

We don’t expect the Jury to understand the vagaries of mental illness, even though the man ‘in the dock’ may have committed criminal offences. We allow him to state his case before a tribunal of specialised individuals. His ‘freedom’ – or otherwise – is decided by a Judge, advised by someone with medical expertise and a person with extensive knowledge of what is politely called ‘social care’ these days.

Not 12 people from the locale who may be swayed by emotive views on, for instance, the danger to society that the average schizophrenic may pose. We understand that the media portray mental illness in a particularly negative light, and the ‘average citizen’ would cheerfully lock up every schizophrenic for the rest of their days, given the chance.

I would suggest that the time has come for the so-called ‘historic sex abuse cases’ to be tried by a similarly specialised tribunal.  A Judge to rule on the law. Someone with extensive knowledge of the damage that sexual abuse can do to a person’s ability to retain information accurately, to come forward in timely manner, to tell the truth – and someone with long experience of caring specifically for teenagers who come from damaged backgrounds, who can tell the difference between bitterness born of prior abuse and a desire for revenge on the system, and those who have genuinely  suffered abuse within the care system.

At present, we decide these matters via a Jury fed on a daily basis media propaganda designed to make them believe that all women are strong, intelligent creatures, but who need protection from beastly men, children are all utter innocents incapable of lying until an elderly celebrity put his arm round them, and men all have bulging eyes and bulging trousers, likely to inflict incalculable harm unless safely incarcerated.

We have Jury members happily proclaiming ‘Wow! I wasn’t expecting to be in a jury deciding a paedophile’s fate, I’ve always wanted to Fuck up a paedophile & now I’m within the law!’ Note: the sentiment was not whether an individual was a paedophile, but merely one of ‘deciding his fate’.

Why should he not think like that? Operation Yewtree has successfully convinced the general public that it is not necessary to investigate allegations of sexual abuse, the mere fact that an allegation has been made is sufficient to label a person ‘paedophile’.

How many people on Jury duty will have been influenced by this new line of thinking? Is it just or reasonable that a man’s liberty should rest on unknown factors within the Jury room – ‘he’s got bulging eyes’ – when so much of the evidence relies on two versions of shaky memories of events long ago?

A tribunal comprised as I have suggested would be required to record the reasons for their verdict in writing, reasons which could be challenged. Based on evidence understood by those hearing it. Literally understood, not understood from advertisements on afternoon TV, or a half listened to TV documentaries which left them believing that all children’s homes were places of untold horrors.

Historical sexual abuse is different. Rules of evidence which apply in other criminal cases have been abandoned to give victims a better voice. The least we could do to redress the balance for the accused is to allow that evidence to be heard by specialists who truly understand the problem and are accountable for a particular decision.

To leave a man’s liberty up to a random selection of an increasingly emotive general public without any accountability for that decision to be challenged on grounds of irrationality is decidedly Un-British.

What think you?

Ergathones the
Philosopher August 7, 2013 at 23:05

Apologies to all and sundry if this has been posted as a link earlier and I
just haven’t noticed it… this could’ve fit into today’s post or this earlier
one. Maybe I’ll put it on both.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/07/misogyny-society-abused-children-predatory

What was I saying a few hours ago about generalising?

Now, I’m not familiar with the way the Grauniad works (this being my first
visit and all – blame my friend who posted the link on Facebook) but what
immediately strikes me is the number of comments that have been removed by
moderators… shurely comment is FREE…?

rabbitaway
August 7, 2013 at 23:20

Comment is free but the Guardian won’t print yours unless you toe the
line. My comments have to go through moderation, that is, they would, IF I
bothered anymore which I don’t. You must not upset the other commentators by
expressing your own views about things. They can stuff their ‘comment is
free’ lie up their orifices !

Jonathan Mason
August 7, 2013 at 23:23

Unfortunately the Guardian does remove a lot of comments, including quite
a few of mine, without giving any explanation. No doubt some removals are
explicable, or possibly to protect the Guardian legally, but some removals
seem quite arbitrary.

rabbitaway August 7, 2013 at 22:43

Music fans from way back – enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PETV09XpSho

Ergathones the
Philosopher August 7, 2013 at 20:50

I heard about the “13-year-old predator” story on the radio news this
morning. What interested me the most was a soundbyte from someone decrying the
judge’s remarks – possibly NSPCC, I’m not sure – and my apologies for
paraphrasing, but I was still half asleep at the time… essentially what she
was saying was that:

“She couldn’t have been predatory, because she was below the age of
consent.”

Hmmm. Chickens and eggs methinks.

I’d argue that a more accurate way of summing things up would have been
along the lines of, “Whatever her motivations, the Law requires that we do not
regard her as having acted of her own free will, as she is below the age at
which the Law states she is responsible for such actions.”

There’s a difference! This particular Law doesn’t change people’s behaviour
in and of itself, but rather affects how we are required to view said
behaviour. And while I’m all for the punishment of those who knowingly break
the Law, I think the application of common sense now and then would work
wonders. Judge each case on its own merits rather than generalising – easier
said than done when paedophile hysteria seems to be the order of the day.

Jonathan Mason
August 7, 2013 at 21:29

Having worked at one time in Juvenile Justice, I can tell you from first
hand knowledge that thirteen-year-old female sexual predators are rare but
not completely unknown, as I can think of at least one from my memory. The
problem with all the “shock-horror” being expressed at this case is that
most of those who are shocked and horrified are not familiar with this
population and think that simply by pointing out that the girl was only 13,
they are saying something profound that must have been overlooked by those
experienced legal professionals actually dealing with the case. I doubt
it.

The man in this case that is now doing the media rounds may or may not
have been under-sentenced, but I don’t see how you can know this unless you
have quite a bit of data on similar cases that takes into account
aggravating and mitigating factors, previous record, plea of guilty or not
guilty, and other factors that judges have to consider.

Margaret Jervis
August 7, 2013 at 17:21

‘Someone with extensive knowledge of the damage that sexual abuse can do to
a person’s ability to retain information accurately, to come forward in timely
manner,’

We already have such people in cases.

They are called ‘judges’.

And they’re specially trained! Already. You can see their ‘generic’
directions (experience, not inadmissible profile evidence, mind) in the
judicial benchbook http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Training/benchbook_criminal_2010.pdf.
Go
down to the section about dispelling ‘myths’ in sexual offences. See the ref
to Dr Fiona Mason.

Now compare and contrast this menu with her training talk – it used to be
free on the web but now it has been published it has to be paid for .http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S152169341200137X
unless you have a password – I have a copy from her training sessions I can
send to interested parties via Anna.
It’s called ” the Psychological
consequences of Rape”. It’s a reworking of the ‘rape trauma syndrome’.
It
states ” It is essential to do all possible to increase conviction rates given
the low rate of successful prosecutions, especially following rape…”
Many
of the things she asserts are repeated word for word in the directions.
No
bias there then.
As for juries – hang on to them. It’s what happens before
that’s at fault.

rabbitaway
August 7, 2013 at 17:54

@Margaret …… ‘It’s what happens before that’s at fault’ ….. exactly, and
they have no excuse

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/code2013english_v2.pdf

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/indictments/#a1

Moor
Larkin August 7, 2013 at 17:54

It might be as well that the new DPP is a woman.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-director-of-public-prosecutions
Hopefully
she can emulate Maggie Thatcher and be more of a man than her
predecessors…..

Margaret
Jervis August 7, 2013 at 18:07

So long as the new LCJ isn’t Heather Hallett….

Moor Larkin August 7, 2013 at 18:37

One thing’s for sure, there’s no sign of any female solidarity…………..

“One senior member of the London team, who asked not to be named,
told the Gazette that the management culture was centred on ‘fear, blame
and bullying’. She said that as London’s chief crown prosecutor,
Saunders must bear much of the responsibility for the development of
such a culture: ‘If she can’t sort out London, why put her in charge of
the entire CPS?’ It is not just members of staff who are unhappy. The
CPS, still reeling from 27.5% budget cuts and a 7.5% reduction in lawyer
numbers, stands accused by defence lawyers and the police of
incompetence and delays in dealing with cases. All of which suggests
that Saunders will face an uphill struggle to solve the ills of what is
apparently a dysfunctional organisation.”
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/features/profile-alison-saunders

Ian B August 7, 2013 at 18:12

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jan/30/rape-victims-acquittals-chief-prosecutor

She appears to be a hardline ideological rapey-rapey-feminist, so while
she can’t be any more idiotic than Starmer, it doesn’t look like an
improvement either.

Ian B August 7, 2013 at 18:25

Hold on, what does this mean?

“Someone with extensive knowledge of the damage that sexual abuse can do
to a person’s ability to retain information accurately, ”

Is it supposedly the case that “sexual abuse” addles the brain? Is there
any evidence for this?

HUman beings never “retain information accurately”. We have
memories, which are little stories in our heads. We’re not computers.
Is there any reason to think that sexual experiences have some special
effect on those memories? Or have I misunderstood the assertion?

Margaret
Jervis August 7, 2013 at 20:16

Who are are we to judge? I think it used to be called crimen
exceptum.

rabbitaway August 7, 2013 at 17:01

Actually it was the PROSECUTING barrister who made the remarks (thanks
Huff’ poster for pointing that out) …… piece of luck for the defendant to have
both sides defending him …… or ….. NOT, as now, he will probably get life …..
!

rabbitaway August 7, 2013 at 16:36

Correction – it’s the prosecutor who has been suspended not the judge
…..

rabbitaway August 7, 2013 at 16:15

Who needs judges when we have policemen who can see a year into the future
– presumably, they can catch the chap at it, or better still prevent anything
happening in the first place ……

They took place between March 19, 1974 and August 30, 1988 against three
girls, who cannot be named for legal reasons and came to light at the end of
next year.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/man-jailed-14-year-campaign-abuse-5675519

Ho Hum August 7, 2013 at 15:44

It’s maybe all academic really. Who needs a jury, when you have the Court
of Public opinion? Wasn’t it Hattie Harperson who was really keen on it as a
useful tool in the pursuit of justice?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23597224

Got to give some credit, though, to Clive Coleman Legal correspondent, BBC
News, for not stoking up the hysteria, in his analysis there

Moor
Larkin August 7, 2013 at 16:22

Barbara Hewson won’t be applying to the CPS for work then……..

Just noticed that Liz Dux invokes Godwin’s law in this piece. I would
have expected nothing less!…….
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/there-is-no-rationale-whatsoever-to-lower-the-age-of-consent-barbara-hewson-should-know-better-8611624.html

Ho Hum August 7, 2013 at 16:34

Sure. Watched all that as it happened. She’s getting a pasting at the
Huffingtuffington today

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/07/barbara-hewson-predatory-comments_n_3717529.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

rabbitaway
August 7, 2013 at 16:43

@Ho Hum – the comments are indeed interesting …… amongst a sea of
hate there’s this ….

There is no clear cut black and white answer to this problem. Each
and every case has to be judged on the evidence presented.

Before I continue any further, I have to state that I believe the
consensual age of sixteen is about right and see no reason for it to be
lowered.

Whilst doing jury service in the early 1980′s. One of the cases
involved a young man, aged 22 accused of having unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor. It transpired he had met the girl at a party,
they had a few drinks and a dance or two. She (the girl) suggested that
they find somewhere private, so that they could kiss and cuddle. Some
time later the girls mother, who had called to collect her daughter from
the party, found her in bed with the accused in the middle of having
sex. She called the police and the man was arrested. The girl had turned
14 three months prior to the offence.

When the girl gave her evidence, she was dressed in tight blouse,
mini skirt, tights, high heels and wore make-up. She could have easily
passed for 18 or more. She admitted instigating and wanting the sexual
experience, she admitted she liked it and said she would do it
again.

The accused conditionally discharged.

Some young women seek out older men, some take advantage of older
men, some marry much older men! Each case is different and has to be
judged on the evidence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/07/barbara-hewson-predatory-comments_n_3717529.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Ho Hum
August 7, 2013 at 17:11

Thanks, Hoppy. Yes, I’d read that one.

Most of the comments on this, and other articles there, seem to be
the work of those unable to read properly, bereft of any understanding
of that which they have absorbed, to which they then seem to be
incapable of applying any reasoning of a rational nature through a
comprehensive lack of knowledge, intelligence and wisdom. This seems
to be coupled with a surfeit of effluent between the ears, but, alas,
their one neuron seems to be capable of rattling about sufficiently in
the limited cranial space remaining to unfortunately enable them
gobbily spout forth on the great coomplexities of life in tirades of
simplistic, stupid, grammar free, spelling defective, tripe.

There, I feel better already.

rabbitaway
August 7, 2013 at 16:35

Goodness – that was quick – they’ve suspended the Judge from hearing
these cases

http://news.sky.com/story/1125379/cps-suspends-lawyer-from-sex-abuse-cases

Ian B August 7, 2013 at 16:52

It’s not the judge, it’s the defence lawyer. Basically, they’re
setting up a Star Chamber, where you’re guaranteed a hanging judge, and
you’re not entitled to present a defence.

I see Caroline Ocado-Waitroz has stuck her oar in again, also.There’s
quite a career in witch-hunting, isn’t there?

I give it about a year until we’re throwing every accused man in a
river, and if he floats, he’s innocent.

So anyway, this is what it’s like to live in an insane society,
people. Enjoy.

Ian B
August 7, 2013 at 16:54

Oops, “if he floats, he’s guilty”. Way to ruin a comment, Ian.

Moor Larkin August 7, 2013 at 16:58

And it was the Prosecutor……… which just makes it even more
bizarre…………..

Ian B
August 7, 2013 at 17:05

Oops Moor, another goof.

Anyway, if anything can be salvaged from my above cofabulation of
cock-ups, it’s that the basic point being institutionalised now is
that only one conceptualisation is to be allowed in court. We’ve
finally reached the stage originally declared on Berkeley Campus, that
“all sex is rape”. No doubt there are clinking classes at the Fawcett
Society as we speak.

Ian B August 7, 2013 at 15:22

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10228621/Lawyer-who-called-13-year-old-predatory-is-barred-from-sex-offence-cases.html

This is what you’re going to get from expert tribunals, Anna. A hegemonic
ideology entirely divorced from reality.

Girls don’t have a sex drive. Keep repeating it until you believe it’s
true, unless you want to be entirely ruined by our moral guardians.

Ho Hum August 7, 2013 at 15:45

Sorry for the repetition below. Just read this properly and see you got
there first!

Ian B August 7, 2013 at 15:53

Don’t apologise

Moor
Larkin August 7, 2013 at 15:52

@Ian B
Fascinating to see the age range coming down apace…..
“Jailing
Steven Smith, 19, who supplied cannabis to a 14-year-old girl in return for
sexual intercourse, he said: “The message must go out that even if a
14-year-old girl has immature sexual curiosity she will be protected by the
law from older men.”

and… IanB….. be careful with those horses……….
“During
a search of Wilson’s home in Romford, Essex, officers discovered images and
videos depicting ……. bestiality.”

Ian B August 7, 2013 at 15:55

Moor,

Can’t remember where I saw the horse video now, but it streamed onto a
hard drive that’s long since gone to landfill

In my line of work, I keep my machine scrupulously clean, just in case
of the 5am knock, and just sheer terror of prison. Except for lovely
Samantha Fox, who they will only pry from my cold, dead hands.

Lucozade August 7, 2013 at 16:38

Ian B,

“Girls don’t have a sex drive. Keep repeating it until you believe it’s
true”

No matter how often it’s repeated it won’t make it anymore true.

Girls do have a sex drive, why wouldn’t they? lol

Woman on a Raft
August 7, 2013 at 22:33

It does not matter if she was naked, jumping up and down and yelling Do
Me Big Boy – the complainant was not on trial. Rather, the defendant knew
she was a minor and should have simply removed himself or her from the
situation. That’s what competent grown-ups do when faced with a stupid
child.

The disciplinary action came because these comments were not from a
defending barrister trying the old ‘she led him on, m’lud’ gambit,
but from the CPS prosecuting barrister. I thought the Mail had
misreported the case, attributing the remarks to the wrong person, but no,
it really did happen. The judge seemed to think he was listening to a plea
in mitigation from the defence, then ended up repeating it, which makes me
wonder what he had been toking. I can only think that the prosecutor got all
excited and simply forgot which side was paying his fee – or, rather, won’t
be.

Since Colover seems to have been doing the job since 1976 (if I’ve got
the right Robert Colover of 4 Breams Buildings) you’d have thought he’d have
the hang of it by now. Another explanation is that Colover gave an opinion
about the use of agent provacateur recently and somehow got his head all
tangled up with enticement . He may have been over-working and could do with
a holiday. His featured work on his CV is as a defender, so it really is
possible he just became overwrought and confused.

http://www.4bb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Bob-Colover.pdf

Lucozade
August 8, 2013 at 00:00

Woman on a Raft,

You may be right, but does being 13 years old automaticlly make you a
‘stupid child’?

I don’t think so, we are all different and adults a capable of making
mistakes too, not just teenagers, I wouldn’t want to be in a position
where I had to put all my faith in them…

Moor Larkin August 8, 2013 at 08:12

@ stupid child @
It’s only fiction but I was prompted to remember
a novel that made quite an impression on me when I first read it and
that was John Steinbeck’s “East of Eden”. I could recall that
notwithstanding she was the apparent “baddie”, I felt an aching sympathy
for Cathy, the woman who brings down the men in Mankind. Anyhow, I
remembered that the plot was that she began her seduction of the male at
an early age but was quite surprised to realise, after finding the book
again, that she was ten. The novel makes plain that we are meant to
conclude that she instigated the “crime” but the two boys of fourteen
are whipped to cuts, partly because they will not admit to their
culpability. It’s only a novel and the boys are under-age too but
assuming Steinbeck was not yet another Historical Paedo, I’m guessing he
got the notion of a girl “older than her years” from someplace. Anyhow,
I doubt East of Eden will be making the recommended reading for GCSE
again……….. if it ever did……….

rabbitaway August 7, 2013 at 09:57

Anna – looks like your idea might be coming off ….. ‘complex sex abuse
cases to be heard by select judges ….. just not that last one eh

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23595398

Anna
Raccoon August 7, 2013 at 10:04

Yes, saw that – and raised a smile. Not quite what I had in mind, but at
least they are looking at the issue.

Moor
Larkin August 7, 2013 at 10:16

@rabbitaway
That’ll be a gift to the Conspiracy Boyo’s
http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/criminal-criminal-justice-system.html

rabbitaway August 7, 2013 at 09:49

Here’s what happens when a judge shows a bit of initiative …… the NSPCC are
not happy – the ‘sentence’ will no doubt be reviewed Hall style !

http://news.sky.com/story/1125379/outcry-as-girl-called-sex-predator-by-judge

Moor
Larkin August 7, 2013 at 10:06

The judicial system is perverse though because what have the Judge’s
perceived motivations of either man or girl got to do with this? She was 13.
Way too young. He was breaking the law and could not have been ignorant that
he was doing so – big-style. This urge to demonise one or other party is
just ridiculous. Humans do bad things and when a civic society can apprehend
them, then they should be given the appropriate sanction.

rabbitaway
August 7, 2013 at 10:36

@Moor – let’s wait and see what they come up with ……. I accept your
point, the guy was wrong, there needs to be a level headed way of dealing
with these matters, it’s gone way too sensationalist now because of the
celebrity cases …….

Announcing plans for a review of aggressive courtroom questioning in
June, Justice Minister Damian Green cited a child prostitution case in
Shropshire in which one victim was cross-examined for 12 days by seven
defence barristers.

And they called for each court to be staffed by a team of specialist
child sexual exploitation judges, prosecutors, police, witness support
staff and ushers

I wonder WHY they needed to cross examine for 12 days …… 7 defence
barristers ……. ?

This is going to be very expensive, no doubt people will make a lot of
money out of this …… something simple and sensible would be too much to
ask for.

Moor Larkin August 7, 2013 at 11:20

Here we go. Here we go. Here we go……………

“Trigger warning: this petition text contains references to sexual
assault that may be triggering to survivors.”
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/crown-prosecution-service-cpsuk-take-action-over-sexual-predator-court-comments

rabbitaway August
7, 2013 at 12:31

@Moor – we should start a petition ……. ‘Enough Already’ ……. I see
they have 18,000 already ……..
Vested interest anyone ?

Moor Larkin August 7, 2013 at 13:09

@rabbitaway
Democracy in action?…….
He
who shouts loudest wins.

rabbitaway August
7, 2013 at 13:14

They’ve got 2000 moor since my last post …… oops that 2451 …

Ian B
August 7, 2013 at 16:00

“I could have been that 13 year old girl”

Also, Trayvon Martin presumably.

The problem is, she could only have been that 13 year old girl if
she’d actively decided to do a striptease out of her school uniform to
seduce a man, then given him a BJ, then told a friend who reported her
voluntary, consensual actions.

So, she probably couldn’t have been, then.

Moor
Larkin August 6, 2013 at 15:54

@ we’re dealing with a society gone mad. @
I disagree. What we have is
the morally-liberal UK Establishment that has put itself in place over the
last half-century having a crisis about what it has done with it’s accession
to the levers of power. It’s laissez-faire approach to “old-fashioned” morals
has created a bit of a monster and it has frightened the pants off them all of
a sudden. Their own siege mentality makes them blame everyone but themselves
for their own cheap sexualisation of UK society and so they aim their guns at
the past Maggie said there was no such thing as society and Savile perverted
“free love” into “free sex”. Both ideas are myths but it helps the Left feel
as if it’s not their fault.

This national angst is being exacerbated by their multi-kulti paralysis
when faced with the socially conservative ripples across the world, whether
those are based on notions of Sharia Law in the Moslem sphere or the
homophobia emerging in Africa and E. Europe. When people become frightened
they become irrational and it’s very obvious that lefties are in a complete
funk at the moment whereas the more conservatively-minded are inclined to just
shrug and say “Well. What did you expect? You can’t go back, so let’s move on
please. Stop living in the past.”

Lucozade August 7, 2013 at 10:11

Why are they all of a sudden so interested in everyone else’s sex life
anyway?

They seem incapable of comprehending that different people’s attitudes
will differ slightly. What some people seem to class as ‘sexual
abuse/assault’ these days others just class as a joke or a bit of fun. i.e
bum spanking/pinching, or trying to steal a kiss, as long as it’s not
persistent, lol…

Moor Larkin August 7, 2013 at 10:36

@Lucozade
I was browsing some comments yesterday and one person
highlighted “child marriage” and ranted about child abuse, then the next
person said that was ridiculous because child marriage was a valid
cultural difference to be respected. For some reason I remembered the
subtle narrative in “Around the World in 80 Days” about Phileas Fogg
working against the Hindu practice of “Suttee”.

There is little appetite on the Left to deal with FMG. In fact not a
single case in Britain has been prosecuted yet.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/nov/13/female-genital-mutilation-prosection-uk?cat=law

Lucozade
August 7, 2013 at 13:48

Moor Larkin,

I’d far rather have my arse spanked than my genitals mutilated thank
you very much…

I know a guy who was taken to the police for questioning because his
17 year old niece told them he said her bum looked nice in her jeans,
when she was making a statement about someone else.

It seems your not allowed to compliment the under 18′s these days
with regard to their appearance (he wouldn’t have been trying come on to
her – i’m sure of that)…

Ian B August 6, 2013 at 12:53

Anna, I think that this is an extremely silly idea.

The virtue of a jury is that although it may be biased, it is beyond the
power of the powerful to decide which way it is biased. The people on it
might be radical anti-racists or they may hate darkies. They may be feminists
or MCPs. They may be socialists or libertarians. If you’ve got 12 of them,
there’s probably going to be a mixture. If there is unity of bias on the jury,
it would reflect a unity of bias within the general society which would
include its ruling class from which any “tribunal” would be chosen.

And there’s the problem, because the elite from which any tribunal now
would currently be chosen is more biased, more extreme, and more
fervent on these matters and is the source of the Yewtree-esque
hysteria.

In general, the British population is more liberal than its masters, and
has been since the ruling class were consumed by Methodist salvationism in the
19th century; hence for instance the collapse of prosecutions under the
Obscene Publications Act. The “experts” on sex at the moment- on child abuse,
on porn, and so on- are zealots who bring that zealotry to everything they do
and believe in a divine duty to persecute the sinners. They have infected much
of the general population with hysteria, but they are the source of it.

You are making the error that goes all the way back to Plato and his
philosopher kings; the dream that some superior class can be found who are
“above” everyday matters and can be objective, benign dictators. But every
attempt to do this fails at the first hurdle; this class do not exist. The
whole idea is fundamentally flawed. Any such tribunal system would be
instantly stacked with radical feminists, bluestockings, professional child
savers and Paul Dacre clones.

Really. Terrible idea.

Anna
Raccoon August 6, 2013 at 13:02

I do accept what you say – it seemed like a reasonable idea at the time
of writing, but I have been dissuaded by the comments. It was an attempt to
provide some fresh thinking to the entire arena.

Ian B August 6, 2013 at 13:14

Anna, I think the problem is, we’re dealing with a society gone mad. In
such situations, there isn’t a solution other than to try to reverse the
madness. And that isn’t easy.

Madness such is this generally comes from some generally believed
incorrect assumption; our values are generally deontologically generated
from a few things we hold (as individuals) to be axiomatic. Once upon a
time, it was “witches exist and hurt other people”.

The current incorrect axiom is, “teenage girls are asexual beings who
should not have sex”. Until that axiom is voided and replaced with
something more rational, this madness, in various forms, will continue to
erupt, and there will be little or nothing that can be done to prevent its
effects.

Ho Hum
August 6, 2013 at 13:51

But, Mr B, in saying that, don’t you undercut your own argument about
the virtues of the jury system?

I would agree that your axiom, and everything that flows from it, is
absolutely bonkers. However, the elites seem to have persuaded a fairly
large part of society, through very biased, but sophisticated, use of
all forms of media presentation and underpinning, often single case,
exemplars, that what they are delivering is some received truth. They
are continuing now with a range of opportunistic drives to expand into
other areas by using whatever else fortuitously presents itself for
their use.

For instance, I didn’t realise just how pervasive the supposedly
‘porn only’ filter options might be, until I read an article in the
Huffington this morning, on pro-ana sites, which showed what categories
of filters were being considered

Whatever, almost any a jury nowadays will have some bias which
reflects the current ascendent’s views and it’s difficult to see why
that won’t get worse, given the stranglehold ‘elites’ have over the MSM.

On a purely anecdotal basis, as I said upstream, my kids, and their
friends, are anything but stupid, but for most of them, when asked about
such things, their knowledge and grasp of issues underlying matters such
as this, and above all their grasp of the history of, the nature of the
participants in, and the strategies involved in forcing through,
legislative introduction, seems to be pretty woeful.

I’d very much rather we had a generalised jury system, but the
quality of those available for selection does bother me, – as I tried to
point out earlier in my earlier post, the humour in which might have, as
sometimes happens, been a bit lost

Ian B
August 6, 2013 at 14:55

I don’t think it does undercut the argument, no

I think there is less ideological homogeneity than we think, for a
start. Part of the problem is that most people feel unsafe voicing
their doubts regarding the hegemonic narrative[1] and keep those
doubts internal.

But to me the main point is that the greatest homogeneity is in the
ruling class, membership of which obligates cleaving to a very precise
value system (the “PC” suite, environmentalism, Oprah Winfrey
emotional trauma stuff etc), so any reaction is going to come from
outside it. Broadly speaking, dissent survives in pockets in the
general population even when it is apparently banished from the
mainstream.

So for the moment, although there is indeed great belief in these
things in the general population, it is still less than among
the morally unified elite. Individuals bring their own experience to
the table; as you have done here at this blog, or, as another example,
my sister recalling her experiences as a teenager and young woman in
theatre- her (failed) pursuit of a hunky actor at an age when Claire
Perry thinks she should still have been playing with dolls (she has a
very funny anecdote of a naive attempt to seduce him in the pub, cut
short by Abba’s “Does Your Momma Know You’re Out?” coming on the
jukebox).

People on juries mostly live in the modern world, rather than the
strange sort of neverending 1950s of the ruling class, as they do in
their general considerations of these matters.

I think also there’s a more straightforward argument; once you give
up a power from the people to the elite, it is never handed back. If
we start handing jury trial over, one specific type of case at a time,
then that power will never return. It’s a one way ratchet.

I think “one way” might be superfluous there. I don’t think there
are two-way ratchets.

Anyway, the point is, social development isn’t linear. It tends to
follow a pendulum of reaction. I’ve been saying for ages now that
we’re in a second Victorian Era. Well, the first one broke down, and
this one will too. Eventually. So really we need to focus on bringing
forward that reaction, not just think it’s all going to get worse and
worse and worse forever. And I think an important part of that process
is keeping juries that can acquite and nullify.

As to this attempt to shut down the internet; yes, it’s terrifying.
But it’s also indicative of a ruling class who are, themselves,
terrified. They were able, in the past, to arbitrarily impose
censorship because we weren’t so interconnected. But if they succeed
in this foolish thing, as more and more people experience being unable
to follow a link from a forum discussion because it’s been blocked by
the Great Wall Of Perry, our embarrassment as a nation will be without
parallel in history, and the backlash considerable.

[1] Marxist terminology is useful, since the current ruling class
have developed their methods from Marxist strategy.

Ian B
August 6, 2013 at 14:56

Sorry Ho Hum, I convinced myself I was replying to Anna there,
sorry

Ho Hum
August 6, 2013 at 17:36

Thanks for the comprehensive response, Mr B. I’ll take the
confusion with the hostess as being unwarranted flattery

OK, on reflection, I don’t think that I’d disagree with much that
you said, particularly that ‘greatest homogeneity is in the ruling
class, membership of which obligates cleaving to a very precise value
system’. But I reckon, despite there probably being a lack of belief
on the part of the great majority – after all how many politicos get
caught out with their trousers down or oranges in their mouths – that
that peer pressure extends into the general population, and conversely
might well do also in the type of matters Anna started this with. For
instance, I don’t know anyone who in course of general conversation
has ever told me that they and their Mrs were watching some good porn
the night before, regardless of how legal and available it apparently
is. In fact it’s some measure of the lack of change, compared to their
willingness to now say that they had enjoyed a spliff . But what
position are they really going to take, even in such a limited public
forum as a jury room? It’s difficult to call right now. In fact, maybe
the more ignorant people are of the debates raging in elitist circles,
the better.
We could do this one to death, but as I’m not one who’s bothered about
having the last word, if there is anything else you feel compelled to
add, please do!

As for the moral ratchet not being reversible, that which I think I
have observed is really more in the form of a one click tighter,
followed by two clicks loosening – the video nasties scare of the
’80s, compared to what is acceptable now, is a classic example – so I
don’t actually see things getting infinitely ‘worse’

That is of course, in the short to medium term, ie 50 to 100 years
or so, dependent on Western democracies managing to keep hold of some
sort of liberalism, whatever that is idealogically based on.

Having an evangelical background, it’s a myth that Christian
teaching is about forced imposition of censorship, or moral codes, on
others, so I’m not bothered about that as a major source of
‘suppression’. Its teaching actually precludes imposing your own
judgement on other Christians, let alone anyone who isn’t. Not that it
has not been hijacked by charlatans and imposters along the way for
their own ends, of course But it wasn’t an accident that it was one of
the greatest Christian apologists of the last century who wrote the
coruscating definition of ‘Omnipotent Moral Busybodies’

The real threat I would perceive there is the potential forced
imposition of imported moral codes, and, as you identified, the
Marxist ideologies which underpin the present attack by the illiberal
left, in all its forms

Ms Mildred August 6, 2013 at 09:37

I have just read about Eddie Shah…..seemingly a polymath…..talented in many
ways. Innovative, motivating guy. He was in control of my hometown weekly
newspaper The Warrington Guardian, at one time, earlier in his career. My
parents used to deliver it in the village on Fridays. He later went to fleet
street and was a prime mover at Wapping events, which lead to great changes in
the newspaper industry. Accused , just like that, arrest, nasty publicity.
Probably not short of a penny. A prime target, the jury sussed him as
innocent. There is something very very sick and sinister about all this. That
a talented man can be reduced to thoughts of suicide by an accuser alleging a
sexual attack crime, that is postively an archealogical dig.

dave/r August 5, 2013 at 23:44

i agree with andy baxter my initial thought when the defendant was brought
was hang the b—–d but on hearing the evidence we came to the conclusion that
he may have been guilty but the evidence was not there so we found him not
guilty

Fred August 5, 2013 at 22:13

I wouldn’t disagree with your comment Moor. The problem I saw was someone
who didn’t like the Not Guilty verdict which commonsense dictated (a young man
walking his girl and her sister home from a dance was attacked by two yobs
with plenty of previous. Unlucky for them, he could handle himself and gave
them a good bleaching. One of them lost an eye and they went to the police.
The Accused had witnesses (an elderly couple walking their dog) to support his
defense). One of the “Guilty Party” comments was “he’s an ex-squaddie, that
makes him a thug in my eyes”. That person was persuasive and turned 3 jurors
to his point of view. Had there not been stronger personalities there, he
could probably have swung more of them. I might mention that the race card was
also being played by the prosecution.

rabbitaway August 5, 2013 at 22:00

The yewtree boys ‘investigating’ the claims made against JS would have
fallen at this particular fence

In many offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and the Sexual Offences
Act 2003 proof of the victim’s age is essential. Where it is necessary to
state age then this must be stated in every count.

Failure to state a complainant’s age can result in the judge’s sentencing
powers being reduced. For example in a case of buggery prosecuted under the
1956 Act it may make the difference between a maximum sentence of two and ten
years.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/indictments/#a1

rabbitaway August 5, 2013 at 21:44

Perhaps I didn’t express myself too well earlier but I remember coming
across the CPS Code for Prosecutors a while back. I’ll pick out a few passages
here

Prosecutors must be fair, independent and objective. They must not let any
personal views about the ethnic or national origin, gender, disability, age,
religion or belief, political views, sexual orientation, or gender identity of
the suspect, victim or any witness influence their decisions.

Prosecutors should identify and, where possible, seek to rectify evidential
weaknesses, but, subject to the Threshold Test (see section 5), they should
swiftly stop cases which do not meet the evidential stage of the Full Code
Test (see section 4) and which cannot be strengthened by further
investigation, or where the public interest clearly does not require a
prosecution

Prosecutors must only start or continue a prosecution when the case has
passed both stages of the Full Code Test (see section 4).

The Full Code Test
4.1
The Full Code Test has two stages: (i) the
evidential stage; followed by (ii) the public interest
stage.
EVIDENCE
Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient
evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on
each charge

Is the evidence reliable?
Prosecutors should consider whether there are
any reasons to question the reliability of the evidence, including its
accuracy or integrity.
Is the evidence credible?
Prosecutors should
consider whether there are any reasons to doubt the credibility of the
evidence

PUBLIC INTEREST

It has never been the rule that a prosecution will automatically take place
once the evidential stage is met. A prosecution will usually take place unless
the prosecutor is satisfied that there are public interest factors tending
against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour. In some cases the
prosecutor may be satisfied that the public interest can be properly served by
offering the offender the opportunity to have the matter dealt with by an
out-of-court disposal rather than bringing a prosecution.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/code2013english_v2.pdf

Fred August 5, 2013 at 21:36

I’ve served in a jury and it would have gone the way the strongest member
wanted. There were two contractors there (including me) and we didn’t get
expenses as we couldn’t prove what money we had forfeited! We couldn’t get
finished fast enough. Half of the jury were retired unemployed who dragged it
out over 2 days (it wasn’t a hard decision by the way) as they “enjoyed the
craic and the warmth”.
Nowadays my work takes me to court on occasion. A
friend who is a retired Procurator Fiscal (Scottish equivalent to
CPS-approximately) says that the rule of thumb is “if you’re innocent, trust a
Scottish Sheriff (judge) if your guilty you want a jury-they can easily be
swayed”.

Moor
Larkin August 5, 2013 at 21:46

@ I’ve served in a jury and it would have gone the way the strongest
member wanted. @

There was a time we celebrated the power of the individual who assembled
Reason on his side, not thought it a fault…
Henry
Fonda in “12 Angry Men” http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/487984/12-Angry-Men-Movie-Clip-Lucky-To-Get-A-Murder.html

Duncan Disorderly
August 5, 2013 at 21:32

The main problem with putting multiple similar accusations up before a jury
is that the jury will convict on the basis of ‘no smoke without fire’. My
reading of Richard Webster shows that juries would find an individual not
guilty of many individual accusations if the defence could *prove the accused
was not guilty of an offence*, but would find the accused guilty of any
outstanding accusations that the defence had not successfully proved were
impossible. These individual accusations by themselves would not be sufficient
for a guilty verdict.

I would hope that these days the CPS were only going ahead with watertight
cases, and the police were interviewing people responsibly.

Paul August 6, 2013 at 11:12

It had actually died off again but the ‘success’ of Yewtree has led to
the reigniting of all sorts of credulous cr*p.

Mizz Mildred
August 5, 2013 at 21:15

Star Chamber?……wish I’d thought of that first! Another great one liner….I
look forward to them. ?

carol42 August 5, 2013 at 20:28

I can’t see how any of the elderly accused can ever get a fair trial given
all the publicity and pre judgement in the media. I have been fortunate enough
never to have to serve on a jury but my late husband did in a rape case and
was horrified by the ignorance and indifference of some of the jurors,
particularly as some had a very poor command of English and seemed to barely
understand what was happening.

Moor
Larkin August 5, 2013 at 20:53

I have only served on one jury and the case never went anywhere, but I
found a cross-section – some had seemingly made their mind up before the
case started, but I suspect would have changed it just as quickly when the
serious decisions had to be made, some plainly would have gone along with
whatever everyone else said, but generally people wanted to “do the right
thing” and do what they felt was their job – under the technical direction
of the judge. This business of people not having a grasp of English seems to
illustrate how the major flaw of our country’s assimilation policy corrupts
the civic society; it did crop up as major issue with the Huhne woman’s
first trial according to the media. Plainly the second jury was better
selected. But many big cases inevitably end up in the big urban centres like
London, whose population is so mutli-kulti it has become inappropriate to
the process of the law. Blind selection of jurists is probably the outdated
part of the process, not having a jury per se.

Ho Hum August 5, 2013 at 19:22

30 years ago I’d have tweeted that Anna should be blown up for having made
such a suggestion. (Please note that that is, as is my style, just another bit
of topical black humour. Apparently these days, it not how you tell a joke,
it’s all about how you explain it, or defend it, or get persecuted for it…

)

However, the risk one runs today of having a jury made up of 12 people who
might all be, or maybe be a mix of readers of the Daily Mail, Guardian,
Telegraph, Guido, Conservative Home, right on Leftist blogs, or Huffington
Post, or worse still, those that write for or contribute articles to them,
makes me think that what Anna says has, regrettably, some merit. I should add
that this would only be of real value if the panel involved could adopt a
position similar to that of a judicial review and, where necessary, just say
that the laws passed by those pillocks in Westminster are crap

Moor
Larkin August 5, 2013 at 19:31

@HoHum
I fail to see why you’re suggesting that because ordinary
people read the ‘papers, they also believe it all implicitly and will rush
to bang anyone up. This rush to bang anyone up is what the educated elites
are doing, not the ordinary people. So far we’ve had two significant cases –
Graham Ovenden who was found not guilty of all the but the most petty of the
charges, but the judge then took a draconian view and sentenced him to two
years suspended for a photograph he had taken thirty years but never even
developed!! The media elites then lied about what he was found guilty of.
The first Corrie guy was found not guilty in nine minutes despite the best
efforts of the papers. No jury got the chance to take on the Stuart Hall
case because the case never reached a court-room but then the erudite judge
and CPS played ping-pong with his sentence. I suspect most of these cases
will never reach a court-room because the evidence is so scanty that the
police and CPS know that no jury of ordinary people will ever convict.
Starr, Glitter on endless bail – we all read the victim’s stories in the
papers – what’s the reason neither has reached a court-room? The legal
people are hoping they’ll either lose their bottle or croak.

Anna
Raccoon August 5, 2013 at 20:06

You do have a point Moor, and maybe I should have a rethink.

Something has to change though. What is happening now is just an
obscenity.

Ho Hum
August 5, 2013 at 20:31

Sure he has a point. But the real problem is with where we are going,
and the outlook for that isn’t too promising, given what people now seem
to accept as gospel truth. My kids aren’t stupid, but what they have
imbibed makes them quite radically different from me in their grasp of
the relativity of right, wrong and the dispensation of justice, over
time

Moor Larkin August 6, 2013 at 07:41

@Anna Raccoon
Best to not forget that the tactic of endless bail
and pressurising people in this way was tested out on journalists in the
hacking scandal. Journalists pilloried on the back of testy celebs………
Join the dots of revenge………

“Terenia Taras, 39, was arrested at her Yorkshire home by detectives
from the 45-strong Operation Weeting, the Scotland Yard investigation
into allegations of phone hacking at the Sunday newspaper. She was held
on suspicion of conspiring to intercept voicemails. Officers, who
arrived at 6.55am, also searched her home in north Leeds.

A year and one month later she was formally cleared. She wasn’t very
happy.

“I have been on police bail for 13 months. It has been incredibly
stressful and I’m extremely glad it is now over, with my integrity no
longer in question. “I’m angry that this cost me my job, my income, and
my professional reputation was brought into question. “I have never had
any involvement in the deplorable practice of phone hacking and believe
I was dragged into the investigation by association and the fact that
I’m an investigative journalist who has worked on some very sensitive
stories recently………”I haven’t written for newspapers for the past five
years…….. Hopefully, now I can get back to doing what I’m passionate
about – working ………. as part of this country’s strong journalistic
tradition.”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/talking-through-your-hat.html

Blonde!
August 6, 2013 at 14:39

With a capital “O” x

Ho Hum August 5, 2013 at 20:21

May I be permitted to sigh deeply? Only in a figurative sense, of
course.
Why
isn’t there some icon that properly does ‘tongue in cheek’?

Of course not every person who does anything, of any kind, fits the
most negative associated stereotype, but in this regard, surely the BTL
stuff can considered to be a bit revealing, even when pre or post
moderated?

This forum is totally unrepresentative of the level of shallow thought,
ignorance and prejudice that one plumbs when looking at the places I
mentioned. If the calibre of members of all juries were such that they
were to be equivalent to, say, our own version of Elena Andcart, I’d
probably not be at all concerned

Jonathan
Mason August 5, 2013 at 21:39

The Corrie guy’s “victim” is a “34-year-old ballet dancer”. Just think,
he could have been a footballer had he not been called to the barre
following his abuse. I think the jury took 29 minutes.

Eddie Shah was also acquitted pretty quickly, although I don’t think he
was strictly part of Yewtree.

Moor Larkin August 5, 2013 at 21:51

Eddie Shah!… another Thatcherite favourite………….

charlotte August 5, 2013 at 19:11

I was summoned to jury service over 20 yeas ago at the crown court. I
thought I’d got away with it and on the last but one day of my 2 week stint I
was selected. It was a harrowing case lasting 8 weeks and I felt drained at
the end of it. I can’t discuss the case but what I will say is that I was
shocked by the attitudes of many of the other jurors. One silly old fool said
that the accused was guilty because he had read so in the Sun newspaper.
Another who took copious notes got some evidence wrong, but as the
spokesperson refused to listen to me so I had to ask to return to the court
room to verify what was said, which resulted in the vote changing. 2 jurors
started a love affair then both refused to vote because of their conscience! I
had the feeling everyone just wanted to go home but in the event had to remain
under the courts control in a hotel. For me it was important to listen
carefully to the evidence, it was all there was, and to make a decision on
that and not what I or anyone else thought. My only thought was that I owed
that not only to the prosecution but he defence also. At that time I really
thought that if I was ever defending myself in court I would not want a jury.
There are many people who think that being arrested is the same as being
charged, and that only guilty people are charged. In yesterdays Sunday Mirror
a letter from JS sees him asking for more teenage shows. According to the
S/Mirror this proves he was a paedophile, couldn’t possibly be because teenage
shows were pop music, young dancing, party type shows. I can’t see that the
aged entertainers if and when charged can possibly hope for a fair trial even
if the judge directs the jury to disregard what they’ve read in the media.

Ms Mildred August 5, 2013 at 17:44

I agree that a special group, call it tribunal, may be, should mull over
the details of the accusations. Mainly to check thoroughly that the crime
described was possible at the time it was supposed to have taken place, before
presentation to the CPS. There should be no trawling to detect more ‘victims’.
A clear annoucement that any accusations put out into public domain, and found
to be false or innacurate, could be actionable both criminally and civilly.
Preferably there should be a limit on the time such a crime is reported. I
fail to see how accurate recall and proper checks can be done, after some of
the ancient accusations that have been made. Anna Racoon has proved to her own
satisfaction that some of the JS ones were false. As for juries. I get the
feeling there are more sceptics around with feelings against gross historical
accusations, mostly to do with seeking money off supposedly rich old men, not
deemed to have enough time left to spend it anyway!!!All juries are pot luck.
I would have thought if the accusations are properly sifted; then let the jury
get on with it…… See the breaking news about a certain well loved old
gentleman.

Moor
Larkin August 5, 2013 at 18:46

@ I agree that a special group, call it tribunal, may be, @

Star Chamber would be more fitting……

rabbitaway August 5, 2013 at 17:42

BTW – how do they know he’s been arrested if the police have not named him
– who tipped them off ?

rabbitaway August 5, 2013 at 17:40

I guess that makes Jimmy ‘yewtree 1′ !

The Met Police have not named Mr Harris, instead describing him as Yewtree
5.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23581847

Duncan Disorderly
August 5, 2013 at 17:12

Topical moment for this blog posting:
‘Rolf Harris faces new
allegations’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23581847

Moor
Larkin August 5, 2013 at 17:21

Rolf needs to start a blog.

Ergathones the
Philosopher August 5, 2013 at 21:25

Interestingly, while I’ve come to expect the tone of the Yahoo comments
on such matters to primarily be the province of the flaming pitchfork
wielders, I was heartened to see almost everyone remarking about this
story coming out in support of Rolf. Common themes included “Innocent till
proved guilty”, “More greedy **** jumping on the bandwagon”, “Why won’t
they name the accusers as well as the accused” etc. Not one comment that I
read even implied that “they’re just doing this to make up for missing
Jimmy Savile for years”, and I get the impression that The Man In The
Street is getting tired of the celebrity witch hunt. And not before
time.

And, of course, there had to be one wag who saw fit to mention the
possibility of a “kangaroo court”.

Joe Public August 5, 2013 at 16:20

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, …………..Thou shalt definitely,
emphatically, not covet his son or even thy neighbour himself….”

Slightly dated in this Age of Sexual Equality, if you’re a
woman………………….

Duncan Disorderly
August 5, 2013 at 16:08

I have to say, Lady Justice looks pretty hot in the picture of that statue.
Graham Ovenden didn’t make it, did he?

Ed P August 5, 2013 at 14:04

I have been called for jury service in October (for the first time). I’ll
keep a diary (as much as is possible within the restrictions of non-disclosure
and confidentially) and will send it to you afterwards.
I’m quite looking
forward to the experience, without too much prejudice or too many
preconceptions.

Mark August 5, 2013 at 14:00

I fear that challenges on the grounds of irrationality might more often be
lodged by the state seeking a guilty verdict, than by innocent persons
challenging illogicality.

Andy Baxter August 5, 2013 at 13:59

I couldn’t DISAGREE more!

I have served as a juror on three occasions yes THREE! all unasked for and
against my free will I would add, selected once is just bad luck, but thrice
made me think what my past life transgressions were? but they must have been
tried by a jury methinks and found not guilty!

why do I disagree with your proposal? 4 reasons:
3 of which relate to my
experience as a juror deciding on whether the STATE had ‘proved beyond a
reasonable doubt’ the guilt of a) armed robbers causing actual bodily harm, b)
a multiple rapist, c) a as it turned out ‘prolific career minded’ burglar and
thief.

Trial by jury is the last bastion against arbitrary absolute state power
against individual liberty and the STATE hates jury’s and would love to have
‘judges’ as they do in a corpus juris system on the continent where a
defendant is not even considered ‘competent’ to defend themselves (as you can
here) and must have ‘legal’ representation, factor in the ability of our
common law system to bring what are termed ‘private’ prosecutions against
public office holders (you cant do that under corpus juris either) I know
because I successfully sued a police officer for misfeasance/malfeasance in
public office and was compensated for the tort he caused me and you have one
hell of a system for the defence of liberty.

But it is under attack all the time.

Already we have seen it tinkered with in favour of more convictions by the
removal of the double jeopardy rule (so the State can in fact pursue one again
and again until it gets the ‘right decision’) a bit like the EU does with
referenda in member states. Add to that conviction by majority verdict (10-2)
when it was always unanimous verdict, so the STATE only has to prove beyond
reasonable doubt to 10 people not 12, hell why don’t they change it to a 7-5
majority verdict or have a jury of 3 with a 2-1 majority to secure conviction
which is a lot easier to convince than 12 independent unconnected unrelated
people hearing all the evidence.

I would add that we had for the first time since the 18th Century had a
trial without a jury http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8106590.stm
an absolutely
terrifying precedent.

I can honestly say apart from the proverbial (you always get one plonker in
any group) idiot who required ‘guidance’ on their responsibilities as a juror,
the whole experience was worthwhile and a valuable insight into how seriously
the majority (in this case 33 out of 36 people) took their role, and I can
remember passionate debate and comments along the lines of “well I KNOW (gut
instinct feeling belief) he’s done it, but the evidence just isn’t enough to
PROVE he did, so my verdict has to be not guilty”.

if we go down the route of ‘special’ or ‘qualified’ legal representatives
or judges making determinations we run the risk of bad law becoming precedent
for such people are constrained within legal limits laid down by their
training, conditioning and professional responsibilities. a jury has no such
constraints and exercises (and I speak from experience here) common sense
based on the facts and evidence before it, and a jury is the only body that
can strike down bad law by returning a not guilty verdict.

so no if I was in the dock I’d rather you gave me a room full of 12
amateurs exercising common sense than a professional paid expert

Anna
Raccoon August 5, 2013 at 14:10

12 amateurs over the age of 40 – and I would agree with you.

Unfortunately, I watched a TV programme called ‘Briefs’ the other night,
and it was an hour or so before I could get my jaw off the ground. I was
profoundly shocked not just at the level of stupidity amongst the accused,
but the appalling calibre of some of the ‘briefs’…

Not only would I not want them defending me, but I wouldn’t want them on
the jury either.

Something has to be done, because the level of intelligence and ability
to apply objective reasoning amongst the potential jurors of a certain age
has plummeted dreadfully.

But thank you for a considered response.

Chris August
5, 2013 at 18:31

Shall I write an article on the reality of being a mature law student
in an immature environment?

cascadian
August 5, 2013 at 18:36

Yes, please.

Tony August 9,
2013 at 14:51

I watched that programme too, and came to similar opinions as
yourself.

I would be however very cautious about getting rid of the jury system,
i.e tried by your peers. It may be far from perfect but the thought of
being tried by a state appointed judge terrifies me. The state already has
taken too many powers, we should be taking powers away, not giving them
more.

Jonathan Mason
August 5, 2013 at 14:52

In the US there is an option that the accused can choose a “bench trial”
in which the evidence is heard in front of a judge with no jury and the
judge decides on the verdict. This is rarely chosen for criminal trials,
apparently because defendants and their lawyers believe they will do better
with a jury.

Moor
Larkin August 5, 2013 at 15:10

@AndyBaxter
That saved me a lot of typing… Thankyou…

It seems to me that, sticking with the example of Operation Yewtree, the
problem here is wholly with the State Judicial Process and it’s servants.
They have become completely brainwashed by THEIR peers somehow. Give me 12
idiotic fellow citizens any day rather than having to rely on the educated
opinion of an educated legal expert employed and educated by the State.

I have long decided that should I ever get accusations of historical
abuse aimed at me, the last thing I shall be doing is employing a lawyer and
I expect nothing from the police other than their trying to fit me up any
way they can. If it’s just a driving offence, bring on the legal aid
brief.

Den August 5, 2013 at 16:29

Andy, You make a very good case I have to agree but my experience was
very different and disheartening. In the jury that I found myself part of,
there were people who were a dead loss. One wanted to knit (tumbril time?)
and continually brag about a new Mercedes. One wanted the case over very
quickly so that he could get back to his business, one wanted it to last as
long as possible in order to claim expenses, a couple admitted to complete
lack of interest, Another declared herself sick (I think to escape).

After seeing this farcical tribute to justice, the idea of being tried by
a similar team, should I ever be the accused, frightened the socks off me. I
came to the conclusion that juries should be made up of professional, paid
jurors with at least an average IQ (perhaps higher) and have some experience
of the world by virtue of mature years, say 25 and over. They should be
fairly literate and numerate and have a generally rounded education. This
type of jury would not frighten me nearly so much.

The obvious problem is how to choose such people. Politicians would
probably use this method as a sort of payoff for services rendered and
corrupt it as is usual with them. It could become a patronage thing. It
would need some system which was incorruptible and nowadays I wouldn’t know
where to look for that.

Moor Larkin August 5, 2013 at 16:59

@den
This all rather came to a head (media-wise) with the trial of
Mrs. Huhne a while back, when the jury was proven hopeless. However, a
retrial proved both speedy and efficacious. The wonder really was why we
needed a trial at all when the woman’s defence was patently piss-poor
viewed from the average person-in-the-street who is not steeped in the
intricacies of arcane laws from the 18th Century, such as seem to appeal
to those of the legal persuasion….

cascadian
August 5, 2013 at 18:53

My list of qualifications for a jurist. Somebody who:

Can wash and comb their hair,
Does not wear runners or
sports-related clothing,
Does not own a smartphone,
Rarely watches
TV,
Can construct a sentence avoiding-you know, like or ohmigod.
Can
do long division without a calculator.
Who has never sought office
higher than the local dog-catcher.

Having disqualified 98 % of the population, perhaps the landlady’s
suggestion of a somewhat qualified panel is a good idea.

John
Galt August 6, 2013 at 10:44

The problem with qualifying jurors more than we do today is you get
an ever shrinking pool of potential jurors and therefore they get called
to often. As the intelligent, articulate and educated tend to be those
which run our businesses.

Even Andy’s experience of serving 3-times seems excessive. I suspect
any qualified candidates would either drop off the Register of Voters or
‘arrange things’ so that they are excluded from the qualification. For
example, if there was an IQ test, I imagine it would be possible to get
a low score to get out of the qualification deliberately getting
questions wrong and acting dumb.

Given the alternative of losing two-weeks pay each time with very
little in real return other than “a social duty fulfilled” is not an
answer, especially when lots of the people meeting the qualification
will be business owner-operators and freelancers.

Andrew Duffin
August 7, 2013 at 12:47

“Trial by jury is the last bastion against arbitrary absolute state power
”
“the STATE hates jury’s [sic]”

He’s right you know.

Tiny Blur (I think) started the degradation of trial by jury, there’s
nothing the State would like more than to abolish it completely. Just as
they would like (and are getting closer) to have all inquests held in
secrete where they or their satraps are involved.

We need to resist these tendencies.

rabbitaway August 5, 2013 at 13:53

First, let’s apply a law of wasting police time, to anyone who makes a
claim that is found to be fraudulent. This should carry a mandatory prison
sentence and should apply to false representations made by the press. There
has to be a better way of handling these cases at the first stage, that is,
when an allegation is made. There should also be built in protection for the
dead and their relatives who should be able to pursue damages against those
individuals, claimants and journalists alike.
In short, the first point has
to be, is there a case to answer, or rather, is there a potential case to be
investigated quietly but thoroughly, like that nice copper from your earlier
piece Anna. The press MUST be kept out of such matters UNLESS there is a REAL
danger to the general public.

Ho Hum August 5, 2013 at 18:59

I’m getting old but, and granted I haven’t checked, but my recollection
is that there wasn’t much enthusiasm here for old LJ Levinsons proposals,
which were a lot milder than slinging even the more medacious journos in
jail

Can’t remember your stance, Mr Rampant, so if this is not one of hopping
from one paw to the other, please take my apologies as read

rabbitaway
August 5, 2013 at 19:58

@Ho – I don’t get what you’re saying – but no worries, I was just kinda
enjoying the idea of locking the evil scumbags up – oh and where do you
get the ‘Mr rampant’ bit ? Apology not required

John
Galt August 6, 2013 at 10:14

I believe a “Rampant Rabbit” is a female self-pleasuring device.

The Meissen Bison
August 5, 2013 at 13:37

There has been a gradual shift from the focus being on the crime to it
being on the victim of the crime and his or her nearest and dearest. It seems
more a forum for public displays of emotion where justice takes its chances
among a welter of histrionics.

Anna
Raccoon August 5, 2013 at 14:06

Agreed, that is what worries me.

Edna Fletcher
August 5, 2013 at 13:35

Anna

I agree that the system of ‘trial’ by jury may be a problem in the age of
the internet and MSM reporting of issues which clearly ‘rile’ before most
people’s brains can ever be engaged to look at facts, (where these are known),
to make balanced judgements.

But judges are humans and part of wider society at large and will have he
same traits. Even my ‘mentally impaired’ parent was able to judge that the
courts do not always make sound judgements, lawyers make money and the ‘law is
an ass’. Subjectivity abounds. The point you raise that counters it is that
judges have to record the reasons for their judgements to allow appeals/ It is
called keeping the juidicariy in jobs.

Jonathan Mason
August 5, 2013 at 13:31

Having once been a member of a jury, albeit only in a drunken driving case
that took all day, my perception of jury trials was changed somewhat by the
experience, and what I learned, somewhat contrary to the idea conveyed by
newspapers, was that the main job of a jury is simply to make a decision as to
who is lying and who is telling the truth. To what extent juries get this
right, God only knows.

David August 5, 2013 at 13:26

agreed