I had a look on YouTube for information about the possibility of
scrapping jury trials in the UK and got some of the basics. One report
said it would be for trials where the likely sentence for a conviction
would result in less than 3 years in prison; another said it would be
for all crimes other than rape, murder and manslaughter. (Those criteria
look quite different to me but I suppose there is significant overlap).
The basic rationale is to address a very large backlog in court cases.
The commentariat class clearly has issues with this plan, especially
since several other measures might well be tried before resorting to this.

It's a bit frightening that the reaction to this proposal hasn't been as vehemently negative as it ought to be; mostly, the commentators are
saying "Hold on, what's this? Don't they realize the implications of
this? We're going to need to keep a close eye on this!", as opposed to
"HELL NO!!!". But maybe that's just innate British patience for trial
balloons sent up by the politicians on the theory that it will never happen.

In any case, the commentariat has noted a substantial number of U-turns
on Starmer's part with respect to policies that he's announced and then
backed away from when there was a backlash - they seem to agreed he's
made 13 U-turns so far - so maybe they think getting rid of jury trials
for lesser offences is so absurd that they needn't worry about it very
much.

If you use your favourite search engine, I expect you'll find lots more information on this proposal anywhere you trust but here's a couple that
seem relevant.

Here's one commentator talking about the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_2oaBznJYs [12 minutes]

And here's the Black Belt Barrister's take on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn9jCGyHbXw [18 minutes]

--
Rhino


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-01-25 9:28 a.m., Rhino wrote:

I had a look on YouTube for information about the possibility of
scrapping jury trials in the UK and got some of the basics. One report
said it would be for trials where the likely sentence for a conviction
would result in less than 3 years in prison; another said it would be
for all crimes other than rape, murder and manslaughter. (Those criteria look quite different to me but I suppose there is significant overlap).
The basic rationale is to address a very large backlog in court cases.
The commentariat class clearly has issues with this plan, especially
since several other measures might well be tried before resorting to this.

It's a bit frightening that the reaction to this proposal hasn't been as vehemently negative as it ought to be; mostly, the commentators are
saying "Hold on, what's this? Don't they realize the implications of
this? We're going to need to keep a close eye on this!", as opposed to
"HELL NO!!!". But maybe that's just innate British patience for trial balloons sent up by the politicians on the theory that it will never
happen.

In any case, the commentariat has noted a substantial number of U-turns
on Starmer's part with respect to policies that he's announced and then backed away from when there was a backlash - they seem to agreed he's
made 13 U-turns so far - so maybe they think getting rid of jury trials
for lesser offences is so absurd that they needn't worry about it very
much.

If you use your favourite search engine, I expect you'll find lots more information on this proposal anywhere you trust but here's a couple that seem relevant.

Here's one commentator talking about the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_2oaBznJYs [12 minutes]

And here's the Black Belt Barrister's take on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn9jCGyHbXw [18 minutes]

It turns out Jacob Rees-Mogg has also weighed in on the matter in a
video I missed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQe4sIdQplE [10 minutes]

--
Rhino

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

I had a look on YouTube . . .

Thank you for the citations.

In my state, and I assume everywhere, the right to trial by jury is
absolute. While there are expedited procedures for misdemeanor charges
and traffic citations and other petty offenses, there is no exception.

In fact, it's a strategy. If a traffic citation is issued, it may be
heard at a satellite courtroom in which there are no jury trials. A
demand for a jury trial gets the case heard in the main courthouse at
the county seat and a different judge. With the trial relocated, the
defendant may still ask for a bench trial.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Jan 25, 2026 at 6:28:04 AM PST, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

I had a look on YouTube for information about the possibility of
scrapping jury trials in the UK and got some of the basics. One report
said it would be for trials where the likely sentence for a conviction
would result in less than 3 years in prison; another said it would be
for all crimes other than rape, murder and manslaughter. (Those criteria look quite different to me but I suppose there is significant overlap).
The basic rationale is to address a very large backlog in court cases.

Yes, this frequently happens here, too. It can basically be summed up as, "the government is too burdened so you must lose your rights to accommodate it".

That's how we got all these rebuttable presumptions in U.S. criminal law. Like "possession with intent to sell drugs". Forget the presumption of innocence. That's too much of a pain in the ass for the government. Unless they caught
you actually selling someone drugs, it was too difficult and inconvenient for the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you're a drug dealer,
so they created the rebuttable presumption that you're a drug dealer if you just have a certain amount of drugs in your possession. The law just presumes you're guilty of selling drugs unless you can prove you're not by clear and convincing evidence.

Our criminal codes are replete with these rebuttable presumptions where the government presumes you guilty and makes you prove your innocence. And for
some reason, this is perfectly fine with the courts.

This push to eliminate jury trials in England is more of the same. "Trials
take too long and cost us money so we're going to get rid of them because the system is more important than the citizen." Once again emphasizing the importance of a constitution that guarantees rights and constrains the government. Although, as evidenced by our rebuttable presumptions, that works only so long as you don't have all three branches of government colluding to violate it.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Jan 25, 2026 at 6:28:04 AM PST, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

I had a look on YouTube for information about the possibility of
scrapping jury trials in the UK and got some of the basics. One report >>said it would be for trials where the likely sentence for a conviction >>would result in less than 3 years in prison; another said it would be
for all crimes other than rape, murder and manslaughter. (Those criteria >>look quite different to me but I suppose there is significant overlap). >>The basic rationale is to address a very large backlog in court cases.

Yes, this frequently happens here, too. It can basically be summed up
as, "the government is too burdened so you must lose your rights to >accommodate it".

That's how we got all these rebuttable presumptions in U.S. criminal
law. Like "possession with intent to sell drugs". Forget the
presumption of innocence. That's too much of a pain in the ass for the >government. Unless they caught you actually selling someone drugs, it
was too difficult and inconvenient for the government to prove beyond a >reasonable doubt that you're a drug dealer, so they created the rebuttable >presumption that you're a drug dealer if you just have a certain amount of >drugs in your possession. The law just presumes you're guilty of selling >drugs unless you can prove you're not by clear and convincing evidence.

Our criminal codes are replete with these rebuttable presumptions where
the government presumes you guilty and makes you prove your innocence. And >for some reason, this is perfectly fine with the courts.

This push to eliminate jury trials in England is more of the same. "Trials >take too long and cost us money so we're going to get rid of them because
the system is more important than the citizen." Once again emphasizing
the importance of a constitution that guarantees rights and constrains
the government. Although, as evidenced by our rebuttable presumptions,
that works only so long as you don't have all three branches of government >colluding to violate it.

These are excellent points. I always liked this one. Contraband is
found. The person who brought the contraband isn't there, or police
aren't aware of who had. That's ok. Anyone near the contraband gets
arrested and is presumed to have had possession of it if not ownership.

Everybody is clearly guilty in a What's Up, Doc? (1972) scenario in
which all charactors had possession of one of the contraband-containing
plaid overnight bags in error at various points in the story.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Jan 25, 2026 at 12:13:32 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Jan 25, 2026 at 6:28:04 AM PST, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

I had a look on YouTube for information about the possibility of
scrapping jury trials in the UK and got some of the basics. One report
said it would be for trials where the likely sentence for a conviction
would result in less than 3 years in prison; another said it would be
for all crimes other than rape, murder and manslaughter. (Those criteria >>> look quite different to me but I suppose there is significant overlap). >>> The basic rationale is to address a very large backlog in court cases.

Yes, this frequently happens here, too. It can basically be summed up
as, "the government is too burdened so you must lose your rights to
accommodate it".

That's how we got all these rebuttable presumptions in U.S. criminal
law. Like "possession with intent to sell drugs". Forget the
presumption of innocence. That's too much of a pain in the ass for the
government. Unless they caught you actually selling someone drugs, it
was too difficult and inconvenient for the government to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that you're a drug dealer, so they created the rebuttable >> presumption that you're a drug dealer if you just have a certain amount of >> drugs in your possession. The law just presumes you're guilty of selling
drugs unless you can prove you're not by clear and convincing evidence.

Our criminal codes are replete with these rebuttable presumptions where
the government presumes you guilty and makes you prove your innocence. And >> for some reason, this is perfectly fine with the courts.

This push to eliminate jury trials in England is more of the same. "Trials >> take too long and cost us money so we're going to get rid of them because
the system is more important than the citizen." Once again emphasizing
the importance of a constitution that guarantees rights and constrains
the government. Although, as evidenced by our rebuttable presumptions,
that works only so long as you don't have all three branches of government >> colluding to violate it.

These are excellent points. I always liked this one. Contraband is
found. The person who brought the contraband isn't there, or police
aren't aware of who had. That's ok. Anyone near the contraband gets
arrested and is presumed to have had possession of it if not ownership.

Or the plethora of body cam police videos on YouTube where cops respond to a house party and find alcohol and kids that are underage, but the kids were smart enough to put their cups and bottles down before the cops got inside and none of them are actually in possession of the booze. So they charge everyone in the house with "constructive possession" of the alcohol, even if you're upstairs in a bedroom with that hot girl you've been hitting on and you just managed to get past the bra hook and are about to see the promised land and there's no alcohol anywhere in your vicinity.

COPS/D.A.s: "It's too hard for us to prove a case against everyone so we
should be able to just ditch the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence to make our jobs easier."

COURTS: Sounds good to me! Proceed.

Everybody is clearly guilty in a What's Up, Doc? (1972) scenario in
which all charactors had possession of one of the contraband-containing
plaid overnight bags in error at various points in the story.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Jan 25, 2026 at 12:13:32 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Jan 25, 2026 at 6:28:04 AM PST, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

I had a look on YouTube for information about the possibility of >>>>scrapping jury trials in the UK and got some of the basics. One report >>>>said it would be for trials where the likely sentence for a conviction >>>>would result in less than 3 years in prison; another said it would be >>>>for all crimes other than rape, murder and manslaughter. (Those criteria >>>>look quite different to me but I suppose there is significant overlap). >>>>The basic rationale is to address a very large backlog in court cases.

Yes, this frequently happens here, too. It can basically be summed up
as, "the government is too burdened so you must lose your rights to >>>accommodate it".

That's how we got all these rebuttable presumptions in U.S. criminal
law. Like "possession with intent to sell drugs". Forget the
presumption of innocence. That's too much of a pain in the ass for the >>>government. Unless they caught you actually selling someone drugs, it
was too difficult and inconvenient for the government to prove beyond a >>>reasonable doubt that you're a drug dealer, so they created the rebuttable >>>presumption that you're a drug dealer if you just have a certain amount of >>>drugs in your possession. The law just presumes you're guilty of selling >>>drugs unless you can prove you're not by clear and convincing evidence.

Our criminal codes are replete with these rebuttable presumptions where >>>the government presumes you guilty and makes you prove your innocence. And >>>for some reason, this is perfectly fine with the courts.

This push to eliminate jury trials in England is more of the same. "Trials >>>take too long and cost us money so we're going to get rid of them because >>>the system is more important than the citizen." Once again emphasizing >>>the importance of a constitution that guarantees rights and constrains >>>the government. Although, as evidenced by our rebuttable presumptions, >>>that works only so long as you don't have all three branches of government >>>colluding to violate it.

These are excellent points. I always liked this one. Contraband is
found. The person who brought the contraband isn't there, or police
aren't aware of who had. That's ok. Anyone near the contraband gets >>arrested and is presumed to have had possession of it if not ownership.

Or the plethora of body cam police videos on YouTube where cops respond
to a house party and find alcohol and kids that are underage, but the
kids were smart enough to put their cups and bottles down before the cops
got inside and none of them are actually in possession of the booze. So
they charge everyone in the house with "constructive possession" of
the alcohol, even if you're upstairs in a bedroom with that hot girl
you've been hitting on and you just managed to get past the bra hook
and are about to see the promised land and there's no alcohol anywhere
in your vicinity.

That's cruel and unusual punishment.

COPS/D.A.s: "It's too hard for us to prove a case against everyone so we >should be able to just ditch the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of >innocence to make our jobs easier."

COURTS: Sounds good to me! Proceed.

The house is guilty property and gets seized. The parents are arrested
upon returning home for having provided the venue.

. . .

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 10:10:48 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

It turns out Jacob Rees-Mogg has also weighed in on the matter in a
video I missed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQe4sIdQplE [10 minutes]

Rees-Mogg (who prior to the last British election where he was beaten
narrowly was a prominent Conservative party "front bencher" in the
British Parliament - I expect Rhino to know what that term means) is
always well spoken and has a classic underspoken English sense of
humor. During one Christmas video when they were talking about Martin
Luther inventing the Christmas tree he referred to him as that "oh -
that well known German heretic" by which you can correctly assume
Rees-Mogg is an active Roman Catholic.

(For what it's worth there are 3 cathedrals in London - St Pauls,
Southwark (the Church of England cathedral serving the diocese S of
the Thames and Westminster (which is the Roman Catholic cathedral not
the Abbey). My late wife and I visited all three while in London in
June 2016 two weeks before the Brexit vote.

(I had asked milady what she planned on getting as a gift for her
mother and where? She said she expected to find something nice "at the cathedral" to which she expected to find something nice at St Pauls to
which I said "honey you KNOW your mother is a staunch Roman Catholic
and that St Pauls' is Church of England so why do you think you would
find something she'd treasure there? Now the Roman Catholic cathedral
is 6 blocks away, it's a beautiful summer day so what are you waiting
for?" and without waiting for a reaction headed off in that direction.
She ended up getting her a very nice Polish icon - which given her
family's ethnicity was a very good choice and when I talked to her
mother at Christmas was told how much she appreciated it.

The outside of the Catholic cathedral is in a Greek Orthodox motif and
the guide told me that when the cathedral was built in 1895 they knew
they couldn't afford to build a Gothic type cathedral that would be
compared unfavorably with Westminister Abbey or Southwark nor could
build a roundish cathedral like St Pauls so they decided on the
Orthodox design though that's only the exterior - the interior is VERY Catholic)

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.10
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 19:25:35 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

Yes, this frequently happens here, too. It can basically be summed up as, "the >government is too burdened so you must lose your rights to accommodate it".

In Canada it is common for lesser offences (including traffic offences
that do not involve personal injury) to be tried in "Magistrate's
Court" though serious code offences (what Americans would call
felonies) are invariably tried before a judge and jury. A jury trial
is allowed but rare for civil cases and it is common for the judge to
decide the verdict with the jury deciding only the size of damages.

No question Starmer's proposal to eliminate most jury trials is highly controversial in the UK around now though Starmer is only one year
into his term of office.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.10
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Sun, 25 Jan 2026 10:10:48 -0500, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

It turns out Jacob Rees-Mogg has also weighed in on the matter in a
video I missed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQe4sIdQplE [10 minutes]

Rees-Mogg (who prior to the last British election where he was beaten >narrowly was a prominent Conservative party "front bencher" in the
British Parliament - I expect Rhino to know what that term means)

You know we use the same terms in Congress, given that our legislative
branch, but not the executive branch, is a modification of the House of Commons? Rules of order are literally parliamentary law.

It means he was in leadership. He was also a Cabinet minister, so also a
front bencher.

No benches in Congress but we still call 'em "back benchers".

. . .

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.10
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)