Donate SIGN UP

What Is This About?

Avatar Image
ToraToraTora | 14:54 Thu 18th Apr 2024 | Society & Culture
26 Answers

Just walking back from lunch today and I noticed these have been plastered all over the place. I don't understand the message, are they sayhing that even if they think someone is guilty they should acquit if they think the person right in what they did?



1 to 20 of 26rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Question Author

yes I saw the website Naomi but I'm none the wiser.

This is the question the blurb asks. 


//But how can a jury apply their conscience to the evidence if they’re prevented from hearing why a defendant did what they did? And how can they exercise a right if they don’t know they’ve got it?//


I suppose it's saying the jury system doesn't work honestly.  It doesn't give specific examples but I suppose if there are any, that's where you start.

The problem is that once the trial is over, if you raise anything which occurred in the Jury Room, you're breaking the law.

The jury's job is to determine whether the accused is guilty or innocent depending on the evidence presented. Not to take into account the whys and wherefores.

I think they are arguing if a juror is, say, a climate protester, it is perfectly acceptable for them to find someone not guilty of throwing paint over a masterpiece because they had good reason to do it. The law says they are guilty of the deed but they were justified, so you can find them not guilty.

Well bhg that's a very slippery slope we are going down if that starts happening, where will it all end if we can't depend on juries being impartial. 

They are know to have the right, but it isn't right to acquit knowing the defendant was guilty.

jurors do have this right, and occasionally exercise it. But the government, extraordinarily, thinks it's illegal to tell anyone about it.

A juror whose convictions are that they should let people off despite them being guilty, is unfit to be a juror.

it's an ancient right, OG. Back in Georgian times, when hundreds of crimes carried the death penalty, juries would often acquit someone of stealing a handkerchief rather then see them swing for it.

Question Author

right so what they doing is perverting:

"quod est necessarium est licitum, “That which is necessary is legal" - for that to be the case the defence would have to show that the actions were necessary and that could never be the case with lobbing paint over something etc.

Question Author

16:18, they may well have done that but it's not a right it's just what they did.

Question Author

16:18 should be 16:23

It is another example of blurring the lines, and lessening the difference between right and wrong. Not content with bringing law into politics the dismantlers of our society now intend to introduce politics into law. It will not go well for the freedoms of future generations.  

Thanks 3T. I notic that "they" now cannot understand your old time London vernacular   ...   except when "they" find it useful to do so to be vindictive. Your special effect at work then.  🤯 

Ahh Wrong thread. Sorry.

Did you mean Shadowmod's superpower?

Only @18.26 Douglas. That was misplaced.
The 18.08 post was in relation to the op. 

""In the Spectator this week, Lord Sumption lamented Britain's exclusion from what he called the continent’s “grandest and most inspiring project”. It is remarkable how many Brits who are otherwise clear-eyed and sceptical can be carried away by such lofty sentiments, especially when they are on holiday. There is nothing grand about the slow and subtle seizure of power by unaccountable judges and bureaucrats. There is nothing inspiring about the imposition of uniformity on a continent with such a rich variety of nations and peoples.""

Briefings For Britain.    ...   Not the warning about unaccountable judges and bureaucrats! They are not easy to get rid of. It is hard enough to get shut of people who stand for election is it not. It is why both Hitler and Stalin found it necessary to take sterner measures when nullifying them to gain control of the "political" system that they sought.    

1 to 20 of 26rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

What Is This About?

Answer Question >>