206
Starmer announces resignation as prime minister and leader of the Labour party
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2026
206 points (99.5% liked)
UK Politics
5545 readers
59 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Also known as abolishing the jury.
Have another source, why not:
https://www.justice.org.uk/briefings/plans-to-restrict-the-right-to-jury-trial
The majority of crime falls within the remit of < 3 year sentencing, so the majority of trials would have trial by jury removed. Your reading of what is happening is so pedantic as to be outwith the realm of reasonable understanding.
The majority of crimes are already summary only, that's just the consequence of there being a lot more petty thefts and speeding than murders.
I'm not a fan of the impression that moving more cases from either way to summary only is being done for reasons of costs, but you are making it sound like this is trial by jury going away for everything when it very much isn't.
If we're going back down the route of pedantry, the majority of crime goes undealt with, then after that the next most is handled by police and wardens without the court system involved at all. yOU Are mAkING iT SOUNd LiKe the MAJOriTY of cRime IS DeaLT wiTH by anYBodY WheN it veRy mUCh ISn'T.
Many summary crimes are what are called "either way" which means you can admit your guilt and be sentenced by a judge in a magistrates court, or you can profess your innocence and go to crown court for a trial by jury.
Why do you think most cases are summary? Do you think it's because it's petty crime with non-prison sentences that the CPS are very confident they'll win because the defendant definitely is guilty and professes their guilt in court to get it over with? That's not what anybody up in arms about this change cares about. They care about the trials where the defendant professes their innocence and could have life changing consequences if incorrectly found guilty.
Ultimately, do you think anybody standing in the dock gives a fuck whether it hasn't been 100% abolished? It will be abolished for most. It will be abolished for anybody claiming innocence. It was a contributing factor as to why Starmer has had to go. The legal profession is outraged at this immense overreach by the government and has kicked up a stink about it.
Many legal scholars and journalists have used the term abolished. The 50 people who upvoted the comment seemed to understand what I meant. This pedantry aids nobody except the scumbags trying to remove legal safeguards.
Very mature argument. I never said anything of the sort, and if anything the bulk of crimes that dont get prosecuted are likely to be summary only anyway (shoplifting and the like).
And you seem to be mistaken on that the only way to be sentenced by a magistrate is if you plead guilty. It isn't, trials can also go before a magistrate to determine guilt is the offence isnt indictable only (and the magistrate doesnt think it is too complex and needs to be sent to crown court). The defendant may then then request for it to go to crown court instead, which comes with larger sentences possible (magistrates cannot issue terms of more than 12 months), longer time until trial, and a full jury.
What is being proposed is that right to request crown court is being removed for some either way cases. Whether its a good thing or not I dont have the expertise to say, I dont like the erosion of jury trials, but I also dont like that people can have their lives ruined by being stuck in limbo for 5 years waiting for a case to prove their innocence either.
Fundamentally, the point is that there is already a class of crimes which do not get a jury trial, a class which can get a jury trial and a class which must get a jury trial. The proposed changes would move some offences from the second category into the first. I dont see how calling that "the abolishment of jury trials" is an accurate representation.
Then read those who do. I already provided this source previously.
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/64854/jury-trial-rights
Ok if you're not going to address my points and instead just parrot the text of a motion (which says "proposals to abolish or severely restrict the right to trial by jury in England and Wales by limiting jury trials to cases attracting sentences of less than three years") which clearly states it is only talking about a subset then I'm done here.
Simple question for you: after this is enacted, will there or will there not be jury trials in England and Wales?
For the vast majority of people, no. For every single one of them, trial by jury is gone. It has been abolished for them.
And then, how long do you think until the world of political spin pushes for the removal of that right for murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc? How many will be willing to stick their neck out to defend those people's right to a trial by jury?
Why not, instead of wriggling around, answer the question? It'll only take a tiny amount of movement on your part, and you can still get your main point across, which is that you don't approve of removing jury trials from that many people. It'll feel good, I guarantee it. We can agree about something, have tea, and go home happy.
Actually maybe lemonade would be better today.
What's your goal here? What do you think you're achieving by being a condescending pedant?
What's to gain by defending the removal of a means in which The People prevent miscarriages of justice, which has been a cornerstone of the justice system for centuries?
Do you think David Lammy will personally hand you a get out jail free card, or is it because your ego is so pathetically fragile you can't stand on occasion being wrong about something?
I don't like throwing around the word bootlicker, it's done far too much in online discourse, but you're acting like the epitome of a bootlicker right now.
Truth in political discourse is important. You said something untrue. What you call pedantry I call a commitment to the truth, even if the truth doesn't fully support me at every turn. You're happy to fudge the truth as long as the vibes are right: that's not good enough. The ends don't justify the means; if you sacrifice truth you lose credibility, if you lose credibility there's no point even having political debate: you may as well just yell insults.
You can't answer a straight question about the statement you yourself made. I'd have more respect for you if you had just said "no" and doubled down on the lie.
In my experience, this is most often used to describe someone presenting an inconvenient truth. There's a simple remedy though: tell the truth. It'll set you free, as they say.