undefined

The BBC is currently embroiled in an election interference scandal after it doctored a video of the President to fit the BBC's chosen political narrative.

And it turns out this was just one of a series of political interventions made by the BBC.

This comes after a string of child sexual abuse scandals and cover-ups perpetrated by senior members of the BBC.

The BBC is an alternative news source we'd do well to avoid

Meaning for the sheeps who only want to read official state propaganda.

Agreed, and I am reminded that Putin once called Russia a "managed democracy." I may not always agree, but I am very glad America has the first, fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments, among others. This tactic by the British government is absurd and offensive to freedom. What I find more baffling, but perhaps I am narrowly thinking about it, is how much the British people are letting it happen. I am not political, but if anyone tried to take our rights under the Bill of Rights, or declared an emergency to cancel elections, I will be in the streets with, I hope, literally every one else.

Some things are just too critical to a free and fair nation, and jury trials are right up there.

Tell me you know nothing about the UK without telling me you know nothing about the UK.

Nonsense.

- voting population? What are you on about? It's everyone older than 18.

- you are not allowed to say "let's go and kill xxxyyy" or "burn hotel xxxyyy" but more or less you can say anything else. You might get sued if you say "Kier Starmer is an XXXYYY" but possibly not.

- this is using a system such as the one that operates in many countries - like France. But note: Germany ditched jury trials in 1924...

I found the recent Banksy work to be very .. illuminating.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/new-banksy-mural-londons-hi...

The UK is a very different society from Singapore.

Are his objections to jury trials correct in the first place? If they are, then do they apply to the UK? I find it very hard to imagine why multiculturalism should be a problem so can you explain what he thinks they work poorly/.

the good option is to keep trial by jury.

What matters of criticizing the UK? Let's have the specifics to discuss?

Unreliable according to whom? Those who find GB News stories politically inconvenient maybe?

If political tribalism could be summed up with a single HN comment...

"NHS, housing, water, gas, electricy" aren't a core part of the government. Justice is.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US lawyers can be jurors.

The main point of a jury from the "arrive at the legally correct solution to the issue before the court" point of view is to settle questions that are questions of fact rather than questions of law.

Generally in a legal dispute you have two parties who disagree over the underlying facts. For example I say your drone broke my window and I want you to pay for a new window. You say your drone was not flying at the time my window broke. Whether or not your drone broke my windows is a question of fact, not a question of law.

Once it is decided whether or not your drone broke me window, then applying the law is straightforward. The difficulty is determining whether or not your drone broke my window.

Once the jury has decided on all the questions of fact they have to apply the law tp them, but for that the court will have given them instructions. Generally that is in the form of a form they can fill out that's basically a decision tree. They just have to fill in what they decided are the facts, follow the branches, and they end up with the correct legal result for those facts.

That’s the whole point though - it’s a cohort of your peers who are regular normal people who really aren’t trained being guided by the available evidence presented by those who are trained. There should be enough evidence of your guilt to convince 12 of them that you committed the crime, rather than the state and the feudal lord saying you did it and locking you up forever.