The government is having a go at removing juries from most trials, demolishing a fundamental right of all freeborn English people to a trial judged by representatives of the public. It sits easily with their wish to put us under international, EU and code law, to marginalise the flexibility and commonsense of common law, and to put a class of technocratic governors and spies over us.
Tony Blair tried the jury trick but was resisted by the Lords. The UK is not short of jurors. Trials are not delayed owing to a shortage of jury members, but to rationed court time and a shortage of judges and criminal law barristers. Court hours are short and case waiting times unacceptably long. The government needs to use more buildings as courts and hire more lawyers to conduct cases.
A better reform to free court time would be to decriminalise not paying the BBC licence fee. Make that a debt like any normal contract for services. Reduce the number of thought control offences by allowing more free speech whilst taking seriously incitement to violence and terrorist plans.
This government seems to despise our history and wants to submit our democratic and legal freedoms to control by international lawyers and judges in their own woke mode.
November 29, 2025
2TK would seem to prefer Napolionic law as opposed to our Common Law which has evolved through centuries. He likes the idea of the state dictating what is lawful rather than our system whereby everything is legal unless specifically banned.
He would live to be able to persecute people behind closed doors without proper representation. This has become necessary because the so called Faaaar Right are making life difficult for him. Next we’ll have the knock on the door and people vanishing without trace. Tommy Robinson being the test case. After all Starmergeddon spent his youth in Eastern Europe studying the ways of the Stasi.
November 29, 2025
IW, agree completely, its all about aligning us with the EU. As one commentator said yesterday – surely this idea runs counter to the freedoms contracted in Magna Carta. 2TK is in a rush to fulfil his work plan to bring the UK to its knees then beg for re-admission to that awful socialist project, as he knows his time is running out.
PS has anybody seen actual tax revenue receipts for the last 12 months v Reeves/OBR projections from the time of the budget? How did the OBR do recently?
November 29, 2025
Indeed.
David Starkey’s “Thesis”
Starkey’s argument, often referred to as “The Starkey Thesis” by his supporters, posits that the Labour government, in power from 1997 to 2010, fundamentally altered the UK’s constitutional arrangements in a way that diminished the sovereignty of Parliament and democratic accountability.
Key elements of his argument include:
Dismantling Parliamentary Sovereignty: Starkey argues that the Blair government dismantled centuries-old English liberties and subverted the central principle of the British Constitution: the sovereignty of Parliament.
Politicising the Judiciary: He claims the judiciary was politicised and unelected bodies (known as quangos) were empowered to rule by decree, bypassing traditional democratic oversight.
Constitutional Reforms: Specific reforms often cited as examples of this “surreptitious revolution” include devolution to Scotland and Wales, and the introduction of the Human Rights Act, which Starkey claims handed power from Parliament to lawyers and judges.
Two Tier Kier is just continuing this agenda get all power and any democracy out of the system as far as he possibly can. They have even delayed local elections and clearlyvhave other Gerrymandering plans.
Reply I wrote the Death of Britain? about these bad constitutional changes, warning about them at the time. The EU was a big part of undermining our liberties.
November 29, 2025
So will doom loop economics Reeves resign after her latest clear lies. Surely we need a Chancellor who inspires confidence in the UK so people, workers and businesses to invest in the UK, work in the UK, do not leave the UK and lend to the UK at reasonable rates. So why did she (and Kier) talk the UK economy down and gilt yields up at every turn? A bit of sensible Man or Woman-splaining is clearly needed.
But who would replace her from the dire list of Labour MPs and ministers – someone even worse I assume.
November 29, 2025
Good morning
The trick the government is playing is the sameone that is often described here – First. Create or imagine the problem. Climate Change being a favorite but Digital ID the latest flavour. Then offer a solution.
With regards to today’s topic it is clearly designed to bring us in line with the EU.
Another betrayal.
November 29, 2025
Indeed.
Jacob Rees-Mogg video.
There is no liberty without juries
Trial by jury matters. It is fundamental to the development of liberty in this country. We must do all we can to defend it.
November 29, 2025
Agree
November 29, 2025
Or sharia….
November 29, 2025
Morning Sir John,
In my opinion, the only type of trial which does not benefit from a jury, is the complicated accounting frauds involving large corporates. I doubt many on such a jury actually fully understand just what was going on.
November 29, 2025
Do as I say not as I do:- A Labour councillor has apologised after twice being caught parking his £208,000 Lamborghini SUV in a disabled bay without a blue badge.
Farhaan Rehman, who represents the Labour group on Hounslow council, in west London, was not fined because the car park is privately owned.
However, he said he would donate £160 – equivalent to one fine under Hounslow council rules – to charity instead after his parked car was photographed in a disabled bay on two occasions.
November 29, 2025
Or “rules are for thee, not for me!”
That seems quite common thinking in recent times?
November 29, 2025
indeed, stamp duty, landlord licences, free suits, use of flats and posh spectacles…
November 29, 2025
Well said Allison Pearson:-
Britain is better for @prwhittle having lived. His death deprives our country of one of its most brilliant, courteous and debonair defenders.
Such sad news.
May his example inspire us to fight for what matters as Peter did with every breath.
RIP 🙏
November 29, 2025
Well said LL. Peter Whittle was a real gentleman. He was always beautifully turned out, polite, erudite and he battled valiantly to restore this Nation’s independence from the corrupt EU and for genuine conservative values.
RIP Peter.
November 29, 2025
Amen
November 29, 2025
Gone far too soon.
November 29, 2025
This government seems to despise our history and wants to submit our democratic and legal freedoms to control by international lawyers and judges in their own woke mode.
And going by the justice handed out by the judges in the past few years on some serious cases it would be a disaster to do away with the jury , as for Lammy the only thing missing from him is a floppy hat with dingly bells on it what a fool but would make a great court jester in King Arthur’s Camelot
November 29, 2025
I remember listening to Mastermind Lammy on his LBC slot some years back. Here he displayed just how dim and deluded he was for all to see, Yet he obviously thought he was bright as he went to Harvard somehow a diversity hire I assume.
He was also rather rude to the almost invariably rather brighter callers in.
November 29, 2025
Remove the power of magna carta, remove trial by jury ….plebs go straight to stasi jail with a court case in absentia
November 29, 2025
Ever sat on a jury John ?
A number of our family members have, and it is an eye opener for many reasons.
People who do not want to be there, and just want the trial to end so they can leave, and get on with their own lives or work.
People who are completely biased from the start, either for or against the defendant, depending upon the crime/allegations made.
People who really do not have a clue as to what is going on at all, especially in fraud cases.
The complications of understanding what is actual evidence, and what is conjecture.
The inefficiency of the Court with regards to how long you sit in Court per day, sometimes just a few hours.
The quality of the Defence and Prosecution Council.
Thus many are simply swayed by the summing up of the Judge at the very end.
Having said all of the above in most cases I would sooner keep trail by jury, but have a far, far better selection process, with a more detailed explanation of their duties and responsibilities.
November 29, 2025
You may like to read my post further down Alan ……
November 29, 2025
A Magistrates Court does not have a jury, is Lammy suggesting that many more cases, some perhaps serious could be judged in such a way, if so what type of cases, and what type of sentence would they have the power to give.
certainly with three Magistrates they know and understand the law, and should understand the charges and type of evidence given.
So perhaps this is worth investigating further.
At the moment our Justice system is very slow, (sometimes taking years to go to Court) very expensive (even if found not guilty) and in many cases it is not fit for purpose, because if you can find an excellent specialist defence Council, your chances of a not guilty verdict are higher, than when using a poor one assigned to you by the system..
November 29, 2025
I fully agree.
November 29, 2025
There is a surfeit of law makers in the House of Lords. If their judgement is adequate in forming and approving new laws, surely they could provide better value for money than they currently waste by overseeing trials and applying a sentence from an existing book of guidelines that existing court judges are bound to do.
So many trials are padded out with waffle and dodgy twists. One speedier way of dispensing justice could be to restrict the prosecution and the defence to a single sheet of A4 evidence each and make the best of that.
Highly expensive accoutrements like judges’ wigs are barely value for money. Many of the old men are already wearing syrups to cover baldness that are about as convincing as an Allied Carpets offcut sellotaped to their head. Placing an even larger one on top to confer authority is little more than a sham, convincing almost nobody.
November 29, 2025
I believe diminishing trial by jury puts too much authority in the hands of individual judges.
We already have a problem with left-wing judges imposing their bias and removing trial by jury would exacerbate that problem.
We need the separation of the so called judge, jury and executioner so that left-wing judges are constrained and justice is therefore administered as fairly as possible.
November 29, 2025
The current Judge/Jury/Police system has given us hundreds of really bad miscarriages of justice. The latest involved some poor chap who served 38 years incarceration for a murder that DNA analysis has now proved someone else was responsible. Despite the police beating a confession out of him
Apart from the injustice, getting the wrong man means that the guilty get away with it. This has been going on for far too long. Something has to change.
I do not see a sinister motive in Lammy’s proposal. Non-jury trials, known as Diplock Courts, were introduced in Northern Ireland in 1973 during the Troubles to deal with terrorism-related cases, primarily to protect jurors from intimidation. The justice system did not collapse.
November 29, 2025
Who is to protect Judges from intimidation?
You prefer a country where wrongful convictions are never discovered? For no system is perfect and courts can only rule on the facts before them.
November 29, 2025
It is about CONTROL.
The Government (Establishment) will make the laws or sign us up to International “Laws.”
The Judiciary will be selected (already is being selected) based on their political opinions with DEI the priority.
The Police and Crown Prosecution will (already are) arresting, charging and prosecuting in a two-tier manner
The Judiciary will “interpret” (already is interpreting) the laws in a “progressive” manner and to suit the objectives of the Government
The Establishment will become Lawmaker, Judge, Jury and “executioner.”
This is the very definition of a Tyranny.
The
November 29, 2025
I was involved in an employment tribunal some years ago where the administrator of the employer had broken employment law – the employer employed barristers who constantly attempted to direct the judge who didn’t even know that individuals can be both in paid employment and be drawing a private pension.
Without a jury you are at the mercy of lawyers who game the system.
Administrators are “officers of the court” so really you are at the mercy of the state.
PS the business minister at the time who did bugger all to address this issue – his name is Pat McFadden and the PM was Gordon Brown.
November 29, 2025
So why didn’t the previous government do anything the reverse the damage?
November 29, 2025
As someone who has twice served on a jury, as foreman on both occasions. I think I have some insight into the issue.
Both cases I was on would, I suspect, fall into the “without jury” scenario proposed by Lammy.
On the first occasion, I spent the first hour of our deliberations requesting the jurors to stop asking, how do we get our expenses, complaining that they were there, and would they concentrate on the issue.
It soon became clear about half of us would try and do our duty, whilst the others just said, you come to a decision and we’ll agree with it, then we can get out of here. That’s what happened.
On the second occasion of jury service, much the same again. Except led this time by two self-employed men who relentlessly complained about how much money they were losing whilst stuck in the jury room. They also agreed to vote whatever way would bring about a decision.
The system is not fit for purpose. It’s no wonder that sometimes the guilty get off and the innocent get convicted. I would hate to find myself relying on a jury for my future
None of this means I agree with abolishing juries. In my view what is required is ‘professional’ juries in the same way as magistrates are ‘professional’
November 29, 2025
You also get the jurors who discuss the case on social media, even when warned not to do so. It’s no good trying to penalise them; they just can’t help themselves. Fool you the judicial system if you think these people are suited to being jurors, I blame you. Perhaps if jurors were drawn from people who would be qualified to endorse a passport application you might find they were good enough. You can’t expect someone with an IQ of 70 to be able to follow a case.
November 30, 2025
OA
Indeed looks like we agree through first hand experience of both yourself and my family members, see my post above.
And then we have reached similar conclusions.
November 29, 2025
The Telegraph claims –
Rachel Reeves misled the public over the state of the country’s finances as she plotted the £30bn tax raid, allegedly to save herself ans Sir Keir Starmer.
The Chancellor is at war with the OBR after they published a blow by blow account of the lead up to the Budget shambles.
November 29, 2025
“This government seems to despise our history and wants to submit our democratic and legal freedoms to control by international lawyers and judges in their own woke mode.”
Just heard a woman on the radio suggesting all these measures that seem to show hatred of our country are because of a global desire for one world governance, one world currency etc. Marc Dolan replied that there’s no evidence, but there seem so many lies and apparent incompetence- it makes him wonder!
He’s not alone in wondering!
November 29, 2025
What does he think ‘Globalism’ means?
The oldest cross party group in Westminster is called ‘the One World
Government Group’. Kinnock was a member, many others.
I wrote to them and by return received 5lbs of glossy published magazines promoting One World Government based on the UN.
What are we even discussing this?
Do British people live in denial until their ‘noses are rubbed in it’?
November 29, 2025
We need to have a hard look at what is representative of the public as far as juries make up is concerned – generally speaking we have the old the retired, the shop assistant but not the shop manager, the insurance clerk but not the manger, not the police or army personnel not judges or solicitors and not the harbour master but the harbour worker yes ok, then not very many of the hospital staff and not the doctors or doctors receptionists and not housewives with children – so at at quick glance you can see what is representative of the public – I know because I was there recently and made a count generally speaking and saw how many across society were requesting to opt out because of the importance of their work. Lastly there is a criminal case going on now near to where I live that has brewing in the making for the past four years and we already have a good idea of what the outcome will be in four weeks time probably with a verdict on Christmas Eve and because of the make up of the jury – just think of all of that time for everyone the Courts officials police jury defendents and prosecution witnesses etc – six weeks in total –
November 29, 2025
The efforts the judiciary have been to to frustrate the return of illegal immigrants to other places says it all: without juries defendants would be at the mercy of the political whims of their judges.
November 29, 2025
There is no honest reason for removing juries from so many court cases. There is another agenda in play here.
I fear that woke judges, without the common sense judgement of 12 diverse jury members will prove to be a disaster for justice, and we will see more instances of perverted justice.
Not having a jury will not significantly speed up trials but it will make justice dependent on one person who will have their own particular prejudices.
Yet one more sin against the British people from an inept but fully socialist regime.
November 29, 2025
A few years ago a friend of mine disgraced himself with his daughter’s friend. To give the offence a better chance of conviction, the CPS delayed things in case other trivial allegations could come to light. Only one other allegation was considered to have enough merit to tack on to the main offence. There was no substance to it so in the end he was convicted of just the one offence. The daughter’s friend had to wait longer for justice simply for the judicial system games.
The friend escaped a prison sentence, probably because the prisons were rammed. He’s still my friend, but I’m still very angry with him because of the way he behaved. Sorry mate, you should have been flogged.
November 29, 2025
Juries can refuse to find a defendant guilty even if the evidence clearly suggests otherwise. While this can be frustrating, e.g. when eco-vandals are acquitted by sympathetic juries, it is a vital defence against a government who wants to lock up its opponents so we need trial by jury.
November 29, 2025
Well said Sir
November 29, 2025
Turns out that the immigration from France, according to RaisetheFlags who have filmed it, is orchestrated by NGOs.
Which Judge would find them guilty?
Which jury would find them innocent?
November 29, 2025
I have been the investigating officer in many complex fraud cases, both pre and post the CPS.
Properly presented evidence by competent counsel is readily consumed by a jury and the appropriate decision was always made, according to the evidence.
November 29, 2025
You can’t ask more than that.
Given the choice I would choose to be judged by a jury every time.
November 29, 2025
Scrapping Jury Trials would be a disgrace and a severe attack on our liberty. It is part of the continuing Labour plan, started by Blair, to destroy the UK. What a disgrace that in 14 years the Conservatives did nothing to reverse the position. We need the Conservatives and Reform to make clear that when one of them, or both, win the next GE, they will continue with, or restore, trial by jury.
It would also help if they stated they would abolish 90% of Quangos, and then actually did it.
We now know the Chancellor lied repeatedly in the run-up to the budget. How can she remain in office?
November 29, 2025
Abandoning jury trials is an absolute non-starter – the highly-paid legal profession will see to that. It’s akin to trying to introduce driverless tube trains – impossible due to vested interests. For a summary of why jury trials shouldn’t be abolished see Lammy’s pre-election comments on it.
November 29, 2025
There is a huge backlog of cases awaiting trial, some several years old. Introduction of CPS has slowed down disposal rate especially in Magistrates Courts. Victims of serious crime are badly served especially in serious criminal cases. Yes the Court system needs radical change; Judges and Magistrates need to work longer hours and Courts need to sit seven days a week. Disclosure of prosecution cases has exacerbated disposal and thus delayed justice for both victim and defendant. Having a trial by jury must be retained to ensure transparency and public involvement, however, there is a pressing case to limit election for trial by jury to only more serious cases rather than cases punishable by five years imprisonment or more.
November 29, 2025
Quite so Sir John.
November 29, 2025
This is something people should be in the streets about. As they should about the property tax. Both these two threats to our ancient liberties are fundamental. Do people think they won’t be affected?
They are learning the painful way that IHT, stamp duty, and the higher rate income tax band may all have been sold as just for the rich but now catch normal people, because of inflation and an immoral treasury. It will be the same with no jury and the property tax.
November 29, 2025
It’s all smoke & mirrors to give the importance to our justice system, judges, barristers & solicitors, whether or not ‘trial by jury’ is removed is mute as the bureaucracy will continue
I did jury service and witnessed first hand the bureaucracy ….why do jurors have to undertake the time consuming process of swearing allegiance everyday and at the beginning of a new case, spend half a day sorting out expenses, being removed & escorted from court every time there’s an interjection, daily timetable at the behest of the judge …why cant they pay jurors a set allowance (the same as peers) why cant jurors swear allegiance just once at the start of there service, why cant they introduce a screen in court to excluded jurors and why cant they set a lunch time …not judge time
Our court system needs a time & motion study to improve its effectiveness, and not by a judge, nor civil servant, it needs a business consultant using the ‘5S workplace organisation methodology’
November 29, 2025
Just another despicable act by a despicable Parliament/Government.
The next change e will see is that the accused will have prove innocence, not the accuser having to prove guilt.
2TK as a lawyer looking for the easy option rather than do his duty and protect us all from the tyranny of the State
November 29, 2025
Agree totally with all of your piece today. I do remember Blair and Jack Straw trying this on, but I also remember how keen Ken Clarke was/is on it as well.
‘The plan is to close 157 courts, putting at risk nearly 40 per cent of magistrates’ courts and nearly one quarter of county courts. At the same time, Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, has announced a move to more cyber-justice, with greater use of “virtual trials” in both civil and criminal courts.’
July 2010
“Court reforms vital to tackle ‘scandalous disgrace’ of backlog, says Ken Clarke
The Tory grandee backed plans to reduce the number of jury trials and create a new type of crown court where cases are heard by judges. Lengthy delays in the delivery of justice is “a scandalous disgrace”, former home secretary Ken Clarke has said.
Given the mounting trial logjam, the Government has “no choice” but to swiftly accept proposed reforms, which would see less cases heard by juries, according to the Conservative peer.”
July 2025
November 29, 2025
In a decade we’ll probably have ‘sharia courts’ throughout the land ….without female jurors or any jurors of any kind …thats their working model
November 29, 2025
We have those now. You have just not yet been arraigned by one.
November 30, 2025
Clarke never pretended to be a democrat. The out to lunch EU way of doing things suited him very well and he said so.
November 29, 2025
Our legal system is being presided over by a care of lawyers who do not believe in the Common Law.
November 29, 2025
Jury trials were suspended for months during the Covid lockdowns. As in other resects, lockdowns were a trial run for what the bad actors have been trying to inflict on the country for years – state control by unelectable bureaucrats responsive to supranational political influences.
November 29, 2025
A jury is a safeguard against attempts by bad actors to nobble our judiciary.
We have had many examples where judges have been caught out making political statements in public that are mainly flavoured as anti-Brexit and pro-immigration.
I worry that this attack on trial-by-jury, if succesful, will acclerate the efforts to destroy England.
November 29, 2025
We already have a politised legal profession, that has no democratic mandate to change UK law, but the do. I don’t mean they interpretate them, because of sloppy legislation and legislators, I mean they give the impression of deviating the intention and purpose to suit personal political views. That is not how a democracy works.
There could now be a situation were judges ect are voted for not appointed.
November 29, 2025
The jury isn’t there to serve polatics it is to keep polatics out of our justice system
November 29, 2025
“Twelve good men and true”
November 29, 2025
its not just removal of trial by jury, its also abortion up to full term, euthanising old and poor people, and sterilising children, all things that are unimaginably evil, not in any manifesto, and yet policy of the current government and public sector. we really should have our eyes open about what we are dealing with.
November 29, 2025
A half decent opposition could decimate the “no change to prostate cancer lack of screening” approach from the NHS and government. they clearly don’t want the extra treatment workload that identifying lots more people early enough to save them would need, they have done the calculations and find it easier to let them die. It is yet another issue where the UK is massively different to medical practise in the entire rest of the developed world.
When they say annual PSA testing as screening doesn’t help on balance, they are talking about their version of PSA testing. Other countries do multiple PSA tests a few weeks apart each year, and that allows for the natural curves up and down on PSA levels. If you make that small change the ability of PSA tests to spot the correct people is massively improved. But, of course, the NHS has not considered that.
When they say screening does not help overall, they are talking about the whole male population. You only have to actively look for people where male relatives have died early from prostate cancer, and encourage them to get tested, to massively increase the effectiveness of screening. That is where NHS resources should be going.
When they worry about the negatives of treatment, they worry about their treatments, they forget that the rest of the world has moved on and routinely uses proton beam which significantly reduces the negatives of treatment using the old tech ways of the NHS.
And, of course, any suspected cases identified by PSA testing will always have scans and biopsies before any treatment starts. And they will together identify the cases where treatment outweighs the negatives of treatment. So, the whole argument of the NHS, and political class who support them is easily demolished.
The urology consultants do not support the NHS approach. Foreign healthcare systems regard the UK as a joke of 3rd world healthcare.
And worst of all men who should be actively fighting to get tested every year are being fed misinformation and discouraged from doing so.
All so the NHS can save money and resources to spend it instead on sterilising children, encouraging more genetically deformed children of 1st cousins to fill up our hospitals, and aborting fetuses at full term. The sheer evil of this is beyond my comprehension. And the monopoly employer status of the NHS prevents medics speaking out.
And I am sure it is partly motivated by the feminist extemists who would rather throw money at beast cancer than anything that would help men. Sexism front and centre which nobody is prepared to take on in the political mainstream.
Where is the opposition who could easily make this case and mean it? Where are the politicians who understand anything at all about the way I am describing the reality, and not just reading the blurb from the NHS.
We need to do far better than this.
November 30, 2025
Iain
Agree with all you say, PSA tests may not be absolutely accurate, but they are the easiest and cheapest way to monitor Prostate health, especially those showing no symptoms.
I have had regular PSA tests for the last 10 years, Our Local Lions Club of which I am a member, funds such tests, although they are available free on the NHS (ask your GP)
This year I found that my result whilst still at the lower end of the alert scale was questionable, and it was suggested that further investigation should be completed.
An MRi scan showed a possible problem, Biopsies confirmed two tumours, I was then treated with both Tumours removed, with the HiFu least invasive method of treatment.
Follow ups are to take place in 3 months, six months with a further PSA tests, and another MRi Scan after a year.
Thus for the time being I now believe I am fully recovered, with no side effects.
Just an aside, of the 1,000 or more people that Lions test an average per year, 9% have returned elevated readings, which corresponds with the already known fact that one person in nine will eventually suffer from prostate cancer in one form or another..
November 30, 2025
hifu is another treatment not routinely available on the NHS, only as part of trials in some parts of the country. there is no way to defend the nhs and their substandard approaches. they also use PA’s instead of actual surgeons to do parts of the surgery for those having their prostate removed in parts of the NHS, something that simply wouldn’t happen anywhere else on the planet, dumbed down substandard care.
December 1, 2025
Iain
My HiFu treatment was carried out at Imperial College London on the NHS, I have to say treatment and care has been absolutely excellent, unlike my own Local Hospital Trust who refused to look at me, as they considered my PSA test result of 4.2 was normal, if I had listened to them I would still be walking around with two Cancer tumours which turned out to be medium/aggressive !
Thank goodness I did my own research, and asked my own GP for a second opinion with an expert team.
Yes HiFu is a relatively new treatment (think about 5-7 years) is the least invasive, and can be completed as a day patient, under general anesthetic.
December 1, 2025
HiFu is like Proton beam, routine in the rest of the planet, but not really having any mainstream support in the NHS.
The result differences between Proton beam and the old Radiotherapy approaches of the NHS are massive. But the NHS only uses Proton beam for head and neck cases in children, after it was forced to do so when it tried to have a father arrested for taking his son abroad for that treatment and they were made to look like idiots (note nobody in the NHS involved in that particular farce ever felt any sanction). But Proton beam is simply not being rolled out more widely despite massively better results.