251
Starmer announces resignation as prime minister and leader of the Labour party (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
136 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago

    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.

    Condescending

    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.

    Bootlicker

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent