Nigal Farage Stands Down As MP To Trigger By-Election

[quintessentone]

People are judged here in a court of law, if found to have broken such, not by public opinion...

And your argument kind of mixes the two separate issues.

If there are concerns about security for former politicians.

I agree that those should be investigated on their own merit.

But Farage's situation is not proof of government failure.

Rules around political declarations, security, and accountability exist precisely so the independent bodies and not politicians, or public opinion, can judge the facts.

Controversy does not automatically prove a dereliction of duty.

Additionally i imagine the US has similar concerns about political security.

How many assassination attempts on Trump to date?

I seem to recall Paul Pelosi being attacked with a hammer in his own home, with the attacker looking for his Mrs. 

Same gadgie, different tracky really.

Security is based on risk assessment rather than automatically provided to every politician.

The challenge is balancing safety, resources, and civil liberties.

And i think both our nations would get a "must try harder" sticker on that score...

I don't live in the U.S. and the difference in population, extremists, and 'political hot heads' between the two countries are important points to consider. Within my country, I don't see these types of issues raising their ugly heads, rather past politicians' security is reviewed continuously. Trump is guaranteed the highest level of security for his entire life.

How is the investigation into Farage going? I can't find any independent reporting online.

Of course public opinion is important...as in juries (?)

[andy06shake]

I don't live in the U.S. and the difference in population, extremists, and 'political hot heads' between the two countries are important points to consider. Within my country, I don't see these types of issues raising their ugly heads, rather past politicians' security is reviewed continuously. Trump is guaranteed the highest level of security for his entire life.

How is the investigation into Farage going? I can't find any independent reporting online.

Of course public opinion is important...as in juries (?)

Thats right, you're Canadian, i would be thankful for those sorts of issues not raising their ugly head yet.

Unfortunately, give it time...

As you know, the world spins. 

The investigation is closed down for the moment because Farage quit, and will be reopened should he be re-elected.

Thats just how it works, or so im led to believe.

Persoanly i think it's a bit of a cop out...

A jury judges us based on evidence presented in court, where legal rules and the judge's instructions apply.

Public opinion is a completely different monster and all about rumours, personal beliefs, biases, prejudice, and incomplete information.

A jury can make mistakes, but there are grounds for appeal.

Public opinion has no such safeguards...

[quintessentone]

Thats right, you're Canadian, i would be thankful for those sorts of issues not raising their ugly head yet.

Unfortunately, give it time...

As you know, the world spins. 

The investigation is closed down for the moment because Farage quit, and will be reopened should he be re-elected.

Thats just how it works, or so im led to believe.

Persoanly i think it's a bit of a cop out...

A jury judges us based on evidence presented in court, where legal rules and the judge's instructions apply.

Public opinion is a completely different monster and all about rumours, personal beliefs, biases, prejudice, and incomplete information.

A jury can make mistakes, but there are grounds for appeal.

Public opinion has no such safeguards...

Not all people in the public realm believe in their one biased side only, some actually do research as to the circumstances and both sides' opinions as to what may actually be going on, on a deeper dive level.

A jury is also easily tainted by media prior to the court case as well as by talented lawyers' twisting of facts and/or evidence.

[andy06shake]

Not all people in the public realm believe in their one biased side only, some actually do research as to the circumstances and both sides' opinions as to what may actually be going on, on a deeper dive level.

A jury is also easily tainted by media prior to the court case as well as by talented lawyers' twisting of facts and/or evidence.

Have you met the majority of Reform voters?

I would not imagine most of them know what the inside of a library looks like.

Their research amounts to what's on GB NEWS most of the day... 

Thats when they are not painting roundabouts or laying siege to hostels and hotels containing refugees. 

A jury can indeed be influenced, but our legal system has safeguards.

Public opinion not so much, or at all, really.

Jurors are questioned and selected.

They can be removed for bias...

Public opinion lacks those checks and balances.

Personally i would rather be judged in a court of law via a jury of my peers...

[quintessentone]

Have you met the majority of Reform voters?

I would not imagine most of them know what the inside of a library looks like.

Their research amounts to what's on GB NEWS most of the day... 

Thats when they are not painting roundabouts or laying siege to hostels and hotels containing refugees. 

A jury can indeed be influenced, but our legal system has safeguards.

Public opinion not so much, or at all, really.

Jurors are questioned and selected.

They can be removed for bias...

Public opinion lacks those checks and balances.

Personally i would rather be judged in a court of law via a jury of my peers...

I wonder if the jury vetting process asks the right questions, such as "What types of social/news media do you digest regularly?

[andy06shake]

I wonder if the jury vetting process asks the right questions, such as "What types of social/news media do you digest regularly?

I seem to recall the selection process mainly checks your eligibility, your age and address.

And criminal history rather than what you read or watch on the telly.
 
But in serious cases, judges will warn their jurors not to research the case or view the media coverage. 

You're also not supposed to discuss the case with friends or family.

And if found to be in breach or exposed to prejudicial material, they will remove you from the case.

I imagine the vetting process will be pretty similar to identical in your own court system...

[quintessentone]

I seem to recall the selection process mainly checks your eligibility, your age and address.

And criminal history rather than what you read or watch on the telly.
 
But in serious cases, judges will warn their jurors not to research the case or view the media coverage. 

You're also not supposed to discuss the case with friends or family.

And if found to be in breach or exposed to prejudicial material, they will remove you from the case.

I imagine the vetting process will be pretty similar to identical in your own court system...

The problem with that is that, unless you are living under a social media rock, then how can a regular person miss the daily news? I was just asking my daughter how she is so informed as to what is going on in the news whenever I bring any topic up. She said...TikTokkers are in a competition to see who can get the most views depending upon how fast they get the news online.

[andy06shake]

The problem with that is that, unless you are living under a social media rock, then how can a regular person miss the daily news? I was just asking my daughter how she is so informed as to what is going on in the news whenever I bring any topic up. She said...TikTokkers are in a competition to see who can get the most views depending upon how fast they get the news online.

I think the trick would be you're are supposed to climb under that rock whilst on a jury. 

Not that i don't recognise the shortcomings, considering the information age in which we exist.

I would still take a jury of my peers over the public opinion of an angry mob, where the loudest bastard in the room can scream, "get em" and it all goes pear-shaped rather sharpish...

Most people tend to take the matter seriously if selected, some, all the same, more than others...

[quintessentone]

I think the trick would be you're are supposed to climb under that rock whilst on a jury. 

Not that i don't recognise the shortcomings, considering the information age in which we exist.

I would still take a jury of my peers over the public opinion of an angry mob, where the loudest bastard in the room can scream, "get em" and it all goes pear-shaped rather sharpish...

Most people tend to take the matter seriously if selected, some, all the same, more than others...

Well, public opinion IMO would be, right now, for the Farage situation, that which journalists write about and relay their opinions about. The only other public opinion I see on this is from you here on DI and I would not want you on my jury as you don't reflect yourself as my peer on limited information digestion when the investigation hasn't even been concluded yet. You are the judge, jury and executioner, it appears to me.

[andy06shake]

Well, public opinion IMO would be, right now, for the Farage situation, that which journalists write about and relay their opinions about. The only other public opinion I see on this is from you here on DI and I would not want you on my jury as you don't reflect yourself as my peer on limited information digestion when the investigation hasn't even been concluded yet. You are the judge, jury and executioner, it appears to me.

Journalists and the public(me) discussing a situation are not deciding guilt.

They are expressing opinions based on available information.

A jury is different because it hears tested evidence, cross-examination, and legal instructions.

All those things Farage would rather avoid like the plague...

And it reaches a decision based only on what is proven in court.

Not that he's been changed with anything yet.

Criticising or questioning a public figure before an investigation concludes is not the same as acting as judge and executioner.

Im entitled to my opinion, the same as yourself. 

You're perfectly safe i would not be asked to be on any jury due to past transgressions.

Not to mention im not a Canadian citizen, so.

Unless you are planning on committing crimes in Scotland...