Both UK's main political parties have been waging a propaganda war against 'juries' for many years.
At first both parties, comprising mainly lawyers, merely attempted to abolish jury trials for cases of serious fraud - -
[coincidentally, fraud is most common crime of lawyers, next is racist / sexist abuse of employees, then pedophile.]
- claiming that these cases were "much too complicated for ordinary people to understand."
Imagine the "impartiality" of resulting fraud trial: two lawyers and another old lawyer (judge) deciding privately if yet another lawyer - a colleague or fellow member of establishment's oldest secret-society - is guilty of fraud!
The BBC have been going along with the propaganda aims of the elite.
Early in the nineties Brian (Haze?) - (of "Haze over Britain" a very old BBC radio program) was paid to devote a whole radio show to the subject, with phone-ins carefully sorted and with only one (anti-jury) "expert" in the studio - who gave mostly inaccurate "facts".
For instance, he claimed that juries were only "recent" in Britain - untrue. See Reactions to Jack Straw's Lies (scroll down to our stuff), and Jury History
More recently BBC Radio 4 - always ready to do dirty propaganda work for elites - has broadcast a selection of anti-jury snips.
These were taken from interviews with a handful of ex-jurors. [Radio 4 "You and yours" 1245hrs 18 Sept '00) ]
Why should we suspect this was biased and rigged ?
Not mentioned by the BBC script: A national survey covering 8,000 cases, with responses from at least 10 jurors per case.
Result: an overwhelmingly positive pro-jury outcome.
Working here -
27 Sept '00 - a BBC program presenter asks: "Jury trials - are they dangerous?"
The program was "The Commission", a waffley, "upper-class" brains-trust type of program with very few hard facts, a lot of misrepresentation and much hinting at the "stupidity of the lower orders"
[Although no-one spoke those words they hovered behind every other sentence].
Continuity announcer and presenter continually referred to "reform" of the jury system.
Changing the best is not "reform" - it's degradation or corruption.
Nick Ross (presenter) implicitly stated that juries dated only from "Magna Carta" - Not true: juries are much older, they are pre-Norman `Rights Immemorial'.
Nick Ross also said juries were "devised to establish the truth in the 13th Century - Untrue: see above and Icelandic Sagas.
Initially the presenter, Nick Ross, admitted that most of the "witnesses" would be anti-jury; he quickly justified this by saying they were "challenging" the established system.
But all subsequent verbalizing (and very pompous verbalizing at that) was performed as if the program were an "impartial review"
Sleight of hand, surely? More realistically, it was slick media deception. A lie.
As you might expect - possibly because the "Commission" were all upper-class types who would feel much happier with an upper-class judge - automatically biased in their favour (see laworjustice) - the jury's "decision" went in favour of abolishing the right to jury trial.
But if a member of the elite is best arbiter -
why put the question to a studio `Jury' ?
Abolishing the voice of the people is what all elites try to do (and will continue to do) - since the time of recorded histories and before.
A real jury is the
'voice of the people'
which can decide whether a law is just, and justly implemented.
Without the jury the people would have no voice - which is what elites aim for.
Is the BBC going to fulfill its promise of impartiality - see ourstand for some other BBC 'impartiality'
If so we should soon hear -
- for we've just requested it via the BBC "advice line" and have been assured the request will be passed on !
We asked when the other side of the question ( the pro-jury side) is to be broadcast.
See laworjustice again - all of it.
Or is that just silly optimism ?
After all asking the BBC for impartiality is asking them to defy their financial, political, class-based masters:- a corrupt elite.
No matter which party happens to be in power.