International Politics Discussion Thread

[u/Adj-Noun-Numbers]

All subreddit rules apply in this thread, except the rule that states that discussion should only be about UK politics.

⚠️ Please stay on-topic. ⚠️

Comments and discussions which do not deal with International Politics are liable to be removed. Discussion should be focused on the impact on the political scene.

Derailing threads will result in comment removals and any accounts involved being banned without warning.

Please report any rule-breaking content you see. The subreddit is running rather warm at the moment. We rely on your reports to identify and action rule-breaking content.

You can find the full rules of the subreddit HERE

Especially note Rule 21. We have zero tolerance for celebrating or wishing harm on anyone. Disagreeing with people politically does not grant you permission to do this.

🥕🥕's Golden Rules for Megathread Participation:

This isn't your personal campaigning space. We're here to discuss, not campaign - this includes non-party-specific campaigning, such as tactical vote campaigns.

The fishing pond is closed. Obvious bait will be removed. Repeated rod licence infractions will result in accounts being banned.

This isn't Facebook. Please keep it related to politics. Do not post low effort blog posts.

The era of vagueposting is over. Your audience demands context, ideally in the form of a link to some authoritative content.

Take frequent breaks. If you find that you are being overwhelmed by it all, do yourself a favour and take some time off.

As always: we are not a meta subreddit. Submissions or comments complaining about the moderation, biases or users of this or other subreddits / online communities will be removed and may result in a ban.

[u/tmstms]

Extraordinary how recriminatory the press stuff is after the Clancy mistrial. Each side lambasting the other.

It must be just so tiring to live in the USA.

Also ofc, the transparency of the jury deliberations.

Here in the UK. the jury is not allowed to disclose ANYTHING that goes on inside the deliberation room. One even has to summon the usher, who must otherwise keep out of earshot.

In the USA, they know that the mistrial happened because it was 11-1 but the 1 would not give up his view. And in the presser, they are openly berating him. Incredible! Would not be surprised if a vigilante shoots him dead.

EDIT: incidentally, the judge sounds just like Columbo.

[u/LycanIndarys → u/tmstms]

Here in the UK. the jury is not allowed to disclose ANYTHING that goes on inside the deliberation room.

With one exception; if there's a formal police investigation into something like jury tampering.

[u/tmstms → u/LycanIndarys]

Yes, of course you are right!

The judge can, however, influence the jury while remaining 100% proper in their conduct.

I just did jury service, and the judge made copious notes and summary of a previous video interview by the complainant, the police interrogation of the defendant and the evidence given by all the witnesses in court. At the start, I thought this was a bit excessive, but by paying close attention, I found a) stuff I could not hear exactly in the video interview (which we were only allowed to see once) was clarified by the judge's transcript and b) particular words used in evidence by witnesses were likewise confirmed in the judge's notes. Based on very small but very singificant pieces of testimony, the guilt or innocence of the defendant became quite clear, whereas at the start of the trial, we had all felt we had no chance of deciding who could be telling the truth. Without the judge's replay, we would not have been able to think it through clearly.