Laurène Soubise

TL;DR Labour's policies:
🚨Increase use of irregular routes
🚨Increase human trafficking
🚨Increase number of people forced to be undocumented
🚨Force people into deprivation
🚨Leave, particularly women and children, at risk
🚨Cost more than current policies
🚨Violate international law
10/ #r4today

One of the things that really gets me about this policy is that it doesn’t have the impact its supporters seem to think. It don’t affect numbers arriving but it does actively harm integration of those who come. It’s just a really, really bad policy. There’s no case for it being “necessary” at all.

Barristers from across England and Wales have shared the impact of individuals being delivered late to court by the Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS).

The real point is this: so you heard people speaking a language you don’t understand, so what? So what? It’s not only not a big deal it isn’t a deal detectable with a microscope. Not everyone speaks English and no-one is obliged to make sure you can eavesdrop on their conversations. /5

A screenshot of Lala and Po from the teletubbies. The screenshot is clearly taken from someone's phone, as the borders of the tv can be seen, as well as glimpses into the apartment behind them. Po is in bed wrapped up in a blanket. The text below them reads "I know you were high at my mother-in-laws funeral..."

More screenshots from the Teletubbies. Lala seems to be upset with a terrified Po. the text below reads "Did you kill the dog? Why would you do that?!"

A third screenshot from the Teletubbies, this time the same scene as before. Po is wearing an apron while Lala seems to still be upset at him. The text below reads "You're nothing but a failure of a man."

In the 2010s, the Icelandic tv station Channel 2 accidentally added subtitles from a gritty crime drama to an episode of Teletubbies.

I have translated some of the highlights

Jury riders as jury power in twentieth-century England Abstract. This article argues that the relatively obscure practice of jury riders and recommendations reveals a historic political role for juries which ha

I know this isn’t always readily apparent, but I am in fact an internationally significant historian of the jury system. And I’ve just published a new article, looking at jury speech in the twentieth century, and what it can tell us about the jury’s historic role as a political institution.

I've really enjoyed this piece which speaks to my misgivings about the constant injonction of self-care when what we all really need is to take care of each other instead.

Do have a read of my Substack today if you have time, it makes a convincing case for why going to the pub might not be good for "you" but it is good for "us"

and then you can send to your friends and maybe they'll go the pub with you as well

Slashing jury trials could clear courts backlog within a decade, says Lammy Exclusive: Lord chancellor urges MPs to back judge-only trials in thousands of criminal cases in England and Wales

Properly funding the court system would clear the backlog even more quickly.

www.theguardian.com/politics/202...

For those joining Bluesky from the Bad Place: welcome.

Yes, you could/should have made the decision sooner, but it is never too late to make a good decision.

And there is a lot on this site which will remind you of the Bad Place before it was bad.

wrote about The Other Place www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

Omg hard relate!

Please re-share this - there aren't many permanent law jobs available in the UK right now! #academicjobfairy

Police forces in England and Wales to get units that tackle violence against women Specialist teams will deal with offences such as rape and stalking as part of VAWG strategy, home secretary says

Sounds great, until you read this bit:

"The Guardian understands there will be no additional funding for these units, so forces will have to absorb the costs from existing budgets".

Gov will do literally anything except actually fund the justice system.

www.theguardian.com/society/2025...

Affirmation d’un sénateur communiste selon laquelle les élus sont soumis à la neutralité

Sur le coup,c’est tout à fait FAUX.
Les élus,par définition,ne sont pas neutres puisque élus sur des opinions.
Ils ne doivent être neutres que lorsqu’ils exercent 1 service public ou représentent 1 administration publique.
De +, la laïcité n’impose pas la laïcité aux usagers
Et…

The jury remains central in the public imagination, but its practical role is marginal. The real threat to justice isn't the jury, it's the relentless prioritisation of efficiency over fairness and effectiveness in criminal justice policy.
#CriminalJustice #JuryTrial #LegalReform

But here's the tension: if most criminal convictions come from guilty pleas shaped by systemic pressures, does the jury still legitimise the system or is that legitimacy built on a myth?
#CriminalJustice #JuryTrial

So, is the jury really the guardian of liberty it's claimed to be? Or just a powerful symbol? My sense is that its influence is more cultural than practical. But symbols matter.

Most cases never reach a jury because the vast majority of defendants plead guilty. Sentence reductions for early pleas create strong incentives.

Why do these reforms fail? Because the jury is more than a decision-making body. It's a symbol of democratic participation and seen as a check on state power. From Bushell's case (1670) to the acquittal of the Colston Four, juries can defy authority.

Governments have repeatedly tried to curb jury trials for efficiency and cost reasons. Reports from Runciman (1993) to Leveson (2015 and 2025) recommended limiting the right to choose a jury trial for either-way offences. Bills were even introduced. None passed.

The jury is heavily criticised. No transparency: deliberations are secret. No reasons given for verdicts. Risk of bias and stereotypes (e.g. in sexual offences cases).

Trial by jury in England & Wales has a mythical status. It's seen as the pinnacle of adversarial justice: a judge decides the law and 12 jurors decide the facts. But in reality? Jury trials account for less than 1% of criminal cases.

David Lammy expected to water down plans to scrap most jury trials Justice secretary suggests he will stick to Leveson’s recommended three-year sentence threshold in England and Wales, after ‘cabinet feedback’

In all the jury kerfuffle what isn't being discussed and should be is magistrates. The mixed bench proposed by Leveson to replace juries has been quietly dropped in favour of a single judge. And mags sentencing powers are going up again to 18 months (+up to 2 yrs) www.theguardian.com/law/2025/dec...

If you want some good news this morning, I showed my three boys the PM doing the six/seven thing and now they have all stopped doing it.

I struggle to see why turning ourselves into a society so unwelcoming that even those afraid for the lives are deterred from coming is something we would actually *want*.

Asylum in UK to be made temporary under Home Secretary’s plans Shabana Mahmood will lay out reforms modelled on the Danish system on Monday.

To reiterate, this is about making life immeasurably more miserable and stressful for some of the most vulnerable people, in the almost certainly vain hope of winning over the votes of racists.

Anything more shabby and shameful is difficult to envisage.

The normalisation, nay, emboldenment of the far right by the Labour government continues at pace

Re the last question: I have been wondering if this is because the police force had to instruct other (external) lawyers for the appeal who found out what happened...

Judges set to decide fate of police chief constable guilty of contempt of court Exclusive: Ivan Balhatchet, Northamptonshire’s chief constable, could face up to two years in jail or a fine for repeated failure to obey rulings

This is an appalling judgment to read. Two Chief Constables found in contempt of court for misleading the court about the existence of video footage. But this was only discovered when the matter made it to the Court of Appeal. Incredible perseverance.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWC...