Sure, and his treatment has been awful in so many ways.

I'm honestly not trying to defend any action by any state in this thread, I'm not trying to say that the UK is better than any other state. I'm not trying to make any point at all beyond using a specific example in agreeing with the comments above mine that "Everything is the same and comparable never mind how hyperbolic."

But it seems to be construed as if I am, no matter how much I agree that the actions we're talking about are terrible. People come back and tell me the UK is bad and I should feel bad for defending it. I know right! And if I was I would!

I must admit I find the whole thing very frustrating.

▲

DrScientist 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The problem is you have to fight for these things every generation.

It's a mistake to take things like trial by jury, open justice ( not secret courts ), non-arbitrary detention, even regular elections for granted.

I totally agree with you that the UK is not Iran and there is too much hyperbole - but at the same time the current government is trying to criminalise legitimate protest, cancelling elections and trying to remove trial by jury for a substantial set of things ( the ultimate protection against an authoritarian state ).

As an example, it's very telling that the government ensured that in all the Assange legal proceedings it never went before a jury.

The current government creating all these precedents, in the shadow of the prospect of a potential Reform government is something I think we should all be concerned about.

▲

Nursie an hour ago | parent [-]

Tell me about it, that Jury thing in particular was shocking to hear, that they’re considering throwing aside an ancient right in the name of expediency and clearing a backlog, as if it was a minor detail and not the basis of the system of justice.

	▲	DrScientist 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Especially since there is no evidence that it's the presence of juries is the cause of the backlog. The idea that the state can deprive you of your freedom for a sentence likely to be less than 3 years without the chance to be tried before you peers, is worrying. Note is was six months before Nov 2024, it's 12 months now and they are looking to extend to 3 years! ( or more - given the word: likely ). Juries are not an administrative inconvenience or process inefficiency. The current legal reform seems to be operating on the assumption that the defendent is guilty - rather thana resumption of innocence. Better to let the guilty to go free, than imprison the innocent.