Winston Churchill, an avid painter, always said that “audacity” is the key to every artist. If so, Caspar San Giorgi, 39, has a good start on an artistic career in Great Britain. The Palestinian activist, who is reportedly Dutch and also goes by the name of Olax Outis, took a ladder and a box of spray paint in February to deface the famous statue of Churchill in Parliament Square. Despite his admitting to the crime and rejoicing in it, a British jury just found him not guilty in a blatant act of jury nullification.
Churchill also observed that “armed with a paint-box, one cannot be bored.” San Giorgi certainly proved that observation. He used red spray paint to write the messages “Free Palestine”, “Stop the Genocide”, and described Britain’s WWII leader as a “Zionist War Criminal.” He then reportedly boasted in court about causing the £7,000 in damage.
San Giorgi insisted that he is a “citizen of The Hague.” The International Criminal Court located at The Hague has declared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal over the war in Gaza.
He said in court that this was a message for Sir Keir Starmer and Parliament: “If I had a larger canvas and more time, I would have written: ‘If Keir Starmer doesn’t come to The Hague, The Hague will come for him.'”
He told the jury that he was not guilty because he used paint that could be washed off and that his protest was “preventing a crime,” not committing a crime.
San Giorgi remained defiant and proud of his conduct:
“Whether you convict me or not is not too much of a concern for me. Whether I get acquitted, deported, imprisoned for years, I can be proud of having spoken about injustice and I have accounted for my actions. I will accept your judgement.”
The jury proceeded to declare him not guilty. It is regrettably a sign of the times in London. Rage has now replaced reason. In June 2020, the statue was vandalized so often that the city encased it in a wooden box. Rather than arresting those seeking to deface it, Churchill was boxed away from public sight.
Now, a jury has decided that it is not a crime to deface public property.
Churchill famously said that “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” I am beginning to see what he meant.
The alleged free speech lovers love it when someone they don’t like is silenced.
They are hypocritical and farcical.
It is obvious to the evidence of my eyes, based on everything that a Republican president does on a daily basis, that Republicans are the true fascists and authoritarians, not the Democrats.
(It might be noted that Trump used to be a “dumocrat”.)
Howe so ? Republicans are not jailing people for their reporting as many european countries have ?
Trump insults reporters he does not like. As Brandeis told us more than a century ago – the correct response to bad speach is more speech.
Your claim that Trump and republicans are more authoritarian is NOT based on being silenced. It is based on being answered. That is the epitome of free speech not the suppression of it.
Beyond that you do not seem to understand what fascism and authoritarianism actually are.
No surprise as those on the left constantly mangle the meaning of words.
Fascism is just a particularly forceful form of SOCIALISM
As Musolini the father of fascism defined it
Fascism is
“everything in the state
nothing outside the state
nothing against the state?
That is socialism, that is also the modern left in its purest form.
While Trump is not some great libertarian – he is actually shrinking government – an average of 20K cuts in government employment each month – and he is STILL managing to hit record total employment.
Trump is not telling you what car you must drive, what dishwasher you must buy, what toilet you can own, what shower you must use, …..
i.e. Trump is ACTUALLY anti-authoritarian.
The lefts definition of fascism is anyone that gets in the way of left wing fascism.
BTW the Atlanta Fed just predicted that Growth will be 5.1% in 3Q 2026 – it was 3.8% in 2Q 2026.
Wages are way up – particularly for the working class.
John Say,
Your claim that “Fascism is just a particularly forceful form of socialism” is historically illiterate. Benito Mussolini’s quote—”Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”—is the definition of totalitarianism, not socialism.
Fascism and socialism are diametrically opposed. Fascism is rooted in hyper-nationalism, racial hierarchy, and corporate autocracy. Mussolini explicitly rose to power by physically destroying the Italian socialist movement, outlawing independent trade unions, and forming a direct alliance with wealthy corporate industrialists. If fascism were just socialism, Hitler wouldn’t have thrown socialists into the earliest concentration camps. You are confusing government control with economic ownership.
You quote Louis Brandeis to argue that Trump’s attacks on the press are just “more speech.” This completely misreads Brandeis’s intent. Brandeis was referring to citizens engaging in public debate—not a head of state using the unique, sweeping power of the executive branch to threaten journalists, call the press the “enemy of the people,” or demand that media networks have their broadcasting licenses revoked.
Authoritarianism doesn’t always start with jailing reporters; it starts by systematically delegitimizing independent oversight so the public stops believing anything but the leader’s word. That isn’t “being answered”—it is an attempt to silence accountability through institutional bullying.
You argue Trump is anti-authoritarian because he cuts regulations on dishwashers and cars. This is an incredibly narrow, materialist view of freedom. Authoritarianism is determined by a leader’s relationship to constitutional limits, the rule of law, and democratic transitions of power—not household appliances. Attempting to overturn a democratic election or suggesting the termination of parts of the Constitution are the literal textbook definitions of authoritarian impulses.
You cite the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model, which is currently tracking Q3 2026 growth at a strong 5.1%. It’s fascinating how you credit this to Trump “shrinking government employment.”Let’s look at actual arithmetic: if the U.S. economy is currently booming with strong growth and rising wages, that means the economic system is thriving under the exact constitutional setup you are decrying as “left-wing fascism.” You are using the stellar economic output of a constitutional republic to justify upending the very institutions that generated it.
You can’t hide a fundamental misunderstanding of history and authoritarianism behind a GDP print. Try reading Mussolini’s actual economic policies before claiming he was a socialist.
oh gawwd, would you just get off of AI and stop trying to educate us, you big phony
I always thought of jury nullification as a last resort to prevent a miscarriage of justice by malevolent law enforcement and prosecutors. Its use as an ideological weapon in cases like the OJ murder case and the recent attempt in the baby killer case is hideous.
It looks like many of the over-prosecuted Jan 6 cases should have been nullified. The excessive charges and mistreatment were positively unjust.
Maybe the Floyd murder case too. If the cops had been a little less zealous and just had Floyd sit down and wait for an ambulance he would likely still have died.
Mob justice isn’t justice.
It’s possible the guy was overcharged? He used a paint that easily washed off. That shows a motive to communicate in public without vandalizing. Maybe the jury stood up for free speech? JT’s value system surrounding free speech might not be as blind to the message (and messanger) as he oft claims.
One of the strengths of a jury system is that fine-haired judgments can be made based upon each case.
I’m also not for mind-reading jurors. They listened to all the evidence in the case. You didn’t. JT didn’t.
Presuming he ACTUALLY used paint that would wash off easily that is a mitigating factor.
It does not alter whether he is guilty of innocent.
As to his claim to be “sending a message” – the message I have received is “stupid left wing Thug”.
Like many of the great men of history – Churchill is imperfect. That does not change one iota that he is the greatest prime minister ever to lead England. Further he is single handedly responsible for continuing the war against actual fascism ALONE fromt he defeat of France through the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Iceland, the Nordic Countries, South Africa, and Hong Kong have all gone communist.
The Sun finally set on the British Empire.
Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Iceland, the Nordic Countries, South Africa, and Hong Kong have all gone communist.
Nope, they all dilly dallied with Socialism lite and got their asses burned in varying ways and are all in the process of returning to free markets but they did not each start at the same time or progress at the same rates.
Labor will be obliterated in the next UK election – the only question is whether it will be Reform first and the Tories 2nd or the other way arround
afd is the largest party in much of Germany
Melonie is the PM of Italy.
La Penn will be the next leader of France.
Spain will with near certainty swing right in the next cycle
Socialists and communists have lost every single election in South america for about 5 years straight.
Hong Kong has been essentially occupied militarily – it did not “go communist”
Social Democrats in the Nordic countries have managed to hold power by adopting very MAGA like platforms AND delivering on them. The Nordic countries are have the least regulated economies in the world. Sweden has no minimum wage as an example.
South Africa like much of Africa is just a basket case. It is more an example of the greater african problem that Africans are incapable of self govenrment. Very little has gone well for Africa despite more than $1T in foreign aide, since the end of colonialism.
Whatever you may think of colonialism what has followed it in africa is far bloodier and far worse.
Once again John Say displays his astounding ignorance, when he says that the Reform party in the UK could actually win the next election
They currently hold 5 seats in the 650 seat Parliament, and as of now they only have candidates to contest 100 seats.
John Say is a know-nothing moron living in a fantasy land of his own creation.
John Say,
You claim that “Socialists and communists have lost every single election in South America for about 5 years straight.” This is an absolute false claim.
In Brazil (the largest economy in South America), the leftist Lula da Silva defeated Jair Bolsonaro.
In Colombia, Gustavo Petro became the country’s first leftist president.
In Chile, Gabriel Boric won the presidency on a progressive platform.
In Bolivia, the socialist MAS party regained power under Luis Arce.
You argue that Nordic countries are the “least regulated” and have adopted “MAGA-like platforms,” citing Sweden’s lack of a statutory minimum wage as proof. This completely misunderstands how social democracy works.
Sweden doesn’t have a government-mandated minimum wage because 90% of its workforce is covered by powerful trade unions that negotiate high wages through sector-wide collective bargaining. Nordic countries have some of the highest tax-to-GDP ratios in the world, universal healthcare, free university, and massive welfare states. Labeling a society built entirely on strong unions, high taxes, and social safety nets as “MAGA-like” is laughable.
While the European right has made undeniable gains (like Meloni in Italy or the AfD in regional German elections), you are wildly overstating the timeline.
In the UK, the left-of-center Labour Party won a massive, historic landslide. The next election isn’t required until 2029, so your prediction of their immediate “obliteration” by Reform is completely detached from the parliamentary calendar.
In France, Marine Le Pen’s party was explicitly blocked from a majority in the National Assembly by a coalition of center and left voters.
London has fallen. Someday it may be written that Washington has fallen. Let’s not be complacent, but do everything we can to ensure that doesn’t happen.
(I predict the usual trolls with TDS will respond that it already has because Muh! Trump! They only reveal their childishness.)
P.S. Unlike the anonymous commenters who are incensed that Professor Turley would dare to report a true story like this, I appreciate him for bringing to my attention things that are never reported by the MSM.
#WeAreEstovir
Oldmanfromkansas, dared? More like mislead. He lied about what Churchill said.
The majority of the commenters have absolutely no idea what they are arguing or even looking at when turley posts a mischaracterization of a case. You’re not being complacent, you’re being lazy. Do some research first. Don’t take everything Turley tells you as gospel. Exercise some skepticism man.
He’s already lied about a Churchill quote. That’s not good. And definitely not a sign he’s being honest.
GSX writes: “The majority of the commenters have absolutely no idea what they are arguing or even looking at when turley posts a mischaracterization of a case.”
You are talking about yourself.
You have absolutely no idea what you’re even getting yourself into. It’s pretty sad.
Your shift is about to end, hope your supervisor reads all your comments.
Maybe you will pick up and string some more when you get home later, lonely Saturday nite for you, X?
Shift. ROFL!!!! You spend more time on this blog than I.
GSX, why don’t you tell me?
It’s OK if you can’t. We are all aware of your deficiencies.
S. Meyer, I have already told you multiple times. You’re just not aware you’re too stupid to get it.
That’s right! Pathetic little trolls who are ankle-chained to radiators in their grandmothers’ basements can be fiersome.
GSX writes: “The majority of the commenters have absolutely no idea what they are arguing or even looking at when turley posts a mischaracterization of a case.”
That is you!
Turley didn’t lie; he misattributed a quote, commonly misattributed by experts. Further, he is not an expert on Churchill. If you want the expert, ask Larry Arnn. You don’t know his name either. I don’t expect you to, because you know very little about the discussions taking place on the blog. He took over the task of writing Churchill’s biography, a very long one.
The fact that you think a commentator like Turley doesn’t need to be an “expert” to avoid copying and pasting fake historical quotes on their own professional platform tells me everything I need to know about your standards for accuracy. He’s a distinguished scholar. He absolutely needs to be accurate. Otherwise he’s just a common hack, right?
Invoking Larry Arnn and the Hillsdale College Churchill Project to try and out-intellect this conversation completely backfires on you. If you actually followed the work of the experts you are name-dropping, you would know that it is precisely Arnn’s team and the Churchill Project that have documented and repeatedly debunked this exact quote as a fabrication. You are citing the very authorities who prove Turley got it wrong. As usual you just proved you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
You claim I am the one mischaracterizing the case, yet you are still completely hiding from the actual law. Notice how you have entirely abandoned discussing Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971? You can’t defend Turley’s inaccurate claims about British jury trials, you can’t defend his fabricated Churchill quote, and you can’t explain away his selective outrage regarding grand juries.
Instead, your entire strategy has devolved into: “It’s just a blog, he’s not an expert, you don’t know who Larry Arnn is, go read Burke.”
You’re just making it more obvious you’re a moron.
When you talk about standards of accuracy, recognize that you have none. You do not show your acquaintance with experts in a personal setting. Human knowledge is inherently limited, so intelligent people recognize that other intelligent people can make mistakes. You fail to recognize that, and you seldom correct your own errors, continuously repeating them.
Now, instead of deflecting, answer the question. Why not? Ignorant people like you have the problem of being unable to answer direct questions.
“Invoking Larry Arnn”
I see you were able to use AI and learn something. I brought up his name precisely because he is the expert on Churchill. If he made the mistake, it would be meaningful. But you didn’t even understand why I brought up his name. It’s a lesson to distinguish between different types of expertise. Expertise on Churchill, Arnn, expertise on the law, Turley.
“Criminal Damage Act 1971?”
It appears impossible for you to stay on one subject. Your mind flies shallowly from one topic to the next. The topic is the misattribution of a quote to Churchill.
““It’s just a blog, he’s not an expert,”
No. Your reading skills leave you in a bind. You cannot distinguish a person’s expertise from the rest of his knowledge, and you have no idea of the difference between writing on a blog and writing where one’s expertise is required. I’m not telling you that you should know better, you were never trained and don’t have the skills or intellectual capacity.
S. Meyer,
You keep screaming for an answer to “Why shouldn’t a distinguished scholar make a common mistake?” I gave you the answer, but your brain flatly rejected it because it punctures your echo chamber: Because intellectual integrity doesn’t take a vacation on a blog.When a tenured law professor uses his platform to insult the “average voter’s” intelligence while uncritically copy-pasting a fake internet meme, he isn’t making a “mistake”—he is actively laundering misinformation to feed a political bias. If a scholar can’t be bothered to verify the central, anchoring premise of his article, he isn’t acting as an expert; he’s acting as a lazy partisan hack.
You’re too stupid to realize what you’re saying.
You claim you brought up Larry Arnn to “teach a lesson on expertise.” That is a hilarious rewrite of history. You brought him up because you assumed I wouldn’t know who he was.But your little stunt blew up in your face. If you actually read the work of the Hillsdale College Churchill Project led by Arnn, you would know that his team explicitly documented and debunked this exact quote as a complete fabrication. So yes, I understood perfectly why you brought up his name—and I used his actual, verified expertise to prove that your favorite professor got the facts dead wrong.
That’s why you’re quite stupid. It’s hilarious.
This is perhaps your most desperate deflection yet. You accuse me of failing to stay on one subject because I brought up the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
A. Meyer, look at the thread. Jonathan Turley’s entire article was about UK jury trials and climate activists. The fake Churchill quote was just a lazy rhetorical device he used inside that article. You are the one who completely panicked and abandoned the legal core of the article because you couldn’t defend Turley’s butchering of British statutory law. You shrunk the entire debate down to a fake quote because it was the only foxhole you had left to hide in.
Every attempt at trying to look smart just makes you look dumber.
It is not a “fabrication.” It is simply a phrase that NO ONE is able to conclusively attribute to ANY particular source, but it is widely attributed to Churchill. That does NOT make it a “fabrication.” X does not understand big words. You can see how he gets mixed up by saying “repeatedly debunked this exact quote as a fabrication.”
NO, X, the exact quote is not a fabrication. You probably meant to say that it is a fabrication to conclusively attribute it to Churchill. And even that is a stretch, because no one can prove that he did NOT say it. So just shut up, X, or you will need a bigger shovel.
The ignorance on display here is astounding, but not surprising in a MAGA blog.
You make the claim about the quote “that NO ONE is able to conclusively attribute to ANY particular source.”
FALSE !!!!
The origins of the quote have been precisely discovered.
The earliest appearance of this quote is in August 1992 when Michael Chary started using it in his signature block in a Usenet news group. In the early internet days when Usenet was a thing, people would create a signature block with a witty comment that they could use as a sign off signature that had been saved and was automatically inserted at the end of their comment along with their name. He was a college student at Case Western Reserve, well known as a witty and outgoing character. He became a legend in the early internet days for his remarkably sharp and witty and dark humor, and was constantly making witticisms such as this one that eventually became attributed to Churchill.
Over time this witty comment went viral and as always happens on the internet, someone falsely attributed it to Churchill.
Exhaustive searches of the internet find no earlier reference to this supposed quote, and exhaustive searches of the Churchill archives do not find it.
There is no question that the attribution to Churchill is false, and it is a fabrication to make this attribution.
Your ridiculous defense of Turley falls flat.
X
That is a complete lie you just told.
You tried to copy and paste (a phrase picked up by you after your being accused of same by others) from https://quoteinvestigator.com/2026/07/10/democracy-five/#3b54640b-33b6-4f01-ab75-ac75c0b46a11
YOu also directly changed the facts. The only thing said about Michael Chary was that his maxim WAS THE CLOSEST THAT THEY COULD FIND to what Churchill allegedly said. In a courtroom, you would be laughed out of the room.
No one knows where Chary got that; he could have been changing a word or two, trying to avoid charges of plagiaristic-like similarities.
Why do you keep twisting the facts and won’t just let this die? That shows a Mickey Rooney-like little punk who just can’t let it go. Stop lying and just DROP IT
S. Meyer now hiding behind an “anonymous”. LOL!!!
You claim an unverified quote isn’t a fabrication, it’s just “widely attributed.” Let’s look at how the real world operates. If a quote cannot be found in any speech, book, letter, or recording, and its origin is completely made up by an internet meme—it is a fabrication.
Think about how intellectually stupid that statement is. By that logic, I can claim Winston Churchill said, “Jonathan Turley is a partisan hack who copies internet memes,” and you have to accept it as a legitimate historical quote because you can’t prove he didn’t say it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Turley claimed Churchill said it. The experts at the Churchill Project proved there is zero evidence he did. You don’t get to invent a magical world where everything is true until it’s disproven. That’s why you’re a moron.
That is not me. Take it up with Anonymous.
Meyer
Experts do not make mistakes or misattributions. If they do, then they are not experts. They are just opinionated schmucks like you, who mindlessly repeat things they have heard somewhere without questioning the accuracy or validity of those things.
You say that Turley is not an expert on Churchill, but he claims expertise, and wrote books about the history of democracy. And here he makes a mistake about an apocryphal quote about democracy falsely attributed to one of the greatest authorities on the nature, and history of democracy. I know from general knowledge about this false quote, but Turley does not, and yet you claim that he is an expert.
And I have no idea why you bring up Larry Arnn. What exactly is your point?
He helped complete Churchill’s biography, but so what? Does that somehow excuse Turley’s pitiful ignorance.
You know you are wrong and now you just flail about with totally irrelevant comments in an attempt at obfuscation.
You are pathetic.
“Experts do not make mistakes or misattributions. If they do, then they are not experts.”
Sigmund the fraud is back again, spewing his manure and calling people schmucks. He talks about Turley’s misattribution as if it were blockbusting news, but it’s a simple error many people make. How does one learn it is an error? Generally, when they make their first mistake and are corrected, neither Sigmund the Fraud nor GSX can be recognized as those who learn from their mistakes.
You say Turley wrote a book about the history of democracy. Is it in his book? How would you know? You never read it. If it is not in the book, I don’t give it a second thought.
You say that you have no idea why I brought up Larry Arnn. I did so for many reasons, and some are in my reply to GSX. GSX needs tutoring, and I am helping him learn how to think. When words are given in relation to one another, it prompts the thinking process.
Final grade: Scurrilous Schmuck, Pathetic Parasite, and Pigeon Poop (H/T Diogenes)
S. Meyer, you’re not helping yourself. You’re just proving over and over that you’re an absolute moron. LOL!!
Why do you say that? Can you respond to the question? Try thinking.
X you’re not helping yourself; you keep using the same phrases, pseudo-arguments and insults that you accuse others of, then you post as anonymous. Do you think you are fooling us?
Hey Xtermite-ator,
FACT: The International Churchill Society only said that there was NO ATTRIBUTION of that quote. It acknowledged that it is widely attributed to Churchill but could find no evidence that he said it. The Society COULD ALSO NOT FIND THAT ANYONE ELSE SAID IT. So Turley at worst, attributed to Churchill what is widely attributed to Churchill and not to anyone else. That does not make it a “lie.” Clown.
FACT: You quoted, without evidence, a Section 5 “loophole,” you got from AI. You have NO IDEA what the jury hung its verdict on. It could have been pure jury nullification or simply a jury instruction language issue, or an argument by the defense that quoted ECHR proofs needed by prosecution to prove a “crime” was committed, or that an ECHR defense did not apply. Stop pretending that you know.
I bet money that you will start mentioning ECHR in your comments. THat’s the way you work–taking others’ work and claiming it for yourself. THAT IS A FACT. Clown.
FACT:
no attribution FOR that quote
FACT: The earliest known appearance of this quote is in August 1992 when Michael Chary started using it in his signature block in a Usenet news group. In the early internet days when Usenet was a thing, people would create a signature block with a witty comment that they could use as a sign off signature that had been saved and was automatically inserted.
Over time this witty comment went viral and as always happens on the internet, someone made a false attribution, and said it was a quote by Churchill.
Exhaustive searches of the internet find no earlier reference to this supposed quote, and exhaustive searches of the Churchill archives do not find it.
FACT: NO, X, the Society said that THE CLOSEST IT COULD FIND to that quote was something Chary had said, and Chary’s sentence had changed a few words.
X you were previously corrected and told that THERE IS NO OFFICIAL OR CONCLUSIVE ATTRIBUTION TO ANYONE.’
Good ole X always goes down swingin’ doesn’t he?
Pointing out an objective, verifiable error in a public article isn’t a “smear.” It’s called reading comprehension. If your favorite commentator cannot handle a basic fact-check without his followers screaming that his critics are “insanely ignorant,” then his ideas are far more fragile than you care to admit.
OMG that is NOT the definition of reading comprehension you obsessive fool!
The true British and American leaders are secretly planning a second English Civil War and American Revolution 2.0 at the Green Dragon.
From your lips to God’s ears.
The UK is dead. And it’s been dead for years now. I said that years ago when I saw the trend and said so. Of course, posters, even on this legal blog, said I was crazy.
But you’re just seeing the results of the UK nearly complete transformation from Western Civiliation to a Leftist, Fascist, Communist, Islamic State. Call it an IslamoCommuNazi Culture in the UK.
#. The article is about jury nullification. This means justice is dependent upon location? Jury selection? Peers? Try a murderer with a jury of murderers, or perhaps police?
Interesting topic
^^ It also shows the sentiments of the UK people. They are pro Palestinian.
Have the Israel/Jewish people ever had any friends? The US alone, perhaps.
I’d like to know the profiles of the jury.
Utter bollocks. This was a jury in London, comparable to, say, a jury in DC or New York in terms of cosmopolitanism. Even London is not a single demographic; go, say, to Finchley, Golders Green or Hendon and you are in very Jewish neighbourhoods. The state of Israel ultimately owes its existence to a decision by a British government – not a US one – namely the Balfour Declaration. If you knew anything, anything about English or Scots law, you would know that you are not entitled to know anything about the jury, and that any disclosure of their discussions is a serious criminal offence.
Any other nonsense you want to throw out there?
“The article is about jury nullification. ”
Correct jury decisions are largely contingent on both prosecuting and defending attorneys making their best efforts to prevail., within the limits of allowed courtroom conduct, which is the judges responsibility to administer. That is the system. If any one of those three parties fails to do their job adequately, the system will likely fail. That is particularly so when one or more of those parties deliberately fails to discharge their responsibilities. In this case, I very much question whether the prosecution pursued a conviction with full force and vigor. Prosecutors functioning as defense attorneys when they disagree with the law violated (a discretion to which they are NOT entitled) is an aberration that has been happening with greater and greater frequency in the US in recent years: see Professor Turley’s recent column on Philly DA Larry Krasner. I have no doubt that situation is far worse in the cultural crumbling UK.
Utter bollocks; you are comparing the politically corrupted US legal system with the UK’s systems (there are three systems: English, Scots and Northern Irish). We do not even use the term attorney. There are basically two types of lawyer, solicitors and barristers. The case will have been prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service; they have zero interest in doing the job of the defence, and are apolitical. They of course sometimes make mistakes, but they also have the say on whether charges should be brought, not the police. This is why Turley lies when he rants on about certain cases where police may have overstepped the mark in arresting someone; the CPS usually slaps the police around the back of the head and denies any charges. Of course, Turley inexcusably acts as if an arrest equates to a conviction…
when people want to come off as British, they start repeatedly using the word “bollocks.” GIves you away.
-must be true because the little “bollock” user disappeared….for now.
This post by Turley is just another low-level partisan diatribe to stoke the rage of the MAGA mob.
He is hypocritically stoking the very rage that he so vociferously condemns in others.
As usual, he presents an almost fact-free tirade about matters of which he has little to no knowledge.
His complete ignorance of history is apparent when he attributes a quote about democracy to Churchill. He claims that Churchill famously said, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
Of course, Churchill never said that. The statement cannot be found in the historical record until 1992, when it first appeared in a Usenet news group comment by Michael Chary.
It proliferated on the internet and has been falsely attributed to Churchill.
This is but a single example of Turley’s minimal grasp of history that he constantly displays here in his absurd columns. He has written books in which he supposedly gives historical accounts of democracy and the rise of republics, but this false attribution of a quote to Churchill simply illustrates his poor grasp of history and inability to do reliable historical research.
His columns here, and his ridiculous books are nothing more than low-level partisan opinions, with virtually no reliable historical support.
Turley is a partisan MAGA hack and a fraud.
Poor baby leftist has 95% of the media promoting the commie narrative and just can’t stand it that Turley is part of the 5% providing a little balance by writing about the corruption and stupidity of the Left. Cry me a river.
Low-level partisan diatribe as usual from ANON. Leftists sure cry a lot. Poor babies!!
I found the article incredibly thought provoking regarding free speech in the UK, jury nullification, jury selection, Israel and declared war, Churchill as an outstanding officer and much more.
The UK has qualified free speech unlike the US.
Thank god we do!
Anonymous at 1:31
Your repeated use of others’ words, combined with your own over-excited jealousy, tells me you must be Saint NICKED, X.
Yes, it’s the plan.
Ah, yes the rise of the LOW IQ CITIZEN who revels and rejoices in the stupid and chaotic choices my by his or her LOW IQ Brethren. Jury Duty is no longer an act of civil participation and impartial application of the law but rather an act of CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE in which you short circuit the Black Robe Illuminati appointed to rule over you and your lowest common denominator friends. No longer is it Pearl Before Swine. Now we have Spontaneous Idiocy before Swine! See, Europe (including the UK) do have something in common with America – LOW IQ CITIZENS as a growing population!!
Are you off your medication?
Sooooo clever and original. I’ve never ever seen that incredibly witty, biting, sophisticated response before!
The poor Brits! They are losing not only their moral compass but their country. Once a great nation, their ‘stiff upper lip’ (or lips) is crumbling under the influx of all the people they once tried to dominate. How many Prime Ministers? How many ‘get you’ books are being written about the monarchy? It is a circular problem. JT – the RAGE you speak up is all over the world and for the British, it is the Age of Revenge. Look at Harry and Earl Spenser. Thirty years for Charles Spenser to get even is a long time to hate. And Harry — all he needed was a ‘hungry American’ to get caught in the web of revenge. The lure of money and the ‘got you’ wins out over decency. Both these men think they are moral but all they really want is to get the money and the last word. So, if they can do it, why not the more common people. And when they win, every one else loses. Bit by bit, England will be nothing more than beautiful buildings and a ‘once glorious’ history.
Bye, bye England and bye, bye world! We are eating ourselves up!
When we are no more, I hope you malcontents remember you were part of our demise. Go live in California and be part of the real ‘Big Bang’ crash.
Oh, for pity’s sake, his name is Spencer, not Spenser. Moronic comment in all other regards as well.
so a mistype … big deal. It is not moronic although you seem to be part of the malcontent group. Moving to CA?!
Why would I want to live in California? I am perfectly happy where I was born, well away from Trump. Also, you repeated the error, so it was not a “mistype” but actual ignorance on your part. Also, England and Britain are not synonyms. Again, you are ignorant.
Your reaction that the other anon misspelled someone’s name means that was your only edit, so you agreed with everything he said. Otherwise you are a fool for focusing on a misspelled word and not saying anything about substance.
China??? Russia??
If we all stopped romanticizing past history it would free our foothold and enable Us to step forward. We will not be able to regain Time by romanticizing the past, so it ended when it ends and we (humanity) pushes forward.
No Statue, No Spray Paint, can reverse that Time. Move Forward.
I am shocked at how fast Britain in going down the tubes. America better wake up.
It’s always the same story. Conservatives built, liberals destroy.
Producers vs. Takers
Trump should be banned from the White House until he learns how to be more respectful to the People whose profession
depends on the First Amendment.
That’s your reaction to a story about a statue in England? The left really is mentally ill.
That is your reaction to Trump trashing the First Amendment on a blog largely devoted to free speech? Where is your rage? Turley will be relying on it for his next book!
You don’t even know what the 1st amendment means. Trashing? What a stupid person you are. Stupid and crazy because you think Turley has to write about Trump 24/7. F——g TDS-afflicted moron.
Turley does not have to write about Trump 24/7. The reason Turley’s reputation is as trashed as the First Amendment is that 24/7 he AVOIDS writing about Trump, and whenever the moronic orange narcissist does anything outrageous, Turley doubles down by writing bollocks about other countries and other legal systems of which he is either utterly ignorant or so desperate that he lies and distorts shamelessly. Yet people like you just carry on lapping it up like good little doggies.
Turley points out the idiocy and moral corruption of the left. Don’t like it? Then don’t read his articles. 95% of the media is biased to the left. You have plenty of media sources that provide you a safe room, that will never touch these stories. Turley is part of the 5% providing a wee little bit of balance. But since the left’s instincts are always totalitarian, you cry waaah waaah waaah that the left’s monopoly is no more. Deal with it you leftist TDS-afflicted dweeb.
the fact that the term “bollocks” is being suspiciously invoked and used incorrectly more than once tells us something about the author here……
“Trump trashing the First Amendment ”
Hey, moron. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States begins: “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW…” It says nothing at all about the Executive’s discretion in admitting or denying admission by certain individuals or groups to his office. Exercising that discretion is a prerogative of the position.
Where are the hooligans when you need them?
Great Britain never seems to learn from history. They fight a war, then settle back into their passivity, while confiscating guns from their citizens, necessitating the Lend/Lease programs they need to survive the next conflict.
Now their armed forces (especially their once-proud navy) are in shambles, and they opened their borders to blatant jihadi anti-Semites who now control most of their government.
If “those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”, Great Britain and most of Europe are indeed poster children for the doomed.
With Jonathan Turley, it’s always a tedious exercise in rage-baiting over reason. For someone who loves to masquerade as an objective legal scholar, his perpetual failure to do basic homework before launching into an inflammatory tirade is genuinely impressive. He’s a lawyer, sure—but he operates like a political hack, tossing aside granular legal realities in favor of cheap, partisan theater.
Take his hysterical framing of the UK jury issue. Turley treats jury nullification (or “jury equity”) as some foundational constitutional right that authoritarian British elites are suddenly stripping away. It’s an adorable American projection, but it’s completely wrong.
In the United Kingdom, jury nullification isn’t a codified right; it’s a structural loophole. It exists purely because of two centuries-old tenets: juries can’t be punished for a verdict a judge dislikes (Bushel’s Case, 1670), and an acquitted defendant can’t be retried. British courts have long barred defense attorneys from ever asking a jury to ignore the law. You cannot “ban” a right that the legal system has never formally recognized. Turley is simply broadcasting his ignorance of British common law by forcing it through an American lens.
Of course, Turley’s selective outrage depends entirely on who is benefiting from a jury’s independent streak. When grand juries “no-billed” charges in record numbers—such as during the heavily politicized Jeanine Pirro-adjacent investigations—government prosecutors similarly came up empty-handed because they had no real case or evidence. Sharp juries saw right through it. Turley, predictably, remained dead silent. He didn’t cry foul when those juries exercised their discretion, proving his “principled” stance is entirely tribal.
The reality of the UK climate cases is far less conspiratorial than Turley pretends. Activists simply exploited a massive statutory loophole in Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which allows a defense of “lawful excuse” if a defendant honestly believed the property owner would have consented to the damage under the circumstances. Because the statute’s wording was incredibly broad and hinged on a purely subjective test, the prosecution faced a near-impossible burden of proof.
Anyone with an internet connection can look up the technicalities of the Act and see why Turley’s narrative falls apart. But as is always the case, Turley routinely leaves out the actual law to ensure the facts don’t get in the way of a good rage-bait.
Spot on, sir. Turley is a fraud on every single claim he makes about English and Scots law. I do, however, look forward to tomorrow’s article on Trump trashing the First Amendment just because three media outlets expose his lies and false claims.
Anon above at 11:54
You are absolutely correct that Turley is a fraud.
He presents yet another half-baked, partisan view of English law, as usual, in his pathetic attempt to stoke the rage that he so vehemently condemns in others.
Not only that, he falsely attributes an alleged quote about democracy to Churchill.
Turley states, “Churchill famously said that “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”.
Of course Churchill never said that, and nothing Turley says should ever be taken at face value.
He is a partisan hack, of low intelligence, and has a minimal grasp of history, as his comments here and his ridiculous books have proven without a doubt.
Given that US law relies heavily on English Common Law, I think Turley’s students are entitled to a refund if he honestly believes the lies and distortions to which he puts his name.
You are correct; Turley misattributed that quote to Churchill, a common mistake. That doesn’t diminish Turley’s intelligence or anything else. He remains an excellent attorney with wonderful credentials.
But in the process of slandering Turley, you have placed your own intelligence into question. What do we hear from you every time you speak? Error compounded with error, which informs everyone on the blog having common sense that you are ignorant and envious of the knowledge Turley has. He puts his name on everything he says. What do you do, troll? You cowardly hide with other fools under an anonymous name. Just a no-nothing envious troll.
S. Meyer, it shouldn’t be “a common mistake” for a “distinguished scholar” of the law.
You barely know what you read. Much less understand. Turley’s characterization of the case is mired in inaccuracies and half truths. He doesn’t bring up the literal legal issues surrounding the case. He’s just rage-baiting MAGA idiots who have no interest in diving deeper into the issue.
Turley is rightly being called out for his disingenuous characterizations and omissions of fact.
” it shouldn’t be “a common mistake” for a “distinguished scholar…”
Why not? Think about the answer, and then you can realize how stupid you have been. Where do you get your information from? Experts of one sort or another. Do you question those who agree with you? No. You live off of confirmation bias, not intelligence.
Turley’s facts are generally correct, and his opinions are generally well-founded. Whether I agree with him or not. I value his opinions and the opinions of others on the blog even though they may not be experts. Why do you think I don’t value yours?
You ask why a “distinguished scholar” shouldn’t make a basic factual error. The answer is simple: because scholarship requires verification, not lazy repetition.When a tenured law professor prints a fabricated internet meme as a historical fact to support his thesis, it isn’t an “opinion”—it is a failure of basic research. The fact that you are willing to excuse an objectively fake quote just because it was written by someone you admire is the literal, textbook definition of confirmation bias.
You claim Turley’s facts are “generally correct,” but when presented with concrete proof that he got both the history (the fake Churchill quote) and the statutory law (Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971) wrong, your response is to lash out with insults and declare that facts don’t matter as long as his opinions are “well-founded.” An opinion built on false facts is a house of cards.
You don’t value my input because I am pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, and it disrupts the echo chamber you enjoy. If questioning a public figure’s accuracy with actual evidence makes me “stupid” in your eyes, I will happily wear that label while you continue to value comforting fiction over documented reality.
I doubt you will understand the majority of what I wrote since it is….you.
“The answer is simple: because scholarship requires verification, not lazy repetition”
But he is not lazy. His facts are almost always correct. This is a blog, not a legal paper or legal statement at trial. The error is one many experts make. No, you didn’t think or use your brain; rather, you put down a simple answer that is not applicable. Furthermore, your confirmation bias lets you cite “experts” who make many mistakes that are near unforgivable, yet you stand by them firmly. Why don’t you check out those comments? You do not think; rather, you pick a team and root for them no matter what lies they make up.
You are lying when you mischaracterize my actions. I didn’t lash out. I watched you repeat what was said more than once and criticized you for it.
You still haven’t logically answered the question: “Why not?”, posted above. Now there is another question. Why don’t you criticize those who say the things you like when they are wrong? Why do you accept their words without thought?
By the way, Turley’s book on the French Revolution was excellent. You demean it without reading what it said. Read the discussions of that revolution written by Burke and Paine at the time. They are very enlightening. Unfortunately don’t know of this powerful difference of opinion between two great men. I am not even sure if you have ever heard of Burke.
S. Meyer,
A distinguished scholar shouldn’t make this mistake because intellectual integrity does not have an off-switch. The excuse that “it’s just a blog” is a pathetic double standard. If a professor uses their credentials to market themselves as an authority, they don’t get a pass to spread fabricated internet myths the moment they log onto WordPress. When an expert lazily repeats a fake quote to validate their political bias, they stop acting as a scholar and start acting as a partisan influencer laundering misinformation.
Demanding strict factual accuracy from your opponents while lowering the bar to the floor for Turley because it’s a blog post is hilarious hypocrisy showing how stupid you are.
Accusing me of “picking a team” and harboring confirmation bias for anonymous “other experts” is a desperate deflection. We aren’t talking about other experts; we are talking about Jonathan Turley’s specific, documented errors in this article.
Assuming I’ve never heard of Edmund Burke (Reflections on the Revolution in France) or Thomas Paine (Rights of Man) is a delightfully desperate attempt at intellectual posturing. Because you’re stupid. I am well aware of the foundational debate between institutional conservatism and radical rights. The irony is that Burke—the father of modern conservatism—valued empirical reality, historical accuracy, and institutional duty. He would be appalled by a modern commentator using fake history to provoke cheap, algorithmic rage.
“A distinguished scholar shouldn’t make this mistake because intellectual integrity does not have an off-switch. “
That is ignorant. Turley’s statement had nothing to do with intellectual integrity. He made a misattribution outside his expertise. You don’t understand that, and we know why. That troubles you because you don’t understand why and don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand these things.
You keep making things up. I am not ” lowering the bar to the floor for Turley”; rather, I recognize his error but place the error in its proper place. You think his error makes you smarter. How dumb is that?
I am happy that I prompted you to use AI a bit more so that you can become aware. However, your use of AI didn’t tell you why I brought up Burke and Paine together. You brought up the French Revolution when disparaging Turley’s book, but did you understand what you were disparaging? No. Two political **experts** with polar opposite views of the French Revolution. Why didn’t you see that when you looked up the names? We know why, even if you don’t.
Your last comment on Burke is moronic. I won’t explain why since you can look it up on AI. Seldom do I ever meet and correspond with a character like you who so meets the standard of Hayek’s “fatal conceipt”.
Meyer
You can’t possibly be serious with this absurd self-contradictory comment.
You seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable for a “distinguished scholar” to make a “common mistake”.
Really ?
“Distinguished scholars” should not make “common mistakes”. If they do, then they cannot possibly be “distinguished scholars” can they? “Distinguished scholars” do not make “common mistakes”. Distinguish scholars make very carefully considered comments based on facts that they have meticulously verified by intensive research from authoritative sources.
I do not regard myself as a distinguished scholar, but I know enough from reading and general knowledge that this quote has been falsely attributed to Churchill. But apparently Turley lacks this general knowledge that the quote was never made by Churchill. If he makes such simple “common mistakes” about historical events, how can we possibly take anything he says at face value?
He has written books that supposedly trace the history of democracy and the rise of republics, but this “common mistake”, immediately calls into question his ability to do genuine, reliable historical research. The reliability of his so-called historical books is immediately suspect.
And you say that Turley’s comments are “generally” correct.
What exactly does that mean? Are they correct most of the time, some of the time, or hardly ever.
If someone like Turley holds himself out as an expert in law and the history of democracy, then it is not nearly good enough to be “generally” correct. Experts and distinguished scholars need to absolutely correct, not “generally correct”. People who are “generally correct” cannot be considered as distinguished scholars or experts.
And you say that you value Turley’s opinions. Fine. Value his opinions all you want, but they are only worthless partisan opinions, not factual accounts of law or history.
His comments here and in his book are nothing more than partisan opinions devoid of facts and historical accuracy.
He is an opinionated partisan hack, nothing more.
S. Meyer is an idiot. It’s as clear as it gets.
Why GSX? Is it because I recognize that everyone makes mistakes, or because of your moronic claim about Turley?
No, because you can’t recognize what a moron you are.
GSX, it is apparent that you cannot verbalize an adequate response.
Why is that?
Why do you not know what expertise means?
Why are all your answers inadequate?
There are so many questions to ask, but there are no replies; just deflection and words you know aren’t true.
“Distinguished scholars” do not make “common mistakes”.
You are insanely ignorant (and a smear-monger).
It has been know since forever that scholarly books, academic papers, and textbooks (k-college) are rife with errors.
Sam,
There is a vast difference between an academic book having a misplaced comma or an incorrect date, and a tenured professor uncritically copying a fabricated internet meme to insult the intelligence of the average voter. One is an administrative oversight; the other is a complete failure of intellectual verification to feed a political bias.
Turley posts a column about jury nullification, speech protections, and defacing public property, and all X can come up with, all day long, is whether Turley “lied” by attributing a maxim commonly but unprovenly attributed to Churchill as a dishonest flaw that mars Turley’s reputation? OMG! What a sicko, that X, who goes by various monikers and names, skirting from corner to corner in a room.
Anonymous,
I didn’t just talk about the quote. My very first response laid out the actual text of Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and explained the specific legal mechanism of the “lawful excuse” loophole. I explicitly showed how Turley fundamentally mischaracterized a routine British appellate court clarification as an authoritarian plot.But you couldn’t handle a real legal debate. You completely ignored the statutory text because you don’t understand British law. Instead, you threw a tantrum over a sentence structure, bragged about your “superior English skills,” and tried to turn a fake Churchill quote into your intellectual hill to die on.
Pointing out that a tenured law professor uncritically copy-pasted a fabricated internet meme to anchor his entire argument isn’t a minor detail—it goes directly to his credibility. If a public intellectual is too lazy to verify a basic quote on Google, why should anyone trust his complex interpretations of foreign legal systems?
The above sounds more like GSX than anyone else, but I could be wrong.
The only question is whether I am dealing with one moron or two.
Meyer
It is not just a possibility that you believe you “could be wrong”.
You are, in fact, wrong.
You are always wrong.
You are always wrong about everything.
You have been wrong about everything for your entire life.
You are the very definition of what it is to be wrong.
We are now up to three morons.
S. Meyer,
“[Turley] remains an excellent attorney with wonderful credentials.”
I think that is why they are attacking him.
His moral compass and eloquence combined with a deep knowledge of law and history are intimidating to these anon ciphers and their backers.
Those, of course, are the very qualities that keep drawing you, me, and others we know to this blog.
I think the attacks increase significantly when elections approach and that makes me suspect that at least some of them are organized mob attacks like those we have seen on the streets. Although there seem to be fewer financed ‘demonstrations’ since USAID was dismantled.
That aside, you are certainly correct in identifying some of them as solitary morons.
I generally don’t bother with them. I don’t like picking through garbage.
Thanks, Young. I should probably stay away from them as well, but I wear a Hazmat suit when I am near them. My question is: why are they here instead of at a toxic dump site?
“My question is: why are they here instead of at a toxic dump site?”
Because no one with any sense is willing to get physically near enough to any of them to even back the truck up to the pit?
No, we are criticizing him for obvious mistakes a “distinguished lawyer” should not be making. His credentials do not mean squat if he’s as lazy as he has been in portraying this case.
He’s just rage-baiting MAGAs to push traffic on his blog.
“His moral compass and eloquence combined with a deep knowledge of law and history are intimidating to these anon ciphers and their backers.”
Exactly! If he weren’t so effective, they would feel so threatened by him.
BTW, did you see the Clancy holdout juror’s statement about why he voted guilty?
Sam,
Moral Compass? He’s rage baiting you by mischaracterizing a case. He’s very effective at making you look so gullible.
The Clancy holdout juror had plenty of time to make up an excuse. Now that he’s all over the news. Of course he’s gonna be getting defensive.
Turley is a sophisticated hack. Nothing more.
X should just go to Bluesky and cry with the other TDS infected leftist losers!!
Gosh, GSX is at it again. He believes that the mind readers on the jury know better than the holdout juror what the holdout juror believes.
GSX actually concludes without intellectually recognizing that he must question the veracity of both sides.
“. . . falsely attributes an alleged quote . . .”
“Falsely attributes” means: Giving credit where it is not due.
“Alleged quote” means: A statement that cannot be verified.
At best, your statement is redundant. At worst, gibberish.
Care to crow some more about your superior English skills?
As a colonist who speaks an aberrant dialect of the English language, we can hardly expect you you understand comments from someone who speaks the King’s English as it should be spoken.
“. . . we can hardly expect you you understand . . .”
Your collectivist, Royalist skirt is showing.
My guide was a Brit — H.W. Fowler.
Yours, apparently, is the school of repetitive redundancy.
Sam,
If you are going to attempt a grammatical takedown, you should probably make sure you understand the words you are using.
“Falsely attributes” establishes the action—Turley actively assigned a statement to the wrong historical figure.
“Alleged quote” establishes the status of the text—the words themselves are not a verified historical quote; they are merely claimed to be one.
To break it down to a level you can comprehend: Turley took a piece of unverified internet text (the alleged quote) and wrongly told his readers that Winston Churchill wrote it (the false attribution). That isn’t gibberish; it is precise English.
Apparently you don’t understand how English works.
The fact remains: the quote is fake, the “distinguished scholar” got it wrong, and your defense of him has officially devolved into a petty vocabulary argument that you still managed to lose.
Care to try again?
‘Care to try again?”
Yet another responsive tactic that X learned on this blog.
Oh, George, stay off the English AI.
you fool no one, go find another blog that you like more and will tolerate you.
It is not AI. It is plain, simple, legal fact. You perhaps should stay off the NS – Natural Stupidity.
X/George is one of those liars who never tells the truth. I read all his f his comments for a while and did not find a single truth. Then I stopped wasting my time.
What has not been true about what I posted on this case?
You have not shown anything to prove on what I posted is not true.
OK George/X. You asked for it. Here it comes.
1. Your first paragraph (11:32, above) , ((which starts with, “With Jonathan Turley, it’s always a tedious exercise in rage-baiting over reason. For someone who loves to masquerade as an objective legal scholar, his [Turley’s] perpetual failure to do basic homework before launching into an inflammatory tirade…yada yada,”)) ===is entirely composed of jealous, vengeful (and childish) arrows coming from a person (you) with little or no check on reality. You always ask for people to come back with facts–in response to your emotional and non-factual opinion? What FACTS are contained in your posts that require “fact” in rejection? I cannot even believe the HOURS you spend here every day trying to deflate and discredit the good professor. You must be really hurting.
a. please provide factual example of JT’s “rage’baiting.”
b. please provide factual example of JT’s masquerading.
c. please provide factual example of JT’s “perpetual failure to do basic homework” and don’t forget, X, the definition of “perpetual.”
d. please provide factual example of JT’s “operating like a political hack.”
You see how that works, X? You offer your opinion about JT, but demands facts in return. This shows your inability to comprehend substantive legal (or non-legal) exchanges. IT doesn’t quite work here.
————————
Your second paragraph, starting with “[JT’s] hysterical framing…”
X, jury nullification is not a codified right, in either the United States or England. And your “it’s an adorable American projection” is quite amusing, since just yesterday, others (not me) assigned “projection” as defining your comments.
Can you ever come up with anything original?
——————————————–
3. Your third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs reek of retaliatory attempt with thoughts lifted from AI and reassembled to make your own jumbled response.
And BTW, apparently you did not know that the entities that comprise Great Britain/the UK do NOT all operate under the same set of laws and rules.
Of course, I am responding with opinion, to match your opinion. And I add my own personal opinion (I always use my name for identity), which is splashed with some factual material, is that you are one sick, vengeful, retaliatory, twit who spends his time trying to defeat the good professor who has provided you this forum. Shame on you. I repeat. Shame on you.
So we are even, OK? Opinion for opinion.
Thanking you in advance, and I will not respond in kind. Not worth my time. So go ahead, hit me with your best shot. yours truly, lin.
Lin,
If you are going to demand facts in a huff of defensive outrage, you might want to ensure you aren’t defending a position built entirely on fiction. Let’s look at the facts you asked for, starting with Professor Turley’s “basic homework.
In this very commentary, Professor Turley confidently writes: “Churchill famously said that ‘the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.’ I am beginning to see what he meant.”
Fact: Winston Churchill never said this. The International Churchill Society has repeatedly debunked it. For a tenured law professor to base an entire elite-versus-average-voter thesis on a fabricated internet meme is the literal definition of failing to do basic homework. It is a lazy historical error designed to feed a narrative.
Turley frames the UK situation as an authoritarian conspiracy to “sideline juries to silence dissent.”
FACT: The UK courts didn’t strip away a “right” to silence anyone. They narrowed a specific statutory loophole in Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 regarding “lawful excuse.”Turley omitted the actual text of British law because explaining a boring, 50-year-old statutory technicality about subjective intent doesn’t generate clicks or outrage. Instead, he chose inflammatory rhetoric to make his audience believe a Western democracy is running a totalitarian purge. That is political hackery, not legal analysis.
You claim my criticism is purely emotional, yet you completely ignored the point about internal consistency. When right-wing grand juries “no-billed” charges in high-profile political cases because the government lacked a solid evidentiary case, Turley didn’t write columns screaming about a threat to the rule of law. He only cries foul when the jury’s independent streak benefits a political faction he dislikes. It’s simply an observation.
As for your comment about the UK’s differing legal systems—yes, Scotland has its own legal structure. But this case explicitly deals with English common law and an Act of Parliament applying to England and Wales. Throwing out irrelevant meta-commentary about AI or geography doesn’t change the fact that Turley got the underlying law wrong.
You don’t need to spend hours trying to “deflate” the professor; his own text does the work for us. Next time you demand a substantive legal exchange, try bringing a defense that relies on actual statutes instead of insults.
Sincerely X.
“When right-wing grand juries “no-billed” charges in high-profile political cases because the government lacked a solid evidentiary case….”
Are you comparing that to this? Geezoman, you are really confused.
Clown X, please tell us in your own words how you know what the reasons are for the jury nullification in this case.
X didn’t respond. Looks like he headed to another corner to reload his ammo
Apparently you forgot to take your George Derangement Syndrome meds. Seek medical attentions STAT.
Who are you ? JT is proving his point isn’t he?!
It wasn’t a British jury. It was a jury of leeches, invaders, and turncoats.
Same thing.