The UK Just Took A Very Dark Turn

Britain is scrapping trial by jury. Luckily I don't know anyone who's got a trial by jury. Hello there you awakening wonders. Thanks for joining me for Stay Free with Russell Brand. Today we're talking about justice in the UK. Chance would be a fine thing. Let's get into it. It's cases like this the government wants to see sped up. To do so, a package of reforms, including a major shift away from jury trials, to try and clear a backlog of nearly 80,000 cases. Who caused the backlog? They caused the backlog by being unreliable, by not being able to run a country, by not being able to run a judicial system, by not being able to hand the administration, by arresting people for increasingly ridiculous crimes. Creating, it seems, criminals as a way of controlling populations. And then like, oh, well, they've got a bit of a backlog. Once you've got a backlog, stop arresting people for stuff they've not done. Stop creating pretend mad crazy crimes in order to legitimise banging people up in jail because you can't control them. And then to compound the problem by saying, because of the old backlog, we ain't got time for jury trials. Because of the old backlog, it'll be quicker if we just shot people at the moment of birth. What are they doing in the United Kingdom? Abortions, legal almost to adulthood. Euthanasia can start if you're bit down in the dumps or dour. And jury trials are being scrapped. What are they trying to create? What do all of these things have in common? Control, control, control. They want control over death, birth, justice. Why? Because they don't believe in God. We now face an emergency in the courts and we must act. Problem, reaction, solution. This is that in practice. We've got a problem. It's a backlog. Oh yeah, you can't have a backlog. What are we going to do about the backlog? Government, step in and help us with the backlog. What we're going to do, get rid of this backlog, is get rid of jury trials, which as we've said, is one of the few firewalls that prevents totalitarianism. That's a step in the wrong direction. What you want actually is juries and assemblies in every area of public life. Why don't you actually decentralise justice? Have different communities adjudicating locally over everything. What's the argument for it? People are about to become redundant, literally redundant through AI and robotics. 20, 30, 40, 50, 60% of the population not necessary in accordance with a mass centralised model. With a decentralised model, you need people to grow food, you need people to run communities, you need people to teach kids, you need people to work in hospitals. You've centralised everything through your mad demonism and you're continuing in the state to be the accompaniment of global, corporate and commercial projects that are destroying the planet. We're the only thing that can stop it. We as Asians have a higher force. The only power that can oppose these lunatics is the power of Christ. Thankfully, that power is available to all of us. Recent events in the UK suggest a quite profound shift in the balance between the state and its citizens. A shift that feels less like routine policy change and more like a society preparing the ground for future control. At the centre of this is the government's plan to remove jury trials for offences carrying sentences under three years. Ministers claim this is necessary to reduce a staggering court backlog, yet the justification sounds hollow. Jury trials form only a small fraction of cases and trimming them cannot seriously resolve a system-wide crisis. What it will do, however, is erode a constitutional protection that predates Parliament itself. Trial by jury is the closest thing Britain has to a civic firewall. It ensures that guilt is decided not by officials who serve the state, but by ordinary people who serve only their conscience. This matters not just in principle, but in practice. Recent stories reveal a justice system already tempted to stretch its reach. An IT consultant found himself arrested after posting a photograph online of himself holding a legally owned firearm while abroad. Another case saw an assault victim convicted of a hate crime because of angry text messages sent in the emotional aftermath of being beaten. As Lord Chancellor, my responsibility is to ground reform in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial. Why would you let people talk like that? Being in charge of your old country? Your old country? The right to jury trials. They're bored! Look at them! They're creating tyranny and they're bored! At least Hitler would burn down a Reichstag and stuff. At least it was interesting. What are they doing now? They're marching around, they're smashing windows, they're dressed up in shirts, they're killing people, there's genocides going on. Whoa, whoa. I mean, say what you like about the Nazis, but they're not boring. I mean, these f***** they're gonna bore us into concentration camps. We will ensure cases are dealt with at the right level, proportionate to their severity, and deliver the swift justice victims deserve. Why ain't everyone in their f***** chairs, by the way? Where are the members of parliament? Did you see that shot? 90% of the f***** ain't even showed up that day. It doesn't work. The system doesn't work. Why are we pretending that a system that Oliver Cromwell could see was broken and didn't work is going to work for us in 2025 when we have computers and laptops and instantaneous communication? We have technology on one hand and we have divine grace and inspiration on the other. That's it. We got everything we need. We don't need them anymore. The minute you realise that, it's over for them. The logic behind these actions feels brittle. The difference between maintaining order and policing thought grows thinner with each such incident. If this is what the system does while juries still exist, what happens when guilt is determined solely by a judiciary tasked with meeting administrative tasks rather than upholding a shared moral intuition? Let alone absolute virtue, universal right and wrong. Juries interrupt the state's impulse to punish and control. They offer a pause in which common sense prevails over official enthusiasm and an unbridled and demonstrable appetite for totalitarianism. A single judge, even if you could find a good one, could not replicate this social anchor. All these changes come as the justice secretary admits another 12 prisoners have been mistakenly released in the last three weeks. It was the one thing we didn't want to happen. Have a look at this moment for Brass Eye. Brass Eye was so beautiful. In this moment, a paedophile is sent into space with a little boy. Last month, the notorious paedophile Sidney Cook was blasted into space to spend the rest of his life aboard a one-man prison vessel, posing no further threat to children on earth. But it was revealed that an eight-year-old boy was also placed on board by mistake and is now trapped alone in space with the monster. A spokesman said, this is the one thing we didn't want to happen. It's the one thing. As court cases are sped up, that could shift pressure onto a prison system already at breaking point. Today, magistrates hear about 90% of criminal cases. In fact, only 3% of trial cases in England and Wales will ever go before a jury. And almost three quarters of all trials going to the Crown Court will continue to be heard by them under our changes. Right, so is it a big deal or not? Is it a big deal or not? On one hand, he seems to be saying, this is a big deal. We're doing this to get rid of the backlog. And on the other hand, it's not even a big deal because three quarters of cases will be the same. That's the mark of deception, counterfeit, duplicity, diabolical, two-faced, white man speaks with forked tongue, two things simultaneously. Can you see it? Can you hear it? Can you detect it? Do you understand? This is a measure we're taking that's going to radically solve the problem of the backlog of 80,000 cases while also it's nothing and it's no big deal. Which one is it? Is it not a big deal or is it a big deal? Stop lying. First, I will create new swift courts within the Crown Court with a judge alone deciding verdicts in tribal either way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less. Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice. As long as Sir Brian estimates that they're going to deliver justice, 90% quicker and at a price that's right. Well, now, why don't we just start questioning Sir Brian? I mean, he's got this noise in front of his first name. Once you've got in front of your first name, Sir Brian, oh, everything's going to be fine. Also, by the way, just to step out of that rant for a second, David Lammy is probably a perfectly nice person. I feel like I remember when he was an MP in Tottenham, when Mark Duggan got murdered in custody. I feel like David Lammy stepped up, but he's in the system now. And once you are an agent of the system, even if David Lammy is watching this right now, he will know it in his heart. He will know, oh man, how does that Russell Brand dude know this about me? How does he know that since I've been inveigled into the system, I've been corrupted? Can he see inside my soul? No, I've just watched various politicians go into Parliament and come out of Parliament and you see that brief moment where their eyes open like they've been unplugged at the back of the They are captured. They are the first victims in a way. Those that are in those gilded cages and leather-clad mahogany chambers, they are in prison too. Do you like gambling? It's dangerous. It's bad for you. Don't do it. But if you do do it, use Polly Market. You can gamble on anything. If you follow politics, you know everyone's got opinion. Your group chats, pundits, and of course me, we've all got opinions, right? But Polly Market can actually get real odds on what's likely to happen. Why don't you gamble your way to the top like Biff in Back to the Future 2 when he got that almanac? You will be like Biff. Polly Market is a prediction market where people trade on real events, elections, debates, policy moves, erections, and honestly, it's great and it doesn't stop at politics. There are markets on the economy, tech, sports, pop culture, erections, and even weird stuff that takes over the internet for a week. It's all live, it's transparent, and it gives you a vibe check on what people really think. Oh, look at these people on Epstein Island. Who knew? You stinking, filthy perverts. Not you, I mean them. You didn't go Epstein Island, did you? You were just at home. What was the worst thing you've done? Looked at porn. Shouldn't do that either, actually. And if you look at Polly Markets, you can gamble on why and what type of porn. Oh, look at that. Big boobs. Black versus white using their winkies as swords. I don't know. Sith versus Jedi. Work it out for yourselves using Polly Market. See you later, baby. Justice at least 20% faster than jury trials. You can't say justice 20% faster. That's not a concept. Justice at 20% off. And now, righteousness at 10% off your normal price. With this guilty verdict, you can have another two guilty verdicts, all for the Lolo Bundle. It's not like packages for T-Mobile. We're talking about institutions that are meant to be actually the expression of divine will. You can't have justice without God, because without God, what is justice? Oh, we've decided that that's right and that's wrong. Based on what? Based on what? If we're just blobs of matter traveling through space, what's the important thing? Even the word matter is derived from the same etymological root as the word mother. Something must matter, must mean something, does it? Does this stuff mean something or not? If you can talk about justice in the same way you might talk about a leather couch 20% off, or a modular settee or sofa, but if you talk about it in the same commodified and objectifying language, we can't trust you. But then we knew this. When free expression results in arrests, when online speech becomes a frequent route into the criminal system, when public dissent triggers rapid prosecution, the removal of juries begins to look less like reform and more like preparation for a future in which justice becomes a streamlined administrative process rather than a participatory civic act. Consider too the recent changes to both abortion law and euthanasia law. Euthanasia already exists in practice. I talked to Dr. John Campbell, the YouTube and COVID era hero recently, and I remarked that in practice euthanasia already exists. Medical professionals generally are able to increase opioid dosage when they believe that a patient with the complicity, I hope, of their family members is unlikely to recover, i.e. there's a delicate balance that exists already in practice, so changing the law has got a motivation other than the explicit and stated one, and it's always the same. It's always about consolidating control and legitimizing further authority. This transformation would be unsettling enough on its own, but unfolding as it does when Britain appears to be positioning itself closer to a potential direct conflict with Russia is even more alarming. Reports have suggested that British troops could be involved in a wider NATO mobilization involving hundreds of thousands of personnel if hostilities escalate. That possibility places an even greater premium on maintaining rock-solid protections for civil liberties at home. A country contemplating involvement in a major European conflict needs a justice system that commands trust, not one that concentrates authority and narrows avenues for dissent. History shows that wartime pressures often produce expansions of state power that linger long after the fighting ends. For Britain to move towards conflict while simultaneously weakening the institutions that guard individual rights is to risk creating conditions where extraordinary measures can be adopted with little resistance. The tightening climate also coincides with a striking demographic shift according to recent data. Nearly 700,000 people left the UK in a single year, the highest number in more than a century. The reasons for such departures are varied, yet the scale points to something deeper than routine mobility. People do not abandon the country in such numbers unless they sense a change in its atmosphere. Migration becomes a vote of no confidence in the direction of national life. When we place these strands together, a picture emerges of a society at risk of sleepwalking into a more controlled future. The removal of juries touches upon the core of how freedom is preserved. The rise in arrest for expression, however distasteful the speech may be, hints at a moral framework increasingly enforced through coercion rather than persuasion. The surge in emigration suggests that many have already decided the trajectory is troubling enough to warrant departure. The UK stands on the edge of a transformation that may not be easily reversed. A country can lose its liberties without a sudden break. It can do so through a series of pragmatic adjustments that accumulate into something more profound. If the public fails to recognise this pattern, the loss becomes normal before it becomes visible. The choice now is whether to treat these developments as isolated issues or as signs of a country quietly reshaping its relationship with its citizens. Up to £34 million pounds per year in additional funding for criminal legal aid advocates. Alongside these changes, we will increase magistrates court sentencing powers to 18 months so they can take a greater proportion of lower level offending and relieve pressure on the crown court. We are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this parliament remains. Sometimes people can't help but betray their unconscious motivations through speech, sometimes through stammering and stuttering, sometimes through ill-chosen words, not that I'm suggesting David Lamey writes his own speeches, but like levers of power and pulling every lever of power because that language has entered the public discourse through online punditry and commentary. But when you use those terms and you're actually in power, it's revelatory. We are operating a machine, David Lamey tells us, a machine that we control. We can tell you how we're going to tweak the backlog and reduce it because we are in control of it. I think in that momentary revelation there, what we see is as machines become more preeminent and prevalent in public life, we are invited ourselves to become just components in a machine. And what is a machine really? A machine is a functioning entity without a spirit or a soul, without an ontological center. It's an insentient entity and that's what they want us to become. They want us distracted and deadened and dull and the only antidote to that is a fierce and widely awakening spirit, which we need to cultivate together. Remember, you can comment and you should subscribe to Rumble Premium. Also, get our reborn products. Join us, fund us, we're in a war. Thanks for watching the video. Have a look at this one over here or join us Monday, Wednesday and Friday on Rumble.