The Court of Appeal has passed a historic ruling allowing the first ever criminal trial to be heard without a jury.
Three judges in London, headed by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, gave the go-ahead because of a "very significant" danger of jury tampering.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the approaches to self-defence of every government in the last fifty years have been predicated on the police being there to protect the innocent. And yet here they are saying that they cannot defend a twelve members of a jury for a short period.
Is the loss of the right jury trial a reasonable price to pay for having a disarmed citizenry?