Scientists Dazzled at Speed of Unreality Increase.

Well, I called it last week. The increase in unreality detected during the budget has now spilled out into the mass media. 

Instead they determine that Rachael Reeves was lying to the public about the existence of a 20 Billion pound black hole. 

However, it's not lying if the person making the statements actually believes what they are saying. And here is where the scientific process comes in, to quantify how far the statements made by a politician diverges from actual reality.

Now we are in the era of the Reeves scale, maybe it requires a debate on how big the divergence can be, before a government is removed from office. 

After all, a government that is acting upon an alternative reality is not dealing with reality, the real problems that people unaffected by this "reality divergence" see on a daily basis. 

It's not dealing with an unproductive NHS, it's not dealing with excessive immigration, it's not dealing with shrinkage of the armed forces, it's not dealing with the increasingly authoritarian Police force.

Instead, the government inside the unreality bubble (let's call it a Blair field for convenience) are seeing nothing wrong with the Police, nothing wrong with immigration, there is no housing crisis, nothing wrong with the number of illegal immigrants now outnumbers the Army in numbers, believes that people on benefit require more money, despite them owning the very latest iPhone, getting hair, nails and lip fillers done thanks to the money they get by having 6 kids from different dads, and believe there is this huge black hole in the country's finances that needs plugging with our money.

The question is, how do you pierce the Blair Field? How do you inject reality into the bubble surrounding the government?

That may take scientists years to accomplish. I suspect it will take a great amount of power to pierce the Blair field. The rate of disparity between the reality inside the bubble and outside, means that a lot of energy is required for reality to enter inside the field.

It could however be sped up by the use of a process called a Coup. But it appears to be seen if things need to be that drastic. Also how the tools to instigate such a process could be organised in a reasonable amount of time.

This Week Saw New Levels of Political Unreality

Back in 2011 I reported that for the first time it was possible to measure the amount of divergence from actual reality and the emergence of alternate realities.

Here's the report: Delphius' Debate: Scientists Attempt to Finally Prove Alternate Realities.

Back then the divergence was measured in FemtoBrowns with the occasional peak measured in MilliBrons.

The amount of political divergence has been increasing over past 14 years. The first divergence level of a whole Brown, was measured literally the week after Labour got into power.

However, scientists report that after passing the Brown barrier, political divergence with reality has increased exponentially. Something predicted in unreality theory, but not detected until the past 18 months.

Scientists say that the divergence from actual reality is at such a huge level that they are measuring Browns to several powers. We are now living in the era of the PetaBrown.

This week, after discussions, a new unit of measurement was quantified: the Reeves. 

The Reeves scale Starts of at The PicoReeves, which is equivalent to one PetaBrown allows scientists to quantify the huge disparity between Labour's reality and actual reality.

The announcements around this week's budget have already produced divergence measurements of several hundred PicoReeves. 

It's hoped that this new scale will allow scientists to quantify the divergence throughout Labour's political tenure, but some scientists are sceptical. 

The rate of divergence after Labour's win in the election has increased exponentially and sceptics are already looking for the next measurement scale just in case.

The Quiet Slide into Tyranny.

Labour are at it again. Whilst championing the rights of certain demographics, they are quietly eroding the rights of the majority.

Back in the Nineties, the Blair government removed double jeopardy, the rule that the State could only prosecute you for a crime once. It forced the CPS to make sure the case was airtight against a defendant. But the ineptitude of the Police in gathering irrefutable evidence forced the Government to end the one-shot deal of double jeopardy, so that if necessary, the Police could come back and prosecute you again for the same crime. The rule was there had to be new evidence, but several cases, the definition of new evidence has been pushed and pushed. 

In fact in some cases, there really is no new evidence and it's just the same evidence presented in a different way. But each time the defendant's wallet is challenged (if you can afford to successfully defend yourself). Many cases running until the defendant's resources have run out and they cannot afford a successful defence. 

Not the "beyond all reasonable doubt" standard we used to expect. 

Talking of evidence, the standard of evidence itself has deteriorated. We now have successful prosecutions based on circumstantial evidence. Based on nothing more than statistical data, Nurse Lucy Letby was jailed for life for the murder of babies under her care.

Again, far and away from "beyond all reasonable doubt".

Statistics can be manipulated to say anything. 

In the Letby case there was no hard evidence. Just that she had been on shift when these babies died. No smoking gun, no vial of poison found in her pocket, no video of her hanging over a baby administering a lethal injection. Just statistics, that in all probability, she murdered the kids. Probability, or the probable, is not the actual. Far from the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. 

Blair's Labour government then removed the ability to receive legal aid, removing the ability of a huge swathe of "normal" people to defend themselves. Instead, Blair brought in the "No Win, no Fee" system, where the lawyers could argue in court to recoup costs. But of course convincing the lawyers to take on a case in the first place is a mission. After all, the no win no fee system is essentially an insurance type system. 

If there is a  good chance of winning, the lawyers will accept the case. If there is a 50/50 chance of winning, then unfortunately no capable defence for you. In actuality, if the odds of winning the case are lower than 60/40, then kiss your freedom goodbye. 

No Win, No Fee works when you are most evidently innocent. It doesn't work when the case gets murky, nuanced and ambiguous. 

Against all of this manipulation of the legal system, was the bastion of jury trials. Even if you couldn't get a proper defence team, even if the odds were stacked against you, if the evidence was ambiguous, if you could convince enough of your peers that you were innocent, or that the case was unreasonable, or malicious, the jury could find you not guilty.

There have been cases where the media have placed a defendant banged to rights, where it seems impossible to win, but the jury have seen something in the evidence that just doesn't sit right, or maybe they are not convinced the prosecution have made their case "beyond all reasonable doubt".

Whatever, the jury have acquitted the defendant, against all odds. 

However, this new Labour government are trying to remove that last bastion of common law, of Magna Carta: the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. 

Blair's labour already changed things up, where most small cases were held before a judge only. But there was the option for jury trial for smaller cases in some instances. 

Starmer's Labour wants to eradicate jury trials altogether for everything except the most heinous cases.

I just wonder what cases would be exempt from Jury trial? Would gang rape of white girls buy Pakistani men be only seen by a judge?

We've already seen with the Twitter post cases that judges are accepting their role in the state machinery with zealous glee. Sending people to prison for years, for an offensive tweet. Something where I'm sure a jury would rightly acquit a person.

But this is a step too far. The state becomes judge, jury and executioner. The state takes on the case and prosecutes, the judge is appointed employed and paid by the state, and the judge defines the sentence. 

The problem being that the judges are political appointees, they are activists, and not impartial. They are beholden to the state for their living. It leads to impropriety, or at the very least, the impression of impropriety in the legal system.

Otherwise I can see a situation where judges become the target of criminals. Either to blackmail, to entice or worse, to eliminate. It brings in the spectre of revenge. A judge can be seen as a target for retribution, whereas if you are convicted by your peers, it's hard for a single person to become a target. 

The process has done for you, not the person. Elimination the option of jury trials just buts judges at more risk. It puts defendants at more risk of unsafe prosecutions and puts the legal and judicial system at risk of being put into disrepute.

The eradication of jury trials must be prevented, at all costs.