Maybe instead of pouring billions of dollars into their plagiarism machine, they should give that money to the many, many brilliant scholars and creatives who have a surplus of ideas but lack the time and resources to execute them.

2112 vibes here.

Kobo Plus Calibre works well for me

The Magna Carta?

Thank you for this. I'll be kept busy for ages

I'm in awe at it. The effort spent to write it is incredible.

Big love for Morsenet mention in the wild.

No problem at all. The recent reform in Scotland allows the type of research I'm asking about so there will be something soon to consider, albeit in a different procedural context.

Not at all! I'm coming from another jurisdiction and I value your contribution as it's more than simply juries good/plans bad. There was a debate in Scotland along similar lines and I'm very interested in how criminal processes and decision making works.

Fair enough, I think that's a little harsh though. Saying juries are a safeguard because they don't simply follow what prosecutors or judges say is a bit of a bold claim. I think if that were true, you'd want all criminal justice processes to be jury-led (so no judge trials) but that's not your arg?

"Juries break this chain of process, making it impossible for judges to simply nod along with what the police and prosecutors say"

I'm interested in this. How do we know juries don't do that? There will be research on jury decision making in Scotland soon but isn't this hard to evidence?