First Trial Without Jury to Be Conducted in UK - Comments

I work in court. I must say that I understand why the Lord Chief Justice has allowed this. We are said to be promised a 'fair trial by our peers', which we often don't receive, I must say. This would suggest we be tried by our own age goup, financial, social and religious background, but that is of course a tangent.
If the Lord Chief Justice feels that a fair trial could not be passed in the presence of a jury, then he has acted to give these men the fair trial the justice system promises. It must also be known that juries are often sent out of court when unsubstantiated evidence or evidence that may cause an unfair bias is presented to the judge. All of this is recorded.
I must say that I would feel far more confortable with this if the trial were to sit before a panel of perhaps three judges, much as what happens in the Magistrate's Court. However, I know that every word will be recorded of the trial, so that it can be analysed by independant source to ensure that standards are met.

I, for one, think this is totally, 100%, wrong. Everyone has a right to trail by jury, no matter what. The goverment nor anyone else has right to change that, despite the danger.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but here in the US everybody has the right to a speedy trial by jury. And didn't the Judge say it was a right people have to have a jury? Personally, I don't think that was a serious enough crime to think the jury would be in trouble. There are terrorists that went on trial and had a jury. =/

Surely this is the wrong course of action? It would be better for the court to put measures in place to prevent the bias of the jury (many already exist), and to give the men as standard a trial as possible. No matter how serious the crime, the justice system we have should not discriminate; that was once its beauty.