http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771 The NewsBiscuit Community en-US Sun, 19 May 2013 17:06:14 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/search.php http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164417 Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:26:12 +0000 riesler 164417@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>And do they have bouncers on the door? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164400 Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:18:12 +0000 Gerontius 164400@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>So why are there special courts just for kangaroos? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164392 Sat, 23 Feb 2013 03:08:18 +0000 rickwestwell 164392@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I don't think they ever let Bin Laden try being a juror, it would just be too distracting for the others, and he'd never agree. And he's dead. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164386 Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:54:36 +0000 Perks 164386@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Isn't that where Bin Laden was tried? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164384 Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:47:22 +0000 rickwestwell 164384@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>What if there's a court on a boat, though? I mean, you can get married, so it's not outside the bounds of possibility, surely? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164383 Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:33:47 +0000 Golgo13 164383@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I believe that's the case. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164377 Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:13:01 +0000 Truebiscuit 164377@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Fair enough. Is there an exemption for ship stewards then? Do they have less chance of being called up, if they've served? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164373 Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:02:41 +0000 Golgo13 164373@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>No, I meant that someone who had done jury duty more than two years ago had an equal chance of being selected as someone who had never served. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164368 Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:51:11 +0000 Truebiscuit 164368@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>If you're in a boat, you won't get the summons. Derr. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164365 Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:48:41 +0000 Golgo13 164365@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I think you get a two year window after your first stint where you can refuse to do it, but then you're in the same boat as everyone else when the summons comes. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164355 Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:35:24 +0000 Truebiscuit 164355@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I did jury duty once. Despite the flimsy evidence, I persuaded the jury to come to a rapid 'guilty' verdict and he was banned from driving for two years.</p> <p>Turns out the cunt drove a minibus for some bunch of cunts or whatever, and had been stitched up by a bent cop. Oh well, fuck him. It was one less slow twat to get past on the way to work each morning. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164346 Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:13:10 +0000 Truebiscuit 164346@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p><blockquote> "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." </blockquote></p> <p>That's the conclusion most voters come to, after being on the other end of that conversation with a prospective MP. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164344 Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:02:13 +0000 Al OPecia 164344@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Is your job not important enough to get out of it a second time then? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164335 Fri, 22 Feb 2013 23:06:41 +0000 Golgo13 164335@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Yeah, well I've done jury service twice, right, and the first time everyone was really sensible and we all discussed the evidence and agreed to acquit. Then this other time, the second time, there were two total dicks. One of them thought he was cleverer than the whole system and kept making contrived reasons to believe the opposite of what any witness had said. The other one reckoned all builders were liars and we shouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt. So anyway we got sent back again and told they'd accept a 10-2. Ok, fine, these two dicks can do what they need to do, and we've still got the ten. But THEN one of the ten goes sleuth and says "hang on, there's no way he could have got from A to B and then back to A in the time they said". And the police, CPS and prosecution team missed that? Really? So we go back and judge dismisses the jury, a bit annoyed, and we have all wasted a week. Looked it up later and it turns out sleuth-boy was thinking about another town. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164325 Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:14:02 +0000 Al OPecia 164325@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I was on a jury once. Reminded me of the Churchill quote "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164314 Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:16:00 +0000 dvo4fun 164314@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>@Scroat: "There was probably a "If you don't believe me we'll ask the judge" moment."</p> <p>The Now Show agrees with you so you're probably right.</p> <p>Oxford CC? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164296 Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:03:57 +0000 Squudge 164296@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>they should both be sentenced to re-marry </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164286 Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:33:48 +0000 Gerontius 164286@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Steady on Riesler - she'd be looking at life for that. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164284 Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:25:54 +0000 riesler 164284@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Maybe they should have convicted based on her poor taste in spouse? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164266 Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:48:22 +0000 Titus 164266@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>@Scoat: "Reading between the lines I'm guessing there was disagreement amongst the members of the jury. There was probably a "If you don't believe me we'll ask the judge" moment."</p> <p>That sounds very likely to me. Seems unfair to condemn the whole of that blighted jury.</p> <p>As just one possible scenario: suppose just one nutter on the jury said "I must find her guilty because God has spoken to me and told me that it would be a sin to acquit her" (or even "... to convict her" - same difference)</p> <p>And suppose two more dumb jurors thought "Well, I am not particularly religious, but if she says God has spoken to her, we should respect her views" - or something like that - and two or three more jurors thought "Whatever - I think she is cleary guilty (or not guilty) but if the only way we're ever going to get out of here is by us agreeing that she is not guilty (or guilty), then so be it"</p> <p>Even if the remaing jurors felt that that would be a travesty, they would not even be able to produce a credible majority verdict.</p> <p>In such a situaton the result of just one nutter, two simpletons and three cycnics would be impasse. And that would be even with six or seven sensible, fair-minded people on the jury. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164256 Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:38:26 +0000 Scroat 164256@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Reading between the lines I'm guessing there was disagreement amongst the members of the jury. There was probably a "If you don't believe me we'll ask the judge" moment.</p> <p>I've always been impressed by how juries work. They're just ordinary people, it's all strange to them, there is a lot of responsibility, but it seems to bring out the best in them.</p> <p>If I was in the dock though........... </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164253 Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:21:10 +0000 dvo4fun 164253@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I've seen quite a number of such events and the jury members' sense of relief is almost tangible when the prosecutor's info subsequently reveals they'd been dealing with a real 'wrongun'. Never fancied doing jury service myself.</p> <p>In general, my observation is that court proceedings are seldom fully or accurately reported [doubtless with the exception of your own reportage Scroat) giving the armchair observer ample opportunity to criticise on the basis of very little information. In this week's 'celebrity' case, the assorted notes from jury to Judge could have resulted from concerns of only very few of the twelve.</p> <p>Hardly necessary to overhaul the entire criminal justice process on the basis of one such case, I'd have thought. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=56771#post-164239 Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:53:30 +0000 Scroat 164239@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>I was covering Magistrates' Court for the local paper and a guy was up on serious assault and drug possession charges. Hair down to his arse, matted beard, filthy jeans and ripped tee shirt.</p> <p>I also happened to be at Crown Court when his case came up for trial. He had a very smart haircut, was clean-shaven and was wearing an expensive suit.</p> <p>Giving evidence he pretended to get lost between the dock and the witness stand, and apologised profusely to the court. He also held the Bible in his left hand by mistake when giving the oath. </p> <p>But the jury had been told to reach a verdict based on the evidence they heard in court. He was convicted on all charges, but you could tell that the members of jury were all concerned that such a smart, polite young man's life was being thrown into turmoil. </p> <p>That was until the prosecuting counsel read out his previous convictions. It turned out he was a complete thug with a record as long as your arm. Jaws literally dropped among the jury. The twelve good men and true realised that they had nearly been conned, and the body language rapidly changed from sympathy to anger.</p> <p>But they got it right in the end. </p>