happyhippy Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Personally I think it's a load of garbage. I bet they don't know the background of any of the people that called onto jury service and what sort of life they have had, for all they know they could be biased. If they have been attacked for example they aren't going to be happy about letting go someone who is accused of attcking someone. Good idea. Let's cherry pick all the jurors. The WHOLE POINT is that there is a varied opinion. They call up people with responsibilties at home that find it hard to get away. Call up all the people who aren't at college, looking after children and call up those who stay in bed all day. Or even better, get some training for people who wish to do it and let those people do it. Send out a questionaire to every household asking if anyone would be willing to take part and use those people first. ok moan over Get rid of that chip. On both trials on which I sat, everyone was working. Get a grip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanl Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 I have done jury service twice now, once in Sheffield and once in London...both times I was working and had to arrange time off to attend. As I recall the "letter" WASN'T an invite to attend but a summons to DO so. I was there for two weeks and was lucky enough to get called forward on a couple of cases. The rest of the time was just sat around waiting...take books...having said that I was too busy being nosey to concentrate on reading. I wasn't out of pocket either time and there was no hassle arranging time off work..it was just accepted as them having no choice. The worst bit for me was when I was in London. In my job I "lived in" then suddenly had to commute from A to B on the tube, in the rush hour....arghhh I often think myself that it's a pity I don't get called now that I've retired but there you go, it doesn't work like that. I'm not sure, but are you breast-feeding your baby still? might they not defer you for that? although knowing of people that HAVE been defferred, they STILL had to do it, albeit at a later date. Good Luck anyway. Just put it down as a good experience:thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiglet Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 No. It's a percentage, and is explained on the first day. It isn't a percentage you get your loss of earnings in full, subject to a maximum allowance. This means that, as hagardriley says, if there are two people both earning above the maximum allowance but one earns twice as much as the other, one will be at a bigger financial loss. The maximum allowance also includes the cover of travel costs, and childcare. Jurors must enter their actual loss of earnings though, i.e their net pay, not gross as stated on the first page of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kittenta Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Good idea. Let's cherry pick all the jurors. The WHOLE POINT is that there is a varied opinion. Just because you leave out the people who have been personally affected by a similar offence doesn't mean there wouldn't be a varied opinion. What is the point of having, two people say, who have been through something and just want to punish anyone accused of it. How does that help anyone? Get rid of that chip. On both trials on which I sat, everyone was working. Get a grip. Exactly everyone was working, some people may want to do it, good on them, nothing against them. What i'm saying is there are plenty of people sat on their backsides with no reason for doing so that could attend, leaving those who aren't really bothered about the experience to get on with their own lifes. If they called up all the people who were 'seeking work' there would still be varied opinion, it would give the lazy ones some experience of getting out of bed and teach them about earning money. What's wrong with that? I'm not saying anyone who works shouldn't do it, if they wish to do it then great. I'm saying call out all these people first before calling people who have work responsibilites, children to look after or studies that would be affected. Where's the chip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GabbleRatcht Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 A question about the Law. If you are not required to vote in a democracy, why do you have to do jury service when called? Surly you should be able to say 'no, I don't want to do it'. It's not democratic. Seems wrong to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 It isn't a percentage you get your loss of earnings in full, subject to a maximum allowance. This means that, as hagardriley says, if there are two people both earning above the maximum allowance but one earns twice as much as the other, one will be at a bigger financial loss. The maximum allowance also includes the cover of travel costs, and childcare. Jurors must enter their actual loss of earnings though, i.e their net pay, not gross as stated on the first page of the thread. Actually, me old salty snack, I stand corrected ....... you are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhippy Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Exactly everyone was working, some people may want to do it, good on them, nothing against them. What i'm saying is there are plenty of people sat on their backsides with no reason for doing so that could attend, leaving those who aren't really bothered about the experience to get on with their own lifes. If they called up all the people who were 'seeking work' there would still be varied opinion, it would give the lazy ones some experience of getting out of bed and teach them about earning money. What's wrong with that? I'm not saying anyone who works shouldn't do it, if they wish to do it then great. I'm saying call out all these people first before calling people who have work responsibilites, children to look after or studies that would be affected. Where's the chip? If you want 12 Burberry clad, stoned, chavs deciding the fate of whomever, then you're a fool. Justice applies to all, and should be decided by all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizzmobile Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 I did it a few years ago in London. It was one of the most interesting experiences I have ever had, and a real eye opener. It lasted just over two weeks and my employer was OK with this. As it was a murder case, I don't have to do it again. But that's OK. Agree with Twitcher, getting back to your own 'real life' afterwards was quite hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beamer Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 OMG! I have just got a letter for Jury Service, anyone done it and can please tell me what it involves and could I be on it for one day or one month... one year?!!! I have got a 6 month old daughter and really don't wanna be away from her every day plus so much messing about with babysitters etc!!!! Please Help! It's a pitty you havent got a criminal record...they wouldn't allow you to do it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickdalewood Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 I thought it was very interesting, ive been called 3 times and done it twice, take a good book to read as you may well not get called for the first 2 days. You normally do it for 2 weeks but if you get a case that will go over that then the judge will tell you. Some days you can be home after lunch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.