Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sevenlayermuddle]

On the news, above was quoted as the expression used by the judge to describe the jury, in the case of somebody who is alledged to have committed offences relating to somebody else's speeding ticket.  I would not like to venture an opinion on the merits of the legal case.  Indeed doing so may even be illegal, so please, let's not.

But what a wonderful expression the judge used.  To me, it conveys a feeling that may be so familiar to many people who, for example, have called their  ISP's help-desk to discuss a technical problem, and then faced that sinking feeling when an Indian accent answered the phone.

[burakkucat]

Ah, yes. What a wonderful description. 

I am sure Walter has many a tale, from Ewhurstshire, where Beattie has shown exactly such a fundamental deficit in understanding. 

I like that phrase, so much, that it will probably enter my vocabulary -- just as did Sir Humphrey Appleby's oft uttered expression, when the moment is ripe, in the 1980s. 

[roseway]

Yes, top marks to the judge for a fine new phrase. I think I'll add it to my lexicon too.

[UncleUB]

All I see here is a total waste of taxpayers money.......

Judge,Jury,the whole shooting match for what...........

[sheddyian]

It is an excellently considered phrase.

After the initial "what!!?" when I read about the questions the jury had put to the judge regarding using opinion or facts that had not been presented to them in the courtroom, something occurred to me.

Do you think those "stupid" questions were deliberately asked by one or more of the other jurors who were exasperated by certain other jury members failing to grasp what a jury should and shouldn't be considering?  An attempt by the jurors who knew what they were meant to be doing to educate those they felt didn't know? (rightly or wrongly)

Ian

[HPsauce]

Quite possibly the foreman trying to keep them "on track".

[c6em]

The nature of the questions and their wording - from the Telegraph suggests to me anyway that the jury or certain members on it were rather cleverer than the judge.

Judges do not like clever juries who like to think for themselves and ask difficult questions and refuse to believe either the defense or the prosecution's attempts to twist the evidence towards their particular way of thinking.

They may well be evidence that neither the defence nor the prosecution wish for the jury to hear - as it would be "inconvienent" to their case particulary if these persons/witnesses are unlikely to be brow beaten by barristers into staying on message in court ....so these people would not be called.
Such is the UK system of the law. 
Barristers appear in court every day up and down the country with their often guilty clients (and they know it!) while loudly proclaiming their clients total innocence as they proceed in court to in effect pervert the course of justice by "getting their client off".
Exactly the same charge as levied in this case remember.

Where judges get really scared is when they meet a jury that is simply going to make its own mind up regardless of the law or what the Judge says.  So a person may be proved guilty under the law but the jury regard the law under which they are charged as stupid or oppressive  so they acquit.