Chris Huhne's wife, should we hate her?
Comments
-
Well yes, and I'm busy, which leaves a lot for the other eight or nine to do.0
-
-
DrLex wrote:Having been in a jury a couple of times, this sadly comes as no great surprise. Since the property-owning criteria is unlikely to be restored, an intelligence test for juror selection would be welcome. The extra cost would be offset by faster deliberation times.
Probably wouldn't be necessary to test people - just the accumulation of a decent set of GCSEs might be enough to remove most of the complete knuckle scrapers.
I feel sorry for the unthick members of that jury. Probably they were in a minority so effectively had to bring the jury down by sending the questions back to the judge.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:I've just read the jury's questions.
My oh my.
Some of dem wuz was well fick, innit.
Mrs TWH, who works in the legal profession, commented that question 5 was exactly the question (and worded perfectly) that a jury would ask to ensure that they were discharged.
She's a cynical woman is Mrs TWH.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:I've just read the jury's questions.
My oh my.
Some of dem wuz was well fick, innit.
Mrs TWH, who works in the legal profession, commented that question 5 was exactly the question (and worded perfectly) that a jury would ask to ensure that they were discharged.
She's a cynical woman is Mrs TWH.
Not at all. Unusually, I find myself in agreement with MBC. That question is perfectly tailored, so much so that I find it inconceivable that it could have been formulated by the 'tard who caused it to be asked. It's the question of an exapserated foreman trying to telegraph just how wayward the "thinking" of the dummkopf(s) is.0 -
Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:I've just read the jury's questions.
My oh my.
Some of dem wuz was well fick, innit.
Mrs TWH, who works in the legal profession, commented that question 5 was exactly the question (and worded perfectly) that a jury would ask to ensure that they were discharged.
She's a cynical woman is Mrs TWH.
Not at all. Unusually, I find myself in agreement with MBC. That question is perfectly tailored, so much so that I find it inconceivable that it could have been formulated by the 'tard who caused it to be asked. It's the question of an exapserated foreman trying to telegraph just how wayward the "thinking" of the dummkopf(s) is.
Must have been at least 3 of them or they would have been able to reach a 10-2 majority verdict.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It was a tailored question. No way the dumb could come up with such a pointed (and arguably loaded) question.
Bet you someone on the Jury works for a Paper, is a Lib DEM or knows one of the Huhne's...Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Mrs TWH, who works in the legal profession, commented that question 5 was exactly the question (and worded perfectly) that a jury would ask to ensure that they were discharged.
She's a cynical woman is Mrs TWH.
That's interesting. I read the questions quickly and concluded that the jury were all fuckwits, but looking at that question again, it's clear that at least some of them were not. Bear in mind that as of about 10 years ago lawyers are not exempt from jury duty, so one or more of them may have been lawyers and may have known just how to word that question.Shut up, knees!
Various Boardmans, a Focus, a Cannondale and an ancient Trek.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:It was a tailored question. No way the dumb could come up with such a pointed (and arguably loaded) question.
Bet you someone on the Jury works for a Paper, is a Lib DEM or knows one of the Huhne's...
I am going to make you a tinfoil hat.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The jury wrote:Can we come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?DonDaddyD wrote:Bet you someone on the Jury works for a Paper, is a Lib DEM or knows one of the Huhne's...
I vote DDD to be on the jury for the retrial. Looks like he has all the necessary qualifications
Nobody told me we had a communication problem0 -
I should never be allowed to be on a Jury. Huhne's ex wife would be going DOWN! B*tch tried to ruin his life for revenge... cow. Oscar would be going down and Lance would be innocent.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:I've just read the jury's questions.
My oh my.
Some of dem wuz was well fick, innit.
Mrs TWH, who works in the legal profession, commented that question 5 was exactly the question (and worded perfectly) that a jury would ask to ensure that they were discharged.
She's a cynical woman is Mrs TWH.
Hmm, maybe all fifteen (oh, sorry: twelve) of them should be done for contempt of court!
What a waste of money and court time.
Cheers,
W.0 -
The Daily Mash nails it again ...
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/are-we-the-jury-jury-asks-judge-2013022160487Shut up, knees!
Various Boardmans, a Focus, a Cannondale and an ancient Trek.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:I should never be allowed to be on a Jury. Huhne's ex wife would be going DOWN! B*tch tried to ruin his life for revenge... cow. Oscar would be going down and Lance would be innocent.
Glad all that is settled then. :shock:
Can you sort out the banks and NHS next?
0
