Huhne pleads guilty..
 

On 5 Feb, 20:21, "ARW" wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. He knobbed another woman
and he got caught by the wife.

The fact that it was 10 years ago that she took the 3 points for
speeding does not matter to her. Her claws are out. You cannot
reason with them when you have not been caught with your
trousers down - so what chance do you have when you have been
caught shagging someone else?

Except his wife had nothing to do with it. As she knew as
well as he did that is saying anything at all she'd simply be
landing herself in the **** as well. As its a bit late
for her to be coming up with excuses.

Huhne made the big mistake of telling his son, Peter the Plonker
about what had happened years ago, who being a bit on the thick
side - then decided to get all self righteous by threatening
to report dad to the police, quite overlooking the
fact that he'd be dropping mummy in it as well.

quote

" But text messages between Huhne and his son Peter, sent
in May 2011 and declared admissible in court by Mr Justice
Sweeney, revealed Peter put pressure on Huhne to "accept
responsibility" for the offence.

Peter said: "We all know that you were driving and you put
pressure on Mum. Accept it or face the consequences. You've
told me that was the case. Or will this be another lie?"

Huhne replied: "I have no intention of sending Mum to
Holloway Prison for three months. Dad"

A year ago, Huhne told reporters he was "innocent of these
charges" and vowed to fight them in the courts

His son asked: "Are you going to accept your responsibility
or do I have to contact the police and tell them what you told
me?" later adding: "It's not about her its about your accepting
your responsibility to me."

/quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21320992

To repeat "Your responsibility to me".

What a prize ****.

All three of them are as thick as pig ****.

Now what a surprise "Vicky Pryce 'wanted revenge' over Chris
Huhne's affair"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21333624

You were right first time, not me. It was the wife who brought
him down by going to the Sunday Times. Although the son's
emails were earlier, they never became public until later

I was not points scoring - *I just know scorned women better than most
people:-)

It's very hard to work out quite who's the most stupid
person in all of this.

There is a choice of 3:-).

1. Chris - he decided to have an affair with a bisexual woman and did not
ask his wife to join in for a threesome.

2. Vicky - who says "Chris committed a crime 10 years ago and I know that as
I helped him do it" exactly one week after she found out that she had not
been invited for a threesome or did not like the taste of another womans
juice on his cock.

3. Their son. Who I would very much like to take on as an apprentice and
welcome him into the real world:-) Apart from defending his Mum he has not
actually done a lot wrong IMHO. And who knows what Mummy asked him to say
and do? Sure he's a dick, but look at his parents.

--
Adam

;))))

Jim K

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:36:34 -0000, ARW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot get a
10-2 majority is because of "the jury of eight women and four men" are
split 8 - 4? IMHO it's a battle of the sexes and nothing to do with
justice.

Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks, men haters,
or religious zealots involved.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On 20/02/13 19:47, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:36:34 -0000, ARW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot get a
10-2 majority is because of "the jury of eight women and four men" are
split 8 - 4? IMHO it's a battle of the sexes and nothing to do with
justice.

Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks, men haters,
or religious zealots involved.

short form in standard English. The jury were collectively too stupid to
understand what the law is all about.

WE will be back to the ducking stool eventually.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/02/13 19:47, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:36:34 -0000, ARW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot get a
10-2 majority is because of "the jury of eight women and four men" are
split 8 - 4? IMHO it's a battle of the sexes and nothing to do with
justice.

Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks, men haters,
or religious zealots involved.

short form in standard English. The jury were collectively too stupid to
understand what the law is all about.

I heard that one of the many questions they asked the judge after
retiring to consider their verdict was along the lines of "Can we take
into account evidence that has neither been mentioned nor supported in a
statement made inside the courtroom?"

Words fail me.

Hopefully, the new jury will do better.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:36:34 -0000, ARW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot get a
10-2 majority is because of "the jury of eight women and four men"
are split 8 - 4? IMHO it's a battle of the sexes and nothing to do
with justice.

Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks, men
haters, or religious zealots involved.

I wonder if an intelligent man hater asked the questions to get a retrial?


--
Adam

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On 20/02/2013 19:47, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks, men haters,
or religious zealots involved.


or the Judge was incompetent and didn't inform the jurors of their role
in this case.



--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:01:38 +0000, John Williamson wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

I heard that one of the many questions they asked the judge after
retiring to consider their verdict was along the lines of "Can we take
into account evidence that has neither been mentioned nor supported in
a statement made inside the courtroom?"

Words fail me.

The questions and the Judges answers are on the above link.

5. Can a juror 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?

"The answer to that question is firmly no," said the judge. "That is
because it would be completely contrary to the directions I have given
you for anyone to return a verdict except a true verdict according to the
evidence.

Hopefully, the new jury will do better.

4. Can you define what is reasonable doubt?

Mr Justice Sweeney said: "A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is
reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law doesn't allow
me to help you with beyond the written directions that I have already
given."

Poor bugger, no wonder he threw 'em out.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 20/02/13 19:47, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:36:34 -0000, ARW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot get a
10-2 majority is because of "the jury of eight women and four men" are
split 8 - 4? IMHO it's a battle of the sexes and nothing to do with
justice.

Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks, men haters,
or religious zealots involved.

short form in standard English. The jury were collectively too stupid
to understand what the law is all about.

WE will be back to the ducking stool eventually.


Do we have to listen to all this boring evidence stuff or can we go on
what we read in the (insert your own newspaper of loathing)?
--
bert

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

In article ,
alan wrote:
Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks, men
haters, or religious zealots involved.


or the Judge was incompetent and didn't inform the jurors of their role
in this case.

They have a more or less standard speech they give to the jury. If it had
been forgotten or much modified, he'd have been put right by the court
officials.

--
*Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On Feb 20, 8:45*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 20/02/13 19:47, Dave Liquorice wrote: On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:36:34 -0000, ARW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot get a
10-2 majority is because of *"the jury of eight women and four men" are
split 8 - 4? IMHO it's a battle of the sexes and nothing to do with
justice.

Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks, men haters,
or religious zealots involved.

short form in standard English. The jury were collectively too stupid to
understand what the law is all about.

WE will be back to the ducking stool eventually.


I can't believe this is the first jury in history to fail to grasp
some of the basic concepts of 'trial by jury'. I know there are some
factions that want to do away with jury trials, seeing them as a waste
of time and money, and just having judges decide yea or nay.

I wonder what's really going on here.

--
Halmyre

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

In article
,
Halmyre wrote:
I can't believe this is the first jury in history to fail to grasp
some of the basic concepts of 'trial by jury'. I know there are some
factions that want to do away with jury trials, seeing them as a waste
of time and money, and just having judges decide yea or nay.

It's not that unusual to have one or more members of a jury who don't
understand things like 'reasonable doubt'. And in this day and age, some
may also use the internet for more 'information' despite being told not
to. Usually, the more clewed up ones on the jury can keep him right - but
not always. My guess is this time there were enough of these wallies to
prevent a majority verdict being achieved.

--
*42.7% of statistics are made up. Sorry, that should read 47.2% *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:30:23 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article

,

Halmyre wrote:

I can't believe this is the first jury in history to fail to grasp

some of the basic concepts of 'trial by jury'. I know there are some

factions that want to do away with jury trials, seeing them as a waste

of time and money, and just having judges decide yea or nay.



It's not that unusual to have one or more members of a jury who don't

understand things like 'reasonable doubt'.

What might seem reasonable to one person might not be to another.



And in this day and age, some

may also use the internet for more 'information' despite being told not

to.

I'm not sure what 'information' you should or shouldn't search for.
I can;t see any reason why a person shouldn't search for the term resonable doubt if they don;t understand that term. I've been on jury service twice and I have my views on resonable doubt I'm sure others might have differnt views.



Usually, the more clewed up ones on the jury can keep him right - but

not always. My guess is this time there were enough of these wallies to

prevent a majority verdict being achieved.

which brings back to argument for 'professional jurers' or some sort of test to see if a person is actual mentally fit enough for jury service.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On 21/02/2013 11:59, Tim Streater wrote:


What part of "despite being told not to" is so hard to understand? A
jury is supposed to come to a conclusion on the evidence put before it -
nothing else. There's a serious danger that anything they read on the
Internet will be prejudicial. That's also why we have "sub judice" in
this country.

I thought that only applied to the HMS Astute trial?

--
Rod

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On 21/02/2013 12:56, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
polygonum wrote:

On 21/02/2013 11:59, Tim Streater wrote:


What part of "despite being told not to" is so hard to understand? A
jury is supposed to come to a conclusion on the evidence put before
it -
nothing else. There's a serious danger that anything they read on the
Internet will be prejudicial. That's also why we have "sub judice" in
this country.

I thought that only applied to the HMS Astute trial?

You thought what only applied to the HMS Astute trial?


"sub judice"

--
Rod

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:59:34 AM UTC, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,

whisky-dave wrote:



On Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:30:23 AM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article

And in this day and age, some may also use the internet for

more 'information' despite being told not to.



I'm not sure what 'information' you should or shouldn't search for.

I can;t see any reason why a person shouldn't search for the term resonable

doubt if they don;t understand that term. I've been on jury service twice and

I have my views on resonable doubt I'm sure others might have differnt views.



What part of "despite being told not to" is so hard to understand?

Because it's meaningless, unless of course they say why or explain that you shouldn;t use the internet to come to a decision on a case.
Some peole might not understand that if person X was 10 metres from person Y at the time they might not be able to visualise that distance are you saying they can;t look for how far that is in feet and inches or they can't look up how many buses that is ?.

What you obviously can't do is look for information regarding the case you are on.








A

jury is supposed to come to a conclusion on the evidence put before it -

nothing else.

Yes each person should come to their own decision/conclusion based on the evidence they have been shown/given in court.


There's a serious danger that anything they read on the

Internet will be prejudicial. That's also why we have "sub judice" in

this country.

The same thing goes for newspapers and books and this idea was inforce long before the internet, but the catch all phrase of "you're not aloud to look for information" was never used.

sub judice is quite differnt in the meaning you shouldn't dicusss the case with those not involved you are at liberty to discuss the case with fellow jurors in the jury room set aside for such things.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:39:36 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

Poor bugger, no wonder he threw 'em out.

I suspect it was just one or two thickos in the jury, but the foreman
lacked the strength of character to tell them to shut the **** up, as
they insisted they had the right to ask the judge.
See, this is what happens when numpties insist they're as good as
everyone else.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On 21/02/2013 13:57, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
polygonum wrote:

On 21/02/2013 12:56, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
polygonum wrote:

On 21/02/2013 11:59, Tim Streater wrote:

What part of "despite being told not to" is so hard to understand? A
jury is supposed to come to a conclusion on the evidence put before
it -
nothing else. There's a serious danger that anything they read on
the
Internet will be prejudicial. That's also why we have "sub
judice" in
this country.

I thought that only applied to the HMS Astute trial?

You thought what only applied to the HMS Astute trial?

"sub judice"

Why would that only apply to the HMS Astute trial? It's a general legal
principle and a good one: once someone's charged, the media may not
comment on the case. Once it comes to court, they can comment on the
trial as it unfolds.

Because it happened on a bloomin' **** SUB **** marine!!!

--
Rod

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
It's not that unusual to have one or more members of a jury who don't

understand things like 'reasonable doubt'.

What might seem reasonable to one person might not be to another.

Doubt as in believing the evidence. Which will have been summed up by both
councils and judge.

And in this day and age, some

may also use the internet for more 'information' despite being told not

to.

I'm not sure what 'information' you should or shouldn't search for. I
can;t see any reason why a person shouldn't search for the term
resonable doubt if they don;t understand that term. I've been on jury
service twice and I have my views on resonable doubt I'm sure others
might have differnt views.

I meant to do with the actual trial.

--
*Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
What part of "despite being told not to" is so hard to understand?

Because it's meaningless, unless of course they say why or explain that
you shouldn;t use the internet to come to a decision on a case.

Because nothing you read on the internet can be tested in the actual
trial. The jury has to decide on *the evidence as presented* at the trial
- not some speculation on a blog or whatever.

Some
peole might not understand that if person X was 10 metres from person Y
at the time they might not be able to visualise that distance are you
saying they can;t look for how far that is in feet and inches or they
can't look up how many buses that is ?.

Then they ask the judge for clarification. But if it is all important,
chances are it has been done to death already in the trial. And summing
up.

What you obviously can't do is look for information regarding the case
you are on.

But people do.

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:39:36 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

Poor bugger, no wonder he threw 'em out.

I suspect it was just one or two thickos in the jury, but the foreman
lacked the strength of character to tell them to shut the **** up, as
they insisted they had the right to ask the judge.

I certainly wouldn't be told to 'shut the **** up' by any jury foreman.
And having done that job on three occasions, wouldn't say that to a juror
either. Just ask them to explain their problem. If they can't, try again.
And again. And again. Eventually, others get very bored with this and ask
for the point to be put to the judge.
See, this is what happens when numpties insist they're as good as
everyone else.

--
*Husband and cat lost -- reward for cat

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On 20/02/13 21:20, ARW wrote:

I wonder if an intelligent man hater...
Is there such a thing?





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On 21/02/13 07:17, Halmyre wrote:
On Feb 20, 8:45 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 20/02/13 19:47, Dave Liquorice wrote: On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:36:34 -0000, ARW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot get a
10-2 majority is because of "the jury of eight women and four men" are
split 8 - 4? IMHO it's a battle of the sexes and nothing to do with
justice.

Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks, men haters,
or religious zealots involved.

short form in standard English. The jury were collectively too stupid to
understand what the law is all about.

WE will be back to the ducking stool eventually.


I can't believe this is the first jury in history to fail to grasp
some of the basic concepts of 'trial by jury'. I know there are some
factions that want to do away with jury trials, seeing them as a waste
of time and money, and just having judges decide yea or nay.


OJ Simpson 'we know he's guilty, bet he's black and we are black so ****
it, we are going to let him off'

I wonder what's really going on here.


Probably a jury of ****wits and that's that. It seems the most
reasonable explanation.

IN the end her defence depends on whether or not you believe she had a
viable option to shop her man at the time, before he shopped her anyway.

Its a bit like buying a cheap TV from a bloke in a pub, and recognising
its the one that was stolen from your mate. Its a lose lose situation
and the least worst financial one is to keep your mouth shut.




--
Halmyre



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On 21/02/13 12:25, polygonum wrote:
On 21/02/2013 11:59, Tim Streater wrote:


What part of "despite being told not to" is so hard to understand? A
jury is supposed to come to a conclusion on the evidence put before it -
nothing else. There's a serious danger that anything they read on the
Internet will be prejudicial. That's also why we have "sub judice" in
this country.

I thought that only applied to the HMS Astute trial?

Oh no. Sub judice is pretty well observed. Its been hard to find ANY
coverage of this affair in the mainstream press, and even some blogs
have been strangled.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:03:49 PM UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

whisky-dave wrote:

What part of "despite being told not to" is so hard to understand?



Because it's meaningless, unless of course they say why or explain that

you shouldn;t use the internet to come to a decision on a case.



Because nothing you read on the internet can be tested in the actual

trial.

I doubt bthatr's the reason.

The jury has to decide on *the evidence as presented* at the trial

- not some speculation on a blog or whatever.

Exactly, which is differnernt from not being allowed to look for information which can be anything. What you can't do is discuss the case with outsiders.
Yopu can;t even ask the judge as you have to go through the court usher, who you'r also not allowed to dicuss the case with as you write the question down and that is presented to the judge. I was on a case where this happened, one jurer didn't agree with the rest of us regarding a point of law. So a question was sent to the judge we asked the asher first who refused to answer as they can not get 'involved' they show us in and out of the court and take orders for refreshments.







Some

peole might not understand that if person X was 10 metres from person Y

at the time they might not be able to visualise that distance are you

saying they can;t look for how far that is in feet and inches or they

can't look up how many buses that is ?.



Then they ask the judge for clarification. But if it is all important,

chances are it has been done to death already in the trial. And summing

up.



What you obviously can't do is look for information regarding the case

you are on.



But people do.

And that's when things go wrong and where jurors can be fined or the jury dispanded and the case starts again with a fresh set of jurors.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On 21/02/2013 15:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/02/13 12:25, polygonum wrote:
On 21/02/2013 11:59, Tim Streater wrote:


What part of "despite being told not to" is so hard to understand? A
jury is supposed to come to a conclusion on the evidence put before it -
nothing else. There's a serious danger that anything they read on the
Internet will be prejudicial. That's also why we have "sub judice" in
this country.

I thought that only applied to the HMS Astute trial?

Oh no. Sub judice is pretty well observed. Its been hard to find ANY
coverage of this affair in the mainstream press, and even some blogs
have been strangled.


Sorry folk - I'll try to remember to put:

"*** This is a throwaway silly joke - if you don't get it inside 5
seconds, walk on by ***"

*** This is a throwaway silly joke - if you don't get it inside 5
seconds, walk on by *** :-)

--
Rod

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 03:50:53 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave wrote:

It's not that unusual to have one or more members of a jury who don't
understand things like 'reasonable doubt'.

What might seem reasonable to one person might not be to another.

That's why I liked the Judges answer that one, "it's up to you and I
can't help you".

I'm not sure what 'information' you should or shouldn't search for.

Any information should not be searched for, at least whilst sitting on a
jury. Definately not information pertaining to case and questions about
proceedure or meanings of phrases should be asked of the court.

Usually, the more clewed up ones on the jury can keep him right - but
not always. My guess is this time there were enough of these wallies
to prevent a majority verdict being achieved.

which brings back to argument for 'professional jurers'

Isn't that the "judicary"? Aren't some of the lower courts presided over
by three magistrates?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On 21/02/13 15:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Probably a jury of ****wits and that's that. It seems the most
reasonable explanation.

IN the end her defence depends on whether or not you believe she had a
viable option to shop her man at the time, before he shopped her anyway.

She shopped herself when she told a journalist.



--
djc

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

polygonum wrote:
On 21/02/2013 11:59, Tim Streater wrote:


What part of "despite being told not to" is so hard to understand? A
jury is supposed to come to a conclusion on the evidence put before
it - nothing else. There's a serious danger that anything they read
on the Internet will be prejudicial. That's also why we have "sub
judice" in this country.

I thought that only applied to the HMS Astute trial?

:-)))))))))))
--
Adam

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On 21/02/13 16:40, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 03:50:53 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave wrote:

It's not that unusual to have one or more members of a jury who don't
understand things like 'reasonable doubt'.

What might seem reasonable to one person might not be to another.

That's why I liked the Judges answer that one, "it's up to you and I
can't help you".

I'm not sure what 'information' you should or shouldn't search for.

Any information should not be searched for, at least whilst sitting on a
jury. Definately not information pertaining to case and questions about
proceedure or meanings of phrases should be asked of the court.

Usually, the more clewed up ones on the jury can keep him right - but
not always. My guess is this time there were enough of these wallies
to prevent a majority verdict being achieved.

which brings back to argument for 'professional jurers'

Isn't that the "judicary"? Aren't some of the lower courts presided over
by three magistrates?

it's 'jurors' and 'judiciary'.
FFS


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:21:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

it's 'jurors' and 'judiciary'.

The first wasn't mine. The second was and I knew it wasn't right but the
spolling chucker hadn't got it (it's a bit American...).

--
Cheers
Dave.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On 2/21/2013 2:56 PM, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:21:49 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

it's 'jurors' and 'judiciary'.

The first wasn't mine. The second was and I knew it wasn't right but the
spolling chucker hadn't got it (it's a bit American...).

That word is the same on both sides of the Atlantic.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/02/13 19:47, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:36:34 -0000, ARW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot
get a 10-2 majority is because of "the jury of eight women and
four men" are split 8 - 4? IMHO it's a battle of the sexes and
nothing to do with justice.

Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks, men
haters, or religious zealots involved.

short form in standard English. The jury were collectively too
stupid to understand what the law is all about.

I heard that one of the many questions they asked the judge after
retiring to consider their verdict was along the lines of "Can we take
into account evidence that has neither been mentioned nor supported
in a statement made inside the courtroom?"

Words fail me.

Hopefully, the new jury will do better.

Find her guilty:-)?


--
Adam

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

ARW wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/02/13 19:47, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:36:34 -0000, ARW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot
get a 10-2 majority is because of "the jury of eight women and
four men" are split 8 - 4? IMHO it's a battle of the sexes and
nothing to do with justice.
Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks, men
haters, or religious zealots involved.

short form in standard English. The jury were collectively too
stupid to understand what the law is all about.

I heard that one of the many questions they asked the judge after
retiring to consider their verdict was along the lines of "Can we take
into account evidence that has neither been mentioned nor supported
in a statement made inside the courtroom?"

Words fail me.

Hopefully, the new jury will do better.

Find her guilty:-)?


Straight face If the evidence presented in court points that way and
convinces the jury of her guilt, yes. Until then she must, according to
UK law, be presumed innocent. But you know this aleady. ;-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

John Williamson wrote:
ARW wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/02/13 19:47, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:36:34 -0000, ARW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they
cannot get a 10-2 majority is because of "the jury of
eight women and four men" are split 8 - 4? IMHO it's a
battle of the sexes and nothing to do with justice.
Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks,
men haters, or religious zealots involved.

short form in standard English. The jury were collectively too
stupid to understand what the law is all about.

I heard that one of the many questions they asked the judge after
retiring to consider their verdict was along the lines of "Can we
take into account evidence that has neither been mentioned nor
supported in a statement made inside the courtroom?"

Words fail me.

Hopefully, the new jury will do better.

Find her guilty:-)?


Straight face If the evidence presented in court points that way and
convinces the jury of her guilt, yes. Until then she must, according
to UK law, be presumed innocent. But you know this aleady. ;-)

It's the cynical part of me that thinks that she/her mates/good lawyer have
nobbled the jury. He has already pleaded guilty and she was not doing well
in the court case.

It only take one intelligent person to mess up a jury by asking 10 stupid
questions.

--
Adam

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:51:37 PM UTC, John Williamson wrote:
ARW wrote:

John Williamson wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/02/13 19:47, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:36:34 -0000, ARW wrote:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460



So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot

get a 10-2 majority is because of "the jury of eight women and

four men" are split 8 - 4? IMHO it's a battle of the sexes and

nothing to do with justice.

Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks, men

haters, or religious zealots involved.



short form in standard English. The jury were collectively too

stupid to understand what the law is all about.



I heard that one of the many questions they asked the judge after

retiring to consider their verdict was along the lines of "Can we take

into account evidence that has neither been mentioned nor supported

in a statement made inside the courtroom?"



Words fail me.



Hopefully, the new jury will do better.



Find her guilty:-)?





Straight face If the evidence presented in court points that way and

convinces the jury of her guilt, yes. Until then she must, according to

UK law, be presumed innocent. But you know this aleady. ;-)

or of course you don;t need to be convinced of her guilt, you have to beleive it's beyond reasonble doubt that she's innocent ;-)

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:51:37 PM UTC, John Williamson wrote:
ARW wrote:

John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/02/13 19:47, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:36:34 -0000, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460
So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot
get a 10-2 majority is because of "the jury of eight women and
four men" are split 8 - 4? IMHO it's a battle of the sexes and
nothing to do with justice.
Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks, men
haters, or religious zealots involved.
short form in standard English. The jury were collectively too
stupid to understand what the law is all about.
I heard that one of the many questions they asked the judge after
retiring to consider their verdict was along the lines of "Can we take
into account evidence that has neither been mentioned nor supported
in a statement made inside the courtroom?"
Words fail me.
Hopefully, the new jury will do better.
Find her guilty:-)?
Straight face If the evidence presented in court points that way and

convinces the jury of her guilt, yes. Until then she must, according to

UK law, be presumed innocent. But you know this aleady. ;-)

or of course you don;t need to be convinced of her guilt, you have to beleive it's beyond reasonble doubt that she's innocent ;-)

In court it's the reverse. The prosecution have to prove guilt "beyond
reasonable doubt", otherwise the jury *must* return a verdict of "not
guilty".

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
polygonum wrote:

On 21/02/2013 12:56, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
polygonum wrote:

On 21/02/2013 11:59, Tim Streater wrote:

What part of "despite being told not to" is so hard to understand? A
jury is supposed to come to a conclusion on the evidence put before
it -
nothing else. There's a serious danger that anything they read on the
Internet will be prejudicial. That's also why we have "sub judice" in
this country.

I thought that only applied to the HMS Astute trial?

You thought what only applied to the HMS Astute trial?

"sub judice"

Why would that only apply to the HMS Astute trial? It's a general legal
principle and a good one: once someone's charged, the media may not
comment on the case. Once it comes to court, they can comment on the
trial as it unfolds.

Oh FFS!!!
--
bert

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

ARW wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/02/13 19:47, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:36:34 -0000, ARW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot
get a 10-2 majority is because of "the jury of eight women
and four men" are split 8 - 4? IMHO it's a battle of the
sexes and nothing to do with justice.

Judging by the questions asked there were one or more planks,
men haters, or religious zealots involved.

short form in standard English. The jury were collectively too
stupid to understand what the law is all about.

I heard that one of the many questions they asked the judge after
retiring to consider their verdict was along the lines of "Can we
take into account evidence that has neither been mentioned nor
supported in a statement made inside the courtroom?"

Words fail me.

Hopefully, the new jury will do better.

Find her guilty:-)?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21496566

and

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21447059

"Many feel that it is absurd to have a defence that is only available to
women, and then only to women who are married."


--
Adam

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

On 07/03/2013 19:15, ARWadsworth wrote:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21496566

and

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21447059

"Many feel that it is absurd to have a defence that is only available to
women, and then only to women who are married."


How many married men here feel they could plead a defence of marital
coercion? :-)

--
Rod

Huhne pleads guilty..- is that a nobbled jury
 

polygonum wrote:
On 07/03/2013 19:15, ARWadsworth wrote:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21496566

and

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21447059

"Many feel that it is absurd to have a defence that is only
available to women, and then only to women who are married."


How many married men here feel they could plead a defence of marital
coercion? :-)


The same could apply to lesbian couples.



--
Adam