Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I was
summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since I can't
stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to them, with
supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got off.

Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm aware
the random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar effects but
I'm still cynical.

I'll just repeat the process that worked last time. Roll on 76.

Another Dave
--
Change nospam to techie

In article ,
Another Dave wrote:
Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I was
summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since I can't
stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to them, with
supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got off.

Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm aware
the random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar effects but
I'm still cynical.

I'll just repeat the process that worked last time. Roll on 76.

I had much the same - but had already done 3 jury stints over the years.

I'd probably have done it again, but on this last occasion it was to a
central London court which would have meant the tube in the rush hour, and
I have sciatica which makes standing for long periods very uncomfortable.
Had it been an outer London court, so more likely to get a seat on PT, I'd
have done it.

After explaining this got a letter back saying I was exempt for life. ;-)

--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

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

Another Dave wrote:
Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I was
summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since I can't
stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to them, with
supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got off.

Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm aware
the random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar effects but
I'm still cynical.

I'll just repeat the process that worked last time. Roll on 76.

Another Dave
AIUI, once you have been chosen and excused prior to the event for some
reason, you are put back in near the top of the pile and so likely to
get chosen again soon.
If however you turn up and are then not called, excused or whatever you
seem to be regarded as having willingly done your civic duty and back in
the pile for random selection. If then you are chosen within the next 2
years, I think that you can refuse.
I got called for the first time at age 64, attended, wasted time in the
jury room but was never selected and has sent home after about 3 days in
5 attendance.
Made it impossible to commit to any other engagements as I was having to
phone in each afternoon to see if I had to go in the next day.

On 12/05/2018 13:32, Bob Minchin wrote:

AIUI, once you have been chosen and excused prior to the event for some
reason, you are put back in near the top of the pile and so likely to
get chosen again soon.

Not in my experience of being called and excused for reasons of work in
1979, 1988 and 2001.

Since I retired I have naturally gone 13 years without being called


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Another Dave wrote:

Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I was
summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since I can't
stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to them, with
supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got off.

Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm aware
the random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar effects but
I'm still cynical.

I'll just repeat the process that worked last time. Roll on 76.

Another Dave

When I was about 36 I served on a murder case at the Old Bailey.
After the verdict, the judge decreed that this had been a horrible cvase and
a nasty experience for the jury and that all should be excused further
service for life.

About 10 years later I was called to St Albans Crown Court. I wrote to the
jury office asking if it was normal practise for the system to ignore the
recommendation of a senior judge.

I was excused and haven't heatrd a word since. I'm 79. Do you think I'm off
the hook?
Alan

--
Mageia 5.1 for x86_64, Kernel:4.4.114-desktop-1.mga5
KDE version 4.14.5 on an AMD Phenom II X4 Black edition.

On 12/05/2018 14:20, Pinnerite wrote:
Another Dave wrote:

Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I was
summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since I can't
stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to them, with
supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got off.

Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm aware
the random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar effects but
I'm still cynical.

I'll just repeat the process that worked last time. Roll on 76.

Another Dave

When I was about 36 I served on a murder case at the Old Bailey.
After the verdict, the judge decreed that this had been a horrible cvase and
a nasty experience for the jury and that all should be excused further
service for life.

Did you find it a nasty experience?


--
Adam

On 12/05/18 14:20, Pinnerite wrote:

I was excused and haven't heatrd a word since. I'm 79. Do you think I'm off
the hook?


You are exempt from the date of your 76th birthday.

Another Dave

--
Change nospam to techie

Another Dave wrote:
Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I was
summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since I can't
stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to them, with
supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got off.

Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm aware
the random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar effects
but I'm still cynical.

I'll just repeat the process that worked last time. Roll on 76.

Another Dave

I did read somewhere that if you just ignore the letter they will find
somebody else.
Is this true?

It just shows how much they actually check. Looking at previous selections
and the outcomes would have saved all involved a lot of work.
I bet if I'm invited again I'll have to go through the blind thing, which
means i can be exempted unless I'm feeling particularly cranky, in which
case I want it all in an accessible format, ie described for me and read to
me if written stuff is involved. that should mean they will be busy for
months.
grin.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Another Dave" wrote in message
news
Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I was
summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since I can't
stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to them, with
supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got off.

Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm aware the
random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar effects but I'm
still cynical.

I'll just repeat the process that worked last time. Roll on 76.

Another Dave
--
Change nospam to techie

On 12/05/18 13:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

After explaining this got a letter back saying I was exempt for life. ;-)


I've not done a single one. I got called to the Old Bailey once, but
they cancelled at the last minute, just after I'd done all the employer
paperwork. I have my suspicions about that one...

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/05/18 13:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

After explaining this got a letter back saying I was exempt for life. ;-)


I've not done a single one. I got called to the Old Bailey once, but
they cancelled at the last minute, just after I'd done all the employer
paperwork. I have my suspicions about that one...

Assuming it's not going to cost you lost income, and in my case it didn't,
I quite enjoyed the experience. But wasn't on any 'nasty' cases. And as
regards being sent home after not being needed that day, just did a bit of
sightseeing. Since they were all some way from home.

The first case I was on was two young lads accused of nicking old UK
motorbikes and stripping them for spares to sell on. I asked quite a few
questions. ;-) After being found guilty, one did a runner from the court.

--
*Save the whale - I'll have it for my supper*

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

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/05/18 13:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

After explaining this got a letter back saying I was exempt for life. ;-)


I've not done a single one. I got called to the Old Bailey once, but
they cancelled at the last minute, just after I'd done all the employer
paperwork. I have my suspicions about that one...

Assuming it's not going to cost you lost income, and in my case it didn't,
I quite enjoyed the experience. But wasn't on any 'nasty' cases. And as
regards being sent home after not being needed that day, just did a bit of
sightseeing. Since they were all some way from home.

The first case I was on was two young lads accused of nicking old UK
motorbikes and stripping them for spares to sell on. I asked quite a few
questions. ;-) After being found guilty, one did a runner from the court.

A friend got pulled on to a drugs trial about 20 years ago
that was expected to take a while and he wasn't best pleased.
In the event, it was over in an hour, because the "evidence"
had vanished.

Another friend was called for jury service and couldn't go to
a job interview. They said they'd interview him after the case,
but they'd already offered the job to someone else by then.
They went bust a year later, so in retrospect, he was probably
lucky.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 12/05/18 16:04, Brian Gaff wrote:
It just shows how much they actually check. Looking at previous selections
and the outcomes would have saved all involved a lot of work.
I bet if I'm invited again I'll have to go through the blind thing, which
means i can be exempted unless I'm feeling particularly cranky, in which
case I want it all in an accessible format, ie described for me and read to
me if written stuff is involved. that should mean they will be busy for
months.
grin.

And since one of the reasons for the trial to (usually) take place and
with the defendant and the witnesses all on public view is that the
subtle nuances and expressions on faces form part of the experience,
will you ask for the courtroom scene to be audio-described?

Nick

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Another Dave wrote:
Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I was
summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since I can't
stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to them, with
supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got off.

Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm aware
the random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar effects
but I'm still cynical.

I'll just repeat the process that worked last time. Roll on 76.

Another Dave

I did read somewhere that if you just ignore the letter they will find
somebody else.
Is this true?


The letter are not sent via tracked mail so you can always claim it was
never delivered but be aware that more and more post is being tracked to
your door by GPS equipped posties and barcodes on the item.
Just because you did not have to sign for it does not mean it was not a
tracked delivery.

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
The first case I was on was two young lads accused of nicking old UK
motorbikes and stripping them for spares to sell on. I asked quite a few
questions. ;-) After being found guilty, one did a runner from the court.

A friend got pulled on to a drugs trial about 20 years ago
that was expected to take a while and he wasn't best pleased.
In the event, it was over in an hour, because the "evidence"
had vanished.

The drug trial I was on was quite amazing. The defence consisted mainly of
'what ifs'. Which the prosecution very rarely challenged. I know it's the
prosecution's job to prove things, but if a defence is based on a 'fact'
surely it should be verifiable?

Another friend was called for jury service and couldn't go to
a job interview. They said they'd interview him after the case,
but they'd already offered the job to someone else by then.
They went bust a year later, so in retrospect, he was probably
lucky.

In some ways, using retired jurors makes sense. Not having to worry about
work and so on. I was lucky enough to work for a large company who saw it
as a civic duty. Could be very difficult for a smaller one.

--
*You know you're a redneck if your home has wheels and your car doesn't.

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

Bob Minchin wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Another Dave wrote:
Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I
was summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since
I can't stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to
them, with supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got
off. Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm
aware the random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar
effects but I'm still cynical.

I'll just repeat the process that worked last time. Roll on 76.

Another Dave

I did read somewhere that if you just ignore the letter they will
find somebody else.
Is this true?


The letter are not sent via tracked mail so you can always claim it
was never delivered but be aware that more and more post is being
tracked to your door by GPS equipped posties and barcodes on the item.
Just because you did not have to sign for it does not mean it was not
a tracked delivery.

Okay and thanks.
If I do get the letter and reply saying that I take a dim view of certain
religions and possibly immigrants and would not be impartial would I be
excused?
Not that I do of course ....

As for the postie.
A lady postie hammered on my front door a week or so ago with a small parcel
which was not for me. My address, wrong person. I told her this and she went
away. 30 mins later she sneaked back and rammed the parcel through my letter
box. So much for tracking.
As it happens the phone number of the correct address was on the label of
the parcel. I rang her and took it round.

On 12/05/18 16:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/05/18 13:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

After explaining this got a letter back saying I was exempt for life. ;-)


I've not done a single one. I got called to the Old Bailey once, but
they cancelled at the last minute, just after I'd done all the employer
paperwork. I have my suspicions about that one...

Assuming it's not going to cost you lost income, and in my case it didn't,

working in HE, it wouldn't cost me a bean either - my (then) employer
would make up the difference after expenses (that's what the forms were
for).

I suspect my current (also HE) employer could make a case to get me off
as I am 1 of 1.2 people with my knowledge and responsibilities (the
other chap can cover for short periods, but he has many many things on
his plate hence the 0.2). I can go away for 2 weeks without much going
wrong, but 2 months, if it was a long case, could be dicey.

Last time around I was part of a 12 strong team and could easily be
covered, even in my specialisms, which themselves were shared by 3 or so
others.

I quite enjoyed the experience. But wasn't on any 'nasty' cases. And as
regards being sent home after not being needed that day, just did a bit of
sightseeing. Since they were all some way from home.


The first case I was on was two young lads accused of nicking old UK
motorbikes and stripping them for spares to sell on. I asked quite a few
questions. ;-) After being found guilty, one did a runner from the court.


I presume they nabbed him quick sharp?

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Another Dave wrote:
Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I was
summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since I can't
stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to them, with
supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got off.

Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm aware
the random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar effects
but I'm still cynical.

I'll just repeat the process that worked last time. Roll on 76.

Another Dave

I did read somewhere that if you just ignore the letter they will find
somebody else.
Is this true?

I suppose they would have to get somebody else if a cranky Judge jailed you
for contempt of court.
Probably unlikely , £1000 pound fine is what you risk.

GH

Marland wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Another Dave wrote:
Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I
was summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since
I can't stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to
them, with supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got
off.

Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm
aware the random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar
effects but I'm still cynical.

I'll just repeat the process that worked last time. Roll on 76.

Another Dave

I did read somewhere that if you just ignore the letter they will
find somebody else.
Is this true?

I suppose they would have to get somebody else if a cranky Judge
jailed you for contempt of court.
Probably unlikely , £1000 pound fine is what you risk.

GH

Just how can ignoring a letter /not replying be viewed as contempt of court?
I often get letters delivered to me which are not for me. I shove them back
into the post box with "Not known at this address" written on the envelope.

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
news
And yet, over half a century of age, I have never been asked.

(Currently I'm between jobs. I bet the letter hits the mat my first day
in my next job ....)

I'm in my mid fifties and I was called once about 25 years ago. It was a
complete waste of my time: twice I was one of the potential jurors who was
not chosen. After the second time, I was allowed to go home - after a
further wait. But there were many boring hours sitting in the waiting room
until they deigned to call a jury.

I was surprised that although you must declare if you know a defendant, you
are not also given a list of witnesses who will be called so you can declare
whether you know any of them, on the grounds that if you know a witness, you
might be inclined to believe their testimony and to give it more weight that
evidence to the contrary from someone else.

I loathe and detest the conscription aspect of jury service. I feel very
strongly that being a juror should be a full time profession that you choose
to do, not a so-called duty that you cannot evade unless you have a very
good excuse and which takes you away from your normal life - and then can't
even talk about afterwards except in very general terms.

NY wrote
Jethro_uk wrote

And yet, over half a century of age, I have never been asked.

(Currently I'm between jobs. I bet the letter hits the mat my first day
in my next job ....)

I'm in my mid fifties and I was called once about 25 years ago.

I'm much older than that and have never been called. I used to work
for the govt and govt employees dont usually get called here.

And since I stopped working for the govt I have avoided being on
the electoral role so I dont have to vote given voting is compulsory
here so maybe thats why I havent been called since. Tho its more
likely they dont track who stops working for the govt or something.

It was a complete waste of my time: twice I was one of the potential
jurors who was not chosen. After the second time, I was allowed to go
home - after a further wait. But there were many boring hours sitting in
the waiting room until they deigned to call a jury.

I was surprised that although you must declare if you know a defendant,
you are not also given a list of witnesses who will be called so you can
declare whether you know any of them, on the grounds that if you know a
witness, you might be inclined to believe their testimony and to give it
more weight that evidence to the contrary from someone else.

I loathe and detest the conscription aspect of jury service. I feel very
strongly that being a juror should be a full time profession that you
choose to do

Thats essentially what a magistrate is and those have real downsides.

not a so-called duty that you cannot evade unless you have a very good
excuse and which takes you away from your normal life - and then can't
even talk about afterwards except in very general terms.

On 12/05/2018 12:36, Another Dave wrote:
Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I was
summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since I can't
stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to them, with
supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got off.

Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm aware
the random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar effects but
I'm still cynical.

I'll just repeat the process that worked last time. Roll on 76.

Another Dave

IIRC if you "make an excuse" (like going on holiday) you get on to a
higher priority list. Sounds as though it might be an automatic system
that doesn't actually read the letters.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sat, 12 May 2018 18:16:33 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

And yet, over half a century of age, I have never been asked.

(Currently I'm between jobs. I bet the letter hits the mat my first day
in my next job ....)

I was asked at the age of 64. I deferred it for 10 months until I was
retired, since that involved less hassle than writing a detailed brief
for someone to take over part of my job.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sat, 12 May 2018 18:15:46 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Sat, 12 May 2018 16:04:07 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

It just shows how much they actually check. Looking at previous
selections and the outcomes would have saved all involved a lot of
work.
I bet if I'm invited again I'll have to go through the blind thing,
which
means i can be exempted unless I'm feeling particularly cranky, in
which case I want it all in an accessible format, ie described for me
and read to me if written stuff is involved. that should mean they will
be busy for months.
grin.

Brian

Certainly a few years ago turning up in a wheelchair usually meant
dismissal, as most courts where not accessible for a juror (but had to
be for defendants).

Never quite found out if that also meant less able legal professionals
were affected ...

In the court I attended, there were four different entrances to the court
(judge, accused, jury, public). The legal professionals could use the
accessible public entrance, but the jury were not allowed to, for obvious
reasons.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 12/05/2018 17:13, Bob Minchin wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Another Dave wrote:
Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I was
summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since I can't
stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to them, with
supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got off.

Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm aware
the random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar effects
but I'm still cynical.

I'll just repeat the process that worked last time. Roll on 76.

Another Dave

I did read somewhere that if you just ignore the letter they will find
somebody else.
Is this true?


The letter are not sent via tracked mail so you can always claim it was
never delivered but be aware that more and more post is being tracked to
your door by GPS equipped posties and barcodes on the item.
Just because you did not have to sign for it does not mean it was not a
tracked delivery.

As on numerous occassions we have received mail for neighbours and they
for us, GPS tracking accuracy is not enough to prove anything.

SteveW

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Bob Minchin wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Another Dave wrote:
Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I
was summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since
I can't stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to
them, with supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got
off. Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm
aware the random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar
effects but I'm still cynical.

I'll just repeat the process that worked last time. Roll on 76.

Another Dave

I did read somewhere that if you just ignore the letter they will
find somebody else.
Is this true?


The letter are not sent via tracked mail so you can always claim it
was never delivered but be aware that more and more post is being
tracked to your door by GPS equipped posties and barcodes on the item.
Just because you did not have to sign for it does not mean it was not
a tracked delivery.

Okay and thanks.
If I do get the letter and reply saying that I take a dim view of certain
religions and possibly immigrants and would not be impartial would I be
excused?
Not that I do of course ....

As for the postie.
A lady postie hammered on my front door a week or so ago with a small parcel
which was not for me. My address, wrong person. I told her this and she went
away. 30 mins later she sneaked back and rammed the parcel through my letter
box. So much for tracking.
As it happens the phone number of the correct address was on the label of
the parcel. I rang her and took it round.


As soon as you respond to the letter, the next one basically says there
are few if any ways to get out of it.

On Saturday, 12 May 2018 22:24:33 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/05/2018 17:13, Bob Minchin wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

I did read somewhere that if you just ignore the letter they will find
somebody else.
Is this true?


The letter are not sent via tracked mail so you can always claim it was
never delivered but be aware that more and more post is being tracked to
your door by GPS equipped posties and barcodes on the item.
Just because you did not have to sign for it does not mean it was not a
tracked delivery.

As on numerous occassions we have received mail for neighbours and they
for us, GPS tracking accuracy is not enough to prove anything.

SteveW

that won't stop courts saying delivery was proven


NT

In message , Mr Pounder Esquire
writes

A lady postie hammered on my front door a week or so ago with a small parcel
which was not for me. My address, wrong person. I told her this and she went
away. 30 mins later she sneaked back and rammed the parcel through my letter
box. So much for tracking.

Royal Mail's job is to deliver to an address, not a name, so the postie
did what she is paid to do, and tracking to your address therefore
worked perfectly.

--
Graeme

On 12/05/18 20:37, Rod Speed wrote:

And since I stopped working for the govt I have avoided being on
the electoral role so I dont have to vote given voting is compulsory
here so maybe thats why I havent been called since. Tho its more
likely they dont track who stops working for the govt or something.

I thought that it was compulsory to be on the electoral role in Oz. Over
here, we have to complete a form (once a year IIRC) asking who at the
address the form has been sent to is eligible to vote, or is about to
become eligible to vote (by their age). Failure to complete and return
the form (to the local council) is an offence.

I can't say that I've ever understood the reason behind the Oz law for
compulsory voting. Do they think it gives some legitimacy to the voting
process? Mind you, $20 is a small price to pay for avoiding to vote for
the bunch of crooks you have over there. Over here, it would have to be
at least twice as much...

--

Jeff

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Marland wrote:
Mr Pounder

I did read somewhere that if you just ignore the letter they will
find somebody else.
Is this true?

I suppose they would have to get somebody else if a cranky Judge
jailed you for contempt of court.
Probably unlikely , ï½£1000 pound fine is what you risk.

GH

Just how can ignoring a letter /not replying be viewed as contempt of court?
I often get letters delivered to me which are not for me. I shove them back
into the post box with "Not known at this address" written on the envelope.

Because it is not just a plain old letter , it is a summons from the Court.
Do you think people who are summoned to appear in court for other reasons
can get away with not doing so
on such an easy pretext.

This chap had a reasonable excuse but still had all the hassle of getting
the conviction overturned
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-12962661

It seems easy enough to not do it or defer it for various reasons
rather than go through the hassle.

GH

On 12/05/2018 19:44, NY wrote:

I loathe and detest the conscription aspect of jury service. I feel very
strongly that being a juror should be a full time profession that you
choose to do, not a so-called duty that you cannot evade unless you have
a very good excuse and which takes you away from your normal life - and
then can't even talk about afterwards except in very general terms.

I agree. One or two days might be OK so long as it does not clash with
something else, but some cases go on for a long time.

Do we really need a jury system, the OJ Simpson trial demonstrated that
it does not always work very well?

When I go to foreign countries no one ever says to me that they wished
they had our system

--
Michael Chare

Jeff Layman wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And since I stopped working for the govt I have avoided being on
the electoral role so I dont have to vote given voting is compulsory
here so maybe thats why I havent been called since. Tho its more
likely they dont track who stops working for the govt or something.

I thought that it was compulsory to be on the electoral role in Oz.

In theory it is, but in practice its completely unenforceable.

Over here, we have to complete a form (once a year IIRC) asking who at the
address the form has been sent to is eligible to vote, or is about to
become eligible to vote (by their age).

They used to have someone show up every couple of years and ask
who lives there, but that hasnt happened for over a decade now.

And when they left the card, I just ignored that.

They did send me letters for a while demanding an answer
with threats about what would happen if I didnt answer but
I just ignored them and dont even get the letters anymore.

Failure to complete and return the form (to the local council) is an
offence.

It is here too, but they have no way of enforcing that.

I can't say that I've ever understood the reason behind the Oz law for
compulsory voting.

Its always been one of those controversys.

Do they think it gives some legitimacy to the voting process?

They rightly believe that while ever its compulsory, more will bother to
vote.

When I was still on the roll, I just said I was sick that day when they
demanded to know why I hadn't voted and nothing happened when I did.

Apparently now they can fine you anyway, most
obviously when you say that with every election.

Mind you, $20 is a small price to pay for avoiding to vote for the bunch
of crooks you have over there.

Thats only the penalty for not voting in a federal election.
Its $55 with state and local govt elections in my state.

Over here, it would have to be at least twice as much...

Its more than that here. $124 in South Australia.

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
news
On 12/05/2018 19:44, NY wrote:

I loathe and detest the conscription aspect of jury service. I feel very
strongly that being a juror should be a full time profession that you
choose to do, not a so-called duty that you cannot evade unless you have
a very good excuse and which takes you away from your normal life - and
then can't even talk about afterwards except in very general terms.

I agree. One or two days might be OK so long as it does not clash with
something else, but some cases go on for a long time.

Do we really need a jury system, the OJ Simpson trial demonstrated that it
does not always work very well?

No examples of that in Britain. And some examples of where
the jury has chosen to let someone off when that makes sense
to, even if the judge etc doesnt agree with that result.

When I go to foreign countries no one ever says to me that they wished
they had our system

Thats just stupid foreigners who dont know any better,
even after the result the krauts got in living memory.

In article ,
Michael Chare wrote:
Do we really need a jury system, the OJ Simpson trial demonstrated that
it does not always work very well?

One trial out of how many?

But the US isn't the UK.

However, I do think there can be a problem with juries these days. All to
easy to get extra information on the trial via the meja etc.

--
*A fool and his money are soon partying *

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

On 13/05/2018 10:07, Marland wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Marland wrote:
Mr Pounder

I did read somewhere that if you just ignore the letter they will
find somebody else.
Is this true?

I suppose they would have to get somebody else if a cranky Judge
jailed you for contempt of court.
Probably unlikely , ï½£1000 pound fine is what you risk.

GH

Just how can ignoring a letter /not replying be viewed as contempt of court?
I often get letters delivered to me which are not for me. I shove them back
into the post box with "Not known at this address" written on the envelope.

Because it is not just a plain old letter , it is a summons from the Court.
Do you think people who are summoned to appear in court for other reasons
can get away with not doing so
on such an easy pretext.

This chap had a reasonable excuse but still had all the hassle of getting
the conviction overturned
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-12962661

It seems easy enough to not do it or defer it for various reasons
rather than go through the hassle.

'Mr Knight informed the authorities when he moved in October 2008, but
the information was not "properly recorded", the court heard.'

What does that mean? Which "authorities"? The electoral registration ones?

--
Max Demian

On 13/05/2018 11:56, Rod Speed wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And since I stopped working for the govt I have avoided being on
the electoral role so I dont have to vote given voting is compulsory
here so maybe thats why I havent been called since. Tho its more
likely they dont track who stops working for the govt or something.

I thought that it was compulsory to be on the electoral role in Oz.

In theory it is, but in practice its completely unenforceable.

Over here, we have to complete a form (once a year IIRC) asking who at
the address the form has been sent to is eligible to vote, or is about
to become eligible to vote (by their age).

They used to have someone show up every couple of years and ask
who lives there, but that hasnt happened for over a decade now.

And when they left the card, I just ignored that.

They did send me letters for a while demanding an answer
with threats about what would happen if I didnt answer but
I just ignored them and dont even get the letters anymore.

Failure to complete and return the form (to the local council) is an
offence.

It is here too, but they have no way of enforcing that.

I can't say that I've ever understood the reason behind the Oz law for
compulsory voting.

Its always been one of those controversys.

Do they think it gives some legitimacy to the voting process?

They rightly believe that while ever its compulsory, more will bother to
vote.

When I was still on the roll, I just said I was sick that day when they
demanded to know why I hadn't voted and nothing happened when I did.

Apparently now they can fine you anyway, most
obviously when you say that with every election.

Mind you, $20 is a small price to pay for avoiding to vote for the
bunch of crooks you have over there.

Thats only the penalty for not voting in a federal election.
Its $55 with state and local govt elections in my state.

Over here, it would have to be at least twice as much...

Its more than that here. $124 in South Australia.

Can you vote for "none of the above" or spoil your paper?

--
Max Demian

On 13/05/2018 07:50, Graeme wrote:
In message , Mr Pounder Esquire
writes

A lady postie hammered on my front door a week or so ago with a small
parcel
which was not for me. My address, wrong person. I told her this and
she went
away. 30 mins later she sneaked back and rammed the parcel through my
letter
box. So much for tracking.

Royal Mail's job is to deliver to an address, not a name, so the postie
did what she is paid to do, and tracking to your address therefore
worked perfectly.


Of course it is:-)

http://viz.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/...stman-Plod.jpg

--
Adam

On Sat, 12 May 2018 12:36:39 +0100, Another Dave wrote:

Some of you may remember that last September, at the age of 75, I was
summoned for jury service for the first time in my life. Since I can't
stay awake after 1:00 without having a sleep. I wrote to them, with
supporting evidence, that I was 75 and diabetic. I got off.

Now I have been "randomly selected" again for jury service. I'm aware
the random numbers can, in the short term, exhibit peculiar effects but
I'm still cynical.


Can you not just permanently disqualify yourself from service? That's
what I did.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On Sat, 12 May 2018 14:20:29 +0100, Pinnerite wrote:

I was excused and haven't heatrd a word since. I'm 79.

Aren't you a bit old for DIY? Don't get me wrong, I admire your spirit,
but I'm your junior by many years but there are plenty of days I struggle
to find the will to even get out of bed. Let alone spend the rest of it
awake.




--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

On Sun, 13 May 2018 07:50:26 +0100, Graeme wrote:

Royal Mail's job is to deliver to an address, not a name, so the postie
did what she is paid to do, and tracking to your address therefore
worked perfectly.

Maybe the Romanian gang that was supposed to intercept that parcel was in
court that day?



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.