This brings to mind a period in life where I volunteered to sit in on identification parades. In those days we got paid Ā£10 a time - not to be sniffed at for doing nothing!
On one occasion, the person doing the identifying was walked in by a policeman, and very quickly pointed out someone. No said the policeman, that is the defendants solicitor.
I think it is all better organised these days.
3 Likes
Itās a court of law, not Fight Club.
Yep - but some people find it hard just to speak in group situations, much less take a contrary view to them
That doesnāt mean to say that the defendantās solicitor didnāt do it!
1 Like
Perhaps no bad thing? If they learn to understand how clever barristers can muddy the waters, perhaps they will learn to see through it. Having a group of inexperienced (in law) peers can be a blessing and a curse. Certainly I think, in fraud cases a jury made up of people with knowledge in the field would be a huge benefit.
The problem with the jury system at the moment is that there is no way to weed out the people who really shouldnāt be there. How do you know who shouldnāt be there you ask? Sadly we usually donāt know until it is too late.
You need a jury from all walks of life as its representative of society for all of its ills.
1 Like
Thatās heresy nowadays, Barry. Weāre supposed to ignore or ridicule those who donāt meet the approved standards of this enlightened, gender-fluid media savvy generation. Canāt have the lower orders having their say.
1 Like
Thatās not the issue Barry. We are talking about jury members who really shouldnāt be on a jury because of their mentality.
Getting back to the original point and how it relates to this idea. The biggest problem with our elected representatives right now is that they do not resemble the people they are there to represent, and if weāre being honest, theyāre never going to.
The machinery of each party isnāt really geared up to handle regular people, with selections usually taking place among those currently in favour. This manifests itself worse in the Labour Party than it does with the Tories. Sure, youāve got your cohort of posh twats, but as the last election shows, a Tory majority actually means some real people getting in.
The Lords is pretty much the opposite of what we need as a second chamber, with the vast majority of its members being very comfortably well off, with many being rewarded to services to the establishment.
I donāt think it was ever worse than it was during the Remainer Parliament. You had a Commons revolting against the people and the Lords backing it up.
Given all that, and given that we are quite happy to let randoms perform one of the most important duties in society, I donāt think itās much of an ask to have National Political Service. Yes, you will undoubtedly get some duffers, but that is true of the present system too.
We are overpaying for most of our MPs, and imo, those advocating against democracy in the Remainer Parliament should hand their fucking salaries backā¦
Such a move, I believe, would ensure that the Commons cannot ignore public opinion and I daresay it will make Parliament as a whole more inclusive. I think a lot of people in the Peopleās Assembly could go on to be Commons MPs, with something behind them.
Finally, I know that there will be concerns over a randomās ability to scrutinise legislation. If thatās a problem, then itās also a problem for the Lords.
What do you mean by mentality? Mental capacity?
I think it would be more like people who think guys with tattoos must automatically be guilty, āheās in court so he must be guiltyā and the like shouldnāt be anywhere near a jury. Probably a dying breed now though to be fair. But there are plenty of people out there who do have extreme prejudices, could be race, virulent homophobia etc, in practice it would pretty much impossible to stop them being called up for jury service, so I think the current system is probably the best option. And if one of them does pop up, Iām confident the other eleven would make sure these prejudices played no part in their deliberations.
2 Likes
If that isnāt the pot calling the kettle black then I donāt know what is, SOG was asked to go to the Crown for jury service and he went to a pub waiting for Hughie Furnaceā¦
1 Like
I have no idea what that means?
Yup, just like voting really. Youāre going to get people who act without being fully clued up.
People get a couple of hours to be inducted as a juror, youāre going to get bad jurors and yet it still works because the burden of proof is so clearly explained and enough people get it.
You could really improve the quality here by selecting more people than you need six months ahead of schedule, putting them through a paid legislation 101 course, and dropping the complete dunces through aptitude tests.
1 Like
It means instead of going to the Crown court you went to the Crown pub, and Hughie Furnace sounds like jury service (artistic license granted). Baz can correct me if Iām wrong but I think my interpretation is spot on.
2 Likes
Iām also working on a book of Bazzaās most quotable quotes, will be essential toilet reading and a perfect stocking filler.
6 Likes
Even Iād buy that and laugh at the humour.
6 Likes
But you forgot explicitly mentioning all the hidden WW2 Nazi gold/loot 
1 Like
When you say āreadingā do you mean before folding and wiping arse?
2 Likes