[Closed] Hillsborough jury sent out

Me neither at 45!

clodhopper - i do hope you are trolling that's a fairly outrageous statement to make. Just because some people have more money than others (generally because they either work harder, worked harder at school, or are born into it), does not make it right that they should loose out because of jury service. As for living in "their means" they were until they were "called-up" through not fsult of ther own (remember that next time you feel hard done by). I'd be telling them to swing for it..

I've been called up once, about 15 years ago. Two cases, both went daaaaaarn.

i do hope you are trolling

Why do you hope he is trolling ? he is allowed to have an opinion, the same as jurors are allowed to disagree thats how justice works,

watch this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/

They'd be able to sell that property and buy one within their means. They wouldn't be losing their home. Fair? maybe the individual wouldn't think so, but I think the system by and large is a pretty good one, and serves greater society very well indeed.

Says a man who I'm willing to bet earns well less than he'd get doing jury service..

On a side note what exactly will be the outcome of this trial. Noone will go to jail, people will be named and shamed (and right they should be) and appologies issued....other than that?

cheeky, i've just deleted what i was going to write after a deep breath. However there are times when opinions cross a divide that are morally questionable. Whilst the statement is not as adverse as opinions in say sex, race, equality etc, the parallels of what the statement allude to are; that those who have strived (sp) to better themselves should be treated unfairly. don't get me wrong i think footballers are overpaid, but that's not the point, the premise is though.

No-one should have to be at a disadvantage due to jury service just because they have been otherwise [monetarily] successful in life.

But this is how our justice system works; we can all, as members of society, be called upon to do our civic duty and be part of our judicial process. It's something that helps make justice fairer and more democratic. Without such a system, we'd need to rely on professional jurors,and I for one really wouldn't want to see that.

Why not, half of the members of public have an IQ below 100.

Trial by Jury is an old anachronism and should be done away with.

So, let me get this straight. If I am ever in court for a long and drawn out complicated thing the most likely scenario is that I will be tried by a jury of my peers, who according to STW are likely to be independently wealthy, shirkers or thick as a whale omelette, or possibly all three, and I certainly won't expect any premiership footballers to decide my fate? Oh great. Another good reason to steer clear of criminality, were any needed.

Another good reason to steer clear of criminality, were any needed.

To be fair, if you were a successful criminal you'd never need see the inside of a court...

Most of you lot would be able to get out of Jury Duty on account of being nuts anyway.

Have you ever been called Tom?

Nope, personally hope that I don't have to either. Why? Not sure I'd ever even find out if I had actually been called either, as I tend to move around a lot doing contracting work - I'm borderline having no fixed abode.

I don't claim to be correct but £228 × 5 days a week × 46 working weeks a year is about £52 k per year and your can still work in your job on the days / weeks the court is not sitting with a jury . if there is a Max total pay I missed it in the link which only apeared to give a Max day rate of £228.
On top of that you get £12 per day for food and travel expenses it is not that bad a gig.

I've sat in on a few civil cases, but I'd love to be on the jury of a brief criminal case. Just not a long one that would take financial piss.

**** that. The Uk justice system should not have to rely on the charity of citizens. It's unfair to ask (to suggest that someone sell their home is frankly ludicrous in the very least) and could result in jurors wanting to reach a verdict as quickly as possible and possibly be fairly unconcerned at how they get to it. It might be an acceptable price to you, but (as demonstrated) it is not to many others.

Downgrading my family home so that a citizen might get justice for the act of another citizen? Not a chance in hell. If the state wants a trial, the state should damn well pay for a trial.

+1 The idea that the state could do that, presses all of the closeted libertarian buttons in me.

Crankboy, £228 rate only kicks in after the first year during which the day rate is only £130. The 27k was off a 1 yr trial.

I bet the judges chews you right up 😉

Price of everything.
Value of nothing.

As usual.

Tell me, what is the value of potentially having a bunch of Daily Mail/Sun reading half-wits acting as jurors?

I'd rather be put on trial in Soviet Russia than face that.

Sadly for whatever reason failure of state bodies, negligence of staff at hte game, failures of the ambulance service etc led to the deaths of 96 football supporters, and due to the hard work put in by the families to get a formal inquiry into the event, all some of you can complain about is how out of pocket youd be.

96 of those people left families, children , workmates and freinds, with just memories, and in some cases financial ruin due to no wage earner in the family, some have even died without knowing the results of this inquiry or what its effect is going to have on football and other spectator sports, and to find out what is going to happen if anything to those who failed in their duty of care.

I'm merely sick of smug, selfish, ingrates who whinge and whine everytime someone asks them to contribute to what passes for society.

No-one should have to be at a disadvantage due to jury service just because they have been otherwise [monetarily] successful in life.

Sui, you have missed my point completely, my point was that Clodhpper was allowed to have an opinion at odds with yours or anyone else and that your comment (I do hope you are trolling) does have a certain paternal/authoritarian ring to it, dont you think ?
FWIW I agree with you, Jurors ought to be reimbursed commensurate with their lost earnings, what price justice 😉

Stoner i am regularly chewed up but right now half way through a holiday and halfway through a bottle of wine I can live with it.. We are talking about the outlying cases though the vast majority are dealt with within the two weeks call , many employers accommodate staff jury service . The loss of wage compensation for any case over 40 weeks which is the subject of the thread, seems to cover well over the average wage .

Rusty, how about you take a 20,30,50,75% pay cut for a couple of years for the greater good and then stride back into the thread to tell us all just how much that warm glow of righteousness you will have had paid your bills and kept your family.

Virtue signal posting of the highest order.

CB, I think most in here whether employed, self employed, or just holy and righteous could take a 10 day stint. But as you say, it's the outliers that could financially cripple a household. If they really are few and far between then surely the system should recognise the exception of the circumstances and make sure no one loses out to such a great extent.

The loss of wage compensation for any case over 40 weeks which is the subject of the thread, seems to cover well over the average wage .

Would it cover yours?

I'd be quite happy to pay more tax to compensate those affected, even though they earn considerably more than me.
Would you?

Would it cover mine ? Yes easily .. Plus £12 a day food is way more than my spend.
But that makes it easy for me to be in favour of jury service.

Can't you take out insurance to cover this anyway?

I* pay all the tax asked of me like anyone else who doesn't have an offshore shell holding company. If I were asked to chip in another 0.001% so freelancers/self-employed don't get shagged on jury service, I'd be happy to.

* actually the wife does. She's the accountant in the team, and just as socially minded as you are. I should probably rent her out to HMRC and I reckon they'd see their recovery rates soar given she's such a stickler.

You never know when you're going to need a good jury.

Especially when you let your wife organise your tax returns.
🙂

[img] [/img]

If crankboys defending me I'll probably need all the help I can get from the jury 😉

I've heard he has a criminal practice that takes up most of his time.

I have just done it. I resented the fact I didn't get paid ( I work for a German company - in Germany you get reimbursed for all your earning after tax if you are in a jury).
But the case was harrowing and interesting. The jury were are real class / demographic mix ... and all were a joy to work with. I am glad I did it.
But I have lost nights sleep during the trial and after it ...

"So it's ok to have people lose their homes if they happen to be able to afford an expensive one in the first place then?"
They'd be able to sell that property and buy one within their means. They wouldn't be losing their home. Fair? maybe the individual wouldn't think so, but I think the system by and large is a pretty good one, and serves greater society very well indeed.

Quality trolling...I hope.

I'm a one man band business - I'd be stuffed if called up for a long time.

I wouldn't mind being called so much if the rule is that the jurors make exactly the same per day as the lawyers in front of them 🙂

Should get rid of juries all together anyway.

A pool of trained assessors. Some technical, chosen based on case particulars, with advisors on points of law.

Juries are fab they actually consider the issues. Paid assessors consider their jobs and their guidelines and inherent biases . Given the usual issue for a jury is who do you believe? and what do you think is right ? How do you train an assessor to preform that function ? How do you get the public to trust that assessor and his training ?
Look how much our few radical coronors stand out look how even with coronors courts we resort to juries for significant cases. The " Diplock" courts in Northern Ireland have not attracted much public trust.

"And clodhopper is obviously a troll. Or Jeremy Corbyn."

Why the ad hominem insults? Wasn't that exactly what you accused another forum member of only yesterday? Somewhat hypocritical of you, non?

To answer accusations of 'trolling': I asked a question as to whether we should put a price on justice, to which people responded with their opinions and views. I questioned why should greater society bear the burden of having to recompense individual loss, to which some people responded with their views based on a perception of possible financial loss they might suffer. A perception seemingly based on a mythical notion that someone could face financial ruin as a result of doing their social duty in participating in our justice system. A perception which appears to be somewhat unfounded, because as yet, nobody has presented any facts which support this view. I think it would be very helpful, in the context of this discussion, to see how long the average court case involving a jury lasts, and how many cases proceed beyond the 10 minimum days service. I think such facts would give us a clearer picture as to the potential for individual financial loss.

I accept that my opinions might not match yours. Such is life. But to accuse me of 'trolling', or to suggest I am making 'outrageous statements', not to mention calling my personal income/circumstances into question (as if that had any bearing on my views), just shows poor manners and debating skills. By all means engage with the discussion (and I think it is a very interesting one), but please keep your personal opinions about me to yourself. Thanks.

I think it would be good for us all to remember what this particular case is all about, and to take a moment to think of the suffering of those who died in the Hillsborough disaster, and that of their families and loved ones, and to put aside our personal opinions and save this discussion for perhaps another time, out of respect.

Should get rid of juries all together anyway.

A pool of trained assessors. Some technical, chosen based on case particulars, with advisors on points of law.

You're quite right. I wouldn't want anyone to accuse me if being Jeremy Corbyn either. I retract any ad hominem.

But your position on the [i] potential [/i] financial impact of a long running court case on anyone with expectations of an income greater than 27k is just unjustifiable.

You are advocating state sanctioned slavery: an obligation to provide labour against their will, under threat of imprisonment! The individual has done nothing wrong but you welcome their financial penalty?

No one's says that there's no inclination to chip in, but 1-2 yrs of "duty" is conscription. Would you favour that too?

To answer accusations of 'trolling': I asked a question as to whether we should put a price on justice, to which people responded with their opinions and views. I questioned why should greater society bear the burden of having to recompense individual loss, to which some people responded with their views based on a perception of possible financial loss they might suffer. A perception seemingly based on a mythical notion that someone could face financial ruin as a result of doing their social duty in participating in our justice system. A perception which appears to be somewhat unfounded, because as yet, nobody has presented any facts which support this view. I think it would be very helpful, in the context of this discussion, to see how long the average court case involving a jury lasts, and how many cases proceed beyond the 10 minimum days service. I think such facts would give us a clearer picture as to the potential for individual financial loss.

I think the 'fact' you're looking for will be hard to find, bu that doesn't make it untrue. It just means there isn't a big database of every juror, potential juror, and their earnings (thank god).

Plenty of peoples livelyhoods depend on their business and often businesses rely on work generating more work, so taking a long break doesn't just hit you in the pocket for the length of the trial, but for a long time afterwards whilst you build up the contacts and long term contracts again. Ditto anyone who is required to do a certain amount of CPD training. And what if the person in question is the MD of a company, should all his/her employees suffer also if the company ends up being wound up?

Ultimately this creates an unfair system because those people simply state that they cannot do jury service as their jobs are too important to them/others. Which means the jury will tend to be made up of lower incomes. I'll be accused of sexism, but 7 women on the jury of a 2 year inquest does back that up as statistically women earn less and are far more likely to be housewives/stay-at-home-mums/etc.

I questioned why should greater society bear the burden of having to recompense individual loss, to which some people responded with their views based on a perception of possible financial loss they might suffer.

Perception? The maximum allowance you claim for jury service equates to about £35,000 gross salary.

I would struggle to pay my mortgage and bills.

state sanctioned

And you really don't want any of that nonsense.

Too bloody right comrade

but 7 women on the jury

Only 6 now, one has had to leave on medical grounds.

The length of the whole thing is ridiculous, it really shouldn't take 2 years.

Some of us had the foresight to get ourselves barred from doing jury service 🙂

I think it would be good for us all to remember what this particular case is all about, and to take a moment to think of the suffering of those who died in the Hillsborough disaster, and that of their families and loved ones, and to put aside our personal opinions and save this discussion for perhaps another time, out of respect.

Completely irrelevant IMO to the argument about whether Jurors should be properly compensated for their service.

You're just letting emotion cloud your judgement.