So the boiler packed up last week, which meant emptying the none existant rainy day fund along with the pot of money allocated to pay off another big bill due in a couple of months.
Today a lovely pink letter arrived.
£64/day, halved to £32 if I turn up and on any given day they don't need me by which point there's no realistic possibility of making it to work to earn any actual money to pay the next bill. FFS.
It could be worse, a friend has been re-admitted hospital after collapsing. He was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor a couple of months ago and looks like he'll be discharged to a hospice with weeks at best.
Just ignore it. The letter isn't recorded, you never received it.
Sorry to hear about your friend, puts it all into stark perspective. Anyway for jury duty you should be able to defer it. On the plus side you do get paid to cycle there 🙂
employed or self employed?
Makes no difference, the maximum you can claim is £64.95.
On the plus side you do get paid to cycle there
I'd at least get excused if I ended up selected to try the scrote that would inevitably nick my bike.
Makes no difference, the maximum you can claim is £64.95.
my work just paid me as normal, I just gave them the cheque.
As someone else said, you can defer it (once) - tho you need a reason. In my case i had a holiday booked during the second week of the assigned dates.
When i did it later that year, the court was good at keeping you just long enough that you would get the day rate (ie they would say go for lunch and about 10 mins after the lunch hour they'd tell you to go home... the Jury Officer knew it was unrealistic for most people to return to work for the afternoon.) Plus because of cases - from the wednesday there wasnt going to be another case starting so they said no need to return thurs/friday. Went back on monday, wasnt picked for the case that started that day and was told i didnt need to come back, as there was enough people from that week group of jurors start to be able supply the courts. So in the end, i missed work 2x Monday, half of Tuesday and Wednesday (the case that started that Tuesday, a problem in the court room where the case was due to be help meant the case was delayed so we turned up and were sent straight home)
Done it twice. Massive waste of time and found myself completely frustrated and disappointed with the judicial system
Surely it causing financial hardship is excuse enough to not go. I thought most people try to find an excuse and end up never doing one.
They really should pay realistic compensation eg at least full time mean average wage.
I did Jury service last year.You can defer it,I did & ended up doing it 3 months later.
I wasn't out of pocket as my firm made up the financial shortfall,I had to submit a record of attendance. Doesn't your firm make up the shortfall?
As above, check with your employer, they may pay you and claim any money you were entitled to (less your expenses). Colleague did that last week.
For someone self employed that would be a huge ball ache. Even worse if you ran a business that employed others and you were the lynchpin that held it together. A long jury service could put you out of business. I assume you must be able to use that to excuse yourself.
A friend did jury service at the High Court. He didn't say what the case was about, but supposedly was very harrowing and had him off-kilter for weeks after.
You know, just to cheer things up a little.
If you turn up dressed like an idiot you probably wont get picked. That would be my plan.
I've not (yet) been summoned for jury service but this piece would indicate that during your lifetime in England and Wales you've a 1 in 3 chance of being summoned and then about 50% chance of actually sitting on the jury. That's a bit higher than I would have guessed TBH.
If you're self employed you can get jury service insurance to cover any loss of earnings, but that obviously doesnt stop any client of yours being seriously inconvenienced by the fact that you cannot do whatever work you had planned in with them, and then potentially not using you in future - a significant impact.
Obviously you cannot taje the insurance out after you have been selected though.
When I was selected for jury service I wrote back explaining that I was self employed and doing jury service might mean a loss of clients and a long term negative impact to the business. They released me from having to do jury service.
Sorry it's not possible I have to care for my children that day / every day.
I wonder if it varies according to where you live and proximity of crown court etc,
As alluded to above, nothing is sent recorded, there is no 'proof you have received it.
Just chuck it in the bin and carry on as normal.
It' exactly what I would do if I ever got a letter.
I dont understand why most people I ever hear talking about jury service, mainly friends see it as such a negative experience, I was called once about 20 years ago but was not needed and haven't been asked back. I have asked them why they feel that way and the main reply is just mehhhh and a shrug of the shoulders.
I definitely agree that people should not be out of pocket for their time/loss of earnings plus expenses and perhaps that is the main reason why so many people feel that its such an inconvenience. If people have aspects in their life that means that attending Jury service would be a serious inconvenience like carer duties then for sure there should be a process to prevent them being called. The prime example here is the OP, people should 100% not be financially worse off for attending
Im hoping that Ill never unfortunate enough to be in court as a defendant but if I did I would hope that there would be jury in place to assess the evidence and give their judgement. Whether this is the best system is questionable but it seems better than the approach taken in some other countries/societies.
I have a pet concept for how jury service should work. It maybe a little old fashioned so hear me out! It's tied to the fact that in the current culture of society our 'elders' having little or no impact on modern life. We should as a society have more respect for those who have been around the block and conversely those older folk should also feel the necessity to put back into society a little.
So.......in the month of your retirement you should be required to attend a period of jury service. It is a rite of passage that entitles you to your state pension. No jury service, no pension. If there are too many oldies for the need you could expand it to contributing include doing school careers fare or talks; sharing the experience of what it was like back in the day and doing mentoring for those new into the world of work. The flip side being that the next generation of newly retireds will possibly be a little more understanding of what it is like to be at the other end of the age spectrum and possibly an opportunity to start some longer term volunteering.
Twelve angry pages?
Twelve disgruntled pensioners?
Lunch served at twelfty-twelve?
I predict a long and humid debate.
I did 7 weeks Jury Service at Reading Crown Court a couple years ago. I actually deferred it twice in the end due to work commitments (they were really good about that). The initial allocation is for a week, but they needed people for this extended case and I had no reason to say no. Glad to have served the community but it was a pita. Also very relieved it was "just" a fraud case and not a crime of violence. TINAS will PM you.
Great idea Convert. Sadly good ideas are never put into practice by the government / councils or large organisations.
I did jury service on a rape trial.
It was one of the most difficult and distressing experiences I've had.
My 2p
1) Jury service is the only demand of your time that the state can make in peacetime.
2) As a member of a society a week or two out of your life to be involved in the application of justice seems a reasonable thing.
3) Jurors should genuinely be from a wide cross section of society - a jury formed purely of people in the first month of their 67th year is not representative.
4) I think the allowance should be limited to a maximum of whatever a Lord gets for attending the house of Lords but people shouldn't be left significantly out of pocket.
As an aside, selection was entirely random throughout and there was no opportunity for the Defence to reject someone 'cos they were wearing a 'hang the bastard' t-shirt as far as I could tell. I wore a t-shirt and jeans for the week or so I was sitting.
Oh and the other thing of interest to me was my fellow jurors were a really mixed bunch, but everyone was really commited and professional from the get go and even through the tedious sitting around periods. Kind of restores faith in humanity. One of the jurors was a professional manager at a well known Windsor school (that one), and was getting serious greif for being on a long case. Props to the Judge, who dealt with that very quickly.
Wwaswas that must have been tough!
>So…….in the month of your retirement you should be required to attend a period of jury service. It is a rite of passage that entitles you to your state pension.
But you'd have a socially biased jury system. It's supposed to be a cross-section of society, not an old peoples club!
They should just pay proper compensation, show the last 6 months pay slips or tax returns or whatever and get say 85%.
Even worse if you ran a business that employed others and you were the lynchpin that held it together.
If you're a single point of failure in your business and it'd crumble without you then you'll be going under pretty soon anyway because you're clearly an idiot. What if you get hospitalised for three months?
in the month of your retirement you should be required to attend a period of jury service.
That sounds like a terrible idea to me. A jury made up entirely of pensioners? Aside from the fact that you've picked a demographic statistically more likely than the national average to be racist (insert obligatory Brexit reference here), stuck in their ways, out of touch with the younger generations, and potentially starting to lose their marbles, it's a single demographic. The whole point of having a jury is that it's representative of society as a whole from all walks of life. If you're going to have 12 OAPs you might as well save the money and just have a jury of one.
But you’d have a socially biased jury system.It’s supposed to be a cross-section of society.
Why?
Old(er) people are male, female, mixed gender, straight, gay, disabled, afluent, poor and everything else in between. People aged 67 have also been 17, 27, 37, 47 and 57 at other points in their life. We tend to become more conservative (big and small c) as we get older but I don't see why that should stop us having empathy for those younger than us. My job means I deal every day with 17/18 years olds in a pastoral capacity. My USP/super power is I used to be a 17/18 lad myself and I can remember what that feels like but I can also look at what it was to be that age with hinsight and reflection. To be honest to think that the wider population are not capable of that I find quite insulting.
A jury panel composed of retirees?
Save your sanity and skip to 5min 25 secs:
The blues have it. And there you have it. Cyclists are 'guilty' by referendum.
Pause the voting screen and my count makes it:
Blue: 42
Yellow: 18
Assuming that camera-pan was even roughly representative of the whole crowd then Titchmarsh [s]can't [/s] won't even count straight.
PS! Am not saying that retirees are more likely to vote one way in a referendum...
... or are they?
I did 2 weeks at Isleworth
It was an eye opener
Isleworth is a crap hole, the jury holding room is the event horizon of the crap hole, it's like a rubbish prison (and no they don't have wifi)
If you turn up dressed like an idiot you probably wont get picked.
Nope, not based on what I saw. It really was a freak show in the holding room and you're name was called at random.
Go prepared to be really bored and hungry and frustrated by stupid people who despite being told you can only make a decision based on what you've heard in the court room will make up elaborate "what if" scenarios.
I got
- Sexual Assault
- Fraud
- Knife weilding in public followed by police chase and taser.
(this was hilarious as he tried to argue he found the knife and was running home to put it in the dishwasher but the police tasered him before he could explain and that was police brutality. All on CCTV)
Is was quite the experience, glad i've done, happy to never do it again.
If you’re a single point of failure in your business and it’d crumble without you then you’ll be going under pretty soon anyway because you’re clearly an idiot. What if you get hospitalised for three months?
Really, you can't think of a type of business that this might be the case? Really? e.g. A friend who is a contract civil engineer. He employs a PA/Secretary/business manager and a CAD jockey. Both employed FT - without him (the actual engineer) the other two are twiddling their thumbs but still needing paying. Or a dentist with a receptionist and nurse to pay. I could think of hundreds of similar examples. You can't? Blimey.
A jury made up entirely of pensioners? Aside from the fact that you’ve picked a demographic statistically more likely than the national average to be racist (insert obligatory Brexit reference here), stuck in their ways, out of touch with the younger generations, and potentially starting to lose their marbles, it’s a single demographic.
Well, not actually pensioners yet and If I'm losing my marbles on the last day of my working life there is something seriously wrong with the retirement age. The racist thing - I'm not so sure. Yes the current crop of oldies might be wired that way but I think that is as much about the fact they were born in the 1940/50s as the fact they are in their late 60s or early 70s. The generation that talked about going down the '**** shop' and grew up walking past B&Bs with signs that said 'no blacks and Irish'. I am 46 - I don't plan on suddenly getting racist/homophobic in 20 years time. Are you?
Really, you can’t think of a type of business that this might be the case? Really? e.g. A friend who is a contract civil engineer. He employs a PA/Secretary/business manager and a CAD jockey. Both employed FT – without him (the actual engineer) the other two are twiddling their thumbs but still needing paying. I could think of hundreds of similar examples. You can’t? Blimey.
And your friend never takes a holiday? Blimey.
> I am 46 – I don’t plan on suddenly getting racist/homophobic in 20 years time. Are you?
You don't have to plan to, maybe we just get more conservative / bigoted with age. NB An open question as very few large scale longitudinal studies have been able to answer this old adage that you get more right wing as you age/
And your friend never takes a holiday? Blimey.
I would imagine so. He is human after all, and most do. Thing is most vaguely intelligent people would work short periods of planned time off into the business plan. 200 days on a murder case is slightly beyond the average contingency plan.
And your friend never takes a holiday? Blimey.
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Maybe they close the office for a few weeks planned holliday a couple of times a year, or maybe he makes sure there's a backlog of work for everyone to keep busy when he leaves. I think it's beside the point though, plenty of businesses are structured like that, engineers, architects, accountants, MP's offices.
I am 46 – I don’t plan on suddenly getting racist/homophobic in 20 years time. Are you?
I'm not, but on average things seem a lot more liberal now than they were 20/30/40/50/60 years ago.
It's a bit of a straw man but on the hypothetical jury of people aged 70+ you've got people that voted for governments that maintained that homosexuality was a crime, now whether that was an active or passive choice is a different matter, but if I was a gay bloke accused of rape, or a gay bloke who had been raped, I'd be a little uncomfortable if I though there were potentially people of the jury who thought I was guilty by default.
To be clear I have no qualms about the jury service itself, it's the fact I could potentially be out of pocket by a potentially substantial amount (my work pays infrequently, potentially if they don't allow a deferral I'll miss the one well paid bit of work in the past 4 months!) at 5 weeks notice that is a complete ballache.
I am 46 – I don’t plan on suddenly getting racist/homophobic in 20 years time
I am 45 and 20 years ago I didn't plan on being fat and bald, but that shit happened anyway.
I’m not, but on average things seem a lot more liberal now than they were 20/30/40/50/60 years ago.
I disagree with the number 20 in that statement.
Interesting thought on the retired being called. My mum rang up last night to say she had just been called for jury. She is 75 and my dad is 80. The court is over an hour away by car and light years by public transport. I think its a pretty big ask to attend court for possibly several weeks at her age - especially as there is no parking near the court either.
As it happens they are in pretty good health and my dad still drives but I bet there are plenty of people that age who aren't.
My dad has already done it many years ago and got a very nasty and national news provoking rape/murder which affected him quite profoundly so mum isn't exactly looking forward to it!
It’s a bit of a straw man but on the hypothetical jury of people aged 70+ you’ve got people that voted for governments that maintained that homosexuality was a crime
Apart from I proposed that they served on the month of their 67th birthday....so if my idea came into force today that first group would have just turned 15 years old when the General election of 1966 was called that elected the Wilson government that made homosexuality legal. Sadly they also missed out on voting for the MPs that voted for abortion to be legal in 1967. 🙂 Apart from that, great supposition!
Pretty sure we'd have opposing Brexit as a capital offence if the OAPs were in charge...
If you’re a single point of failure in your business and it’d crumble without you then you’ll be going under pretty soon anyway because you’re clearly an idiot. What if you get hospitalised for three months?
You ever run your own business?
Reality is often different from notional best practice by virtue of necessity - and there are many times I'd have genuinely been unable to do jury service without breaking contracts with key clients.
I do believe people shouldn't try to weasel out of jury service, or "throw the letter away" (what a turdish attitude), but as a self-employed sole breadwinner I'd have to take a hit to do it like the OP.
Did jury service 9 years ago, a potential pedophile case. Was there for two weeks, but only in court for one and a half days, The court was also closed for one day for the Queens Birthday.
What was interesting for the time was the defence when talking about DNA, saying this is real life not CSI or other programmes of a similar nature, I suppose there would be people who would convict on DNA evidence alone.
Anyway, the case was dismissed as it had come to court beyond the legal time limit for such a case to be heard.
There will always be a shifting social/moral/political zeitgeist To compose a jury entirely of any one narrow generation is inherently flawed IMO. I really cannot see how it would work.
12 Angry Men is one of my favourite films. But it's still a morality play. A fairy tale. And the jury were all angry white men deciding the fate of an accused ethnic-minority male. Imagine a jury composed entirely of angry women deciding the fate of an accused male rapist? Etc...
It's almost as if our legal system already put some thought into building juries from a societal/generational cross-section? 🤔
Given, it's less than perfect. But it's surely better than grossly imperfect?
And yet magistrates, who let’s face it are the people the bulk of us would be up in front of if we did something vaguely naughty, are almost entirely middle aged and older, and selection positively favours those who have had some life experience. It’s almost as if the judicial system appreciates value in experience! Not too many judges with spots either.
It's not a bad idea to make jury duty compulsory on retirement.
It is a bad idea to compose juries entirely of pensioners.
Go prepared to be ... frustrated by stupid people who despite being told you can only make a decision based on what you’ve heard in the court room will make up elaborate “what if” scenarios.
Quoted for truth. Two-thirds of the jury I was in genuinely couldn't understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt". Scary. If there weren't so many people trying to worm their way out of this important role then the guy might have gotten a fairer verdict.
It’s supposed to be a cross-section of society
Was originally supposed to be a jury of your peers. Those of similar standing and education, who have the ability to in theory fairly judge.
Now it's just whoever, including idiots. But a cross-section of idiots perhaps.
Apart from I proposed that they served on the month of their 67th birthday….so if my idea came into force today that first group would have just turned 15 years old when the General election of 1966 was called that elected the Wilson government that made homosexuality legal. Sadly they also missed out on voting for the MPs that voted for abortion to be legal in 1967. Apart from that, great supposition!
Fair point, although I could pick any one of a number of minorities to illustrate the point, If you were obviously eastern european and the victim of crime, would you feel comfortable reporting it if you thought the jury in any trial was likely to have overwhelmingly voted brexit? Whether or not all 67 year olds would treat immigrants differently isn't really the point, it's that the jury should hopefully be enough of a mix that no one prejudice takes hold and that everyone else in the court believes that.
If you were obviously eastern european and the victim of crime, would you feel comfortable reporting it if you thought the jury in any trial was likely to have overwhelmingly voted brexit?
So you are pretty much saying that as an eastern european you best not get nicked in pretty much the whole of the North East of England then, irrespective of the age of the jury?
So you are pretty much saying that as an eastern european you best not get nicked in pretty much the whole of the North East of England then, irrespective of the age of the jury?
Or Black anywhere in the UK
While the make up of a jury is supposed to be representative, the point is also that you don't need it absolutely representative, because one or two members can 'derail' the process and hold the other (prejudices, if appropriate) to account.
So using the NE example, and picking say Sunderland which was pretty leave - actually 62:38, extrapolate that to a jury and you'd have say a 7:5 or 8:4 split - and those 4 or 5 have sufficient power to make sure someone isn't convicted based solely of 'political prejudice'
I would love to be picked for jury duty. I was summoned a number of years ago, before I had British citizenship, so never got to do it. Now I am a British citizen, would be pleased to serve. Is there any way of increasing your chances?
Frankly anyone who actively wants to be picked for jury duty should be automatically disqualified.
Really, you can’t think of a type of business that this might be the case? Really? e.g. A friend who is a contract civil engineer. He employs a PA/Secretary/business manager and a CAD jockey.
Fair enough, I was thinking in terms of larger businesses. Apologies.
Yes the current crop of oldies might be wired that way but I think that is as much about the fact they were born in the 1940/50s ... I don’t plan on suddenly getting racist/homophobic in 20 years time. Are you?
Sure, but reasons / excuses why they're that way is irrelevant, the point is that they are more likely to think that way than someone 40 years their junior. Times have changed since they were young and their attidudes haven't changed along with it. I'm not planning on becoming a racist when I retire, of course not, but who knows what will be acceptable in another twenty years which isn't currently.
Too much ageism in this thread for my liking. Yesterday it was sexism. What will it be tomorrow chaps?
That's a bit of a stretch* CG. However I think I might go for her<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">balist.</span>
I shall bias myself against anyone called Basil or Rosemary or <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">could be regarded as an old sage.</span>
I will instead listen to Spice Girls albums and agree with all your posts.
*hopefully what the defendant will complain when detained at her Majesties pleasure.
there was no opportunity for the Defence to reject someone ‘cos they were wearing a ‘hang the bastard’ t-shirt as far as I could tell
People get confused by US tv shows, but rejecting a juror because of their attire would generally not be acceptable in the UK. However a T-shirt with an offensive slogan on it might well find you having a discussion with the judge and the rules of contempt being explained.