THE BRITISH THREAD II

@izzythepush,

It's about what a jury thinks. When it ceases to be watch out.

Women were not even allowed to give evidence not all that long ago. They were considered innocent victims of all that happened to them. Not always of course. I've read of infanticide being a temporary insanity due to some biological trigger beyond a woman's control. I don't know whether I accept it or not. I bear it in mind.

Even Rebekah might sell out and pull on that string. She showed signs of hinting to Lord Leveson that she might.

The idea of a bunch of stern faced blokes, on big fees, questioning a lady about her doing what she thought best for the welfare of herself and her little ones, has a proximity to absurdity which is close enough to merit consideration.

Everybody knows of the woman working the streets to pay for the medical treatment of her elderly mother.

If I was on Vicky's jury 11-1 is the best they could hope for. And I find her just as unattractive as most people do. I know that the feminists are adamant that ladies do not need, and deserve, more tender handling than men.

That's why they're up a gum tree.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

It's only about what a jury thinks if the jury is capable of thought. This is from Channel 4's website.

Quote:

He (Mr Justice Sweeney )told them the crucial issue is whether the prosecution can prove she was not subjected to marital coercion by her husband at the time. It was then revealed in court that the jury had asked a series of ten questions including:
•Can we infer anything from the fact the defendant didn't bring witnesses from the time of the offences such as an au pair/neighbours?
•Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?
•Can we speculate about the events at the time Ms Pryce signed the form, and what was in her mind at the time?
•Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling she had no choice, eg. she had promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows, if he had ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?
•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 of the defence?

Mr Justice Sweeney delivered the same answer to all the above questions - "No".

He emphasised that it was essential the jury followed his directions to the letter to focus on the real issues in this case and warned that any juror who feels less than confident of applying directions it would be wholly wrong for them to reach a verdict one way or the other. Mr Justice Sweeney said in thirty years of experience of criminal trials, he had never experienced a situation like this.

Majority verdict "unlikely"

Within two hours the jury advised the judge that it was "highly unlikely" that even a majority verdict could be reached.

Mr Justice Sweeney told the jury: "Against the background of the length of time that you have been in retirement already, I have decided therefore, and it is my decision one way or the other, that I must discharge you from any further deliberations. That means that your role in this case is now over."

He said the jury had suffered "absolutely fundamental deficits in understanding".

Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC said the jury of eight women and four men did not appear to have "truly understood" or "sufficiently grasped" its task:

"I don't ever recollect getting to this stage in any trial, even in far more complicated trials than this one, and after two days of deliberations a list of questions of this very basic kind illustrating that at least some jurors do not seem to have grasped it," he said.

This is just copied and pasted except the bit in the brackets that I added for clarification. Both the judge and prosecutor have basically said the jury were too stupid to reach a verdict.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Both the judge and prosecutor have basically said the jury were too stupid to reach a verdict.

They can suit themselves what they say. It doesn't make it true. They both have a dog in the fight. The jury doesn't it is presumed in law. As does Ch 4 with its equal opportunities bullshit.

In case readers get the wrong impression the jury deliberated for 15 hours.

This is the key question and the one read out on Sky News--

Quote:

•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 the defence?

Section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 provides the rarely used defence of matrimonial coercion.

“Any presumption of law that an offence committed by a wife in the presence of her husband is committed under the coercion of the husband is hereby abolished, but on a charge against a wife for any offence other than treason or murder it shall be a good defence to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of and under the coercion of, the husband.”

Her being married to Huhne is coercion. Love. (I know--but she can claim it and nobody can prove her wrong.)

It's a fascinating case. I can see why the liberal intelligentsia has its knickers in a knot.

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

No Northumberland either!

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

No Northumberland either!

(Pentacle Queen complained that her county wasn't on the map - Page 1)

2 Replies

@vonny,

She's a recidivist attention seeker.

What does the Brit team think about a US attention seeking outfit called Moody's lowering our credit rating?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Anything that hurts the Tories is fine by me.

What about Channel 4 investigating sexual harassment by a Liberal peer?

0 Replies

@vonny,

Do you happen to live in Northumberland Vonny? I lived there for four years, my parents moved there when I was 16.

1 Reply

"Sportpferde" = sporthorses

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I saw a wagon with

LKW WALTER

on it near here last week.

So what,sez you. Well we don't get many of those here, Eddie Stobart's on Norbert Dentressangle's being more common.

1 Reply

@McTag,

That's an Austrian company, from Wiener Neudorf, Lower Austria. (Passed their main site a couple of times Wink

)

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I was born and bred in the North East but moved to the South East in my mid teens. Still miss it though!

0 Replies

There was an article in The Guardian yesterday, concerning the Pope's unorthodox retirement plan.
It suggests the resignation is a lot to do with a cardinals' report into homosexuality, blackmail, sexual incontinence, and all sorts of unholy goings-on at The Vatican. It seems to rely for its information on La Repubblica's comments and story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/21/pope-retired-amid-gay-bishop-blackmail-inquiry?INTCMP=SRCH

So the Pope came out today and made a statement about that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/vatican-pope-gay-conclave-reports

2 Replies

@McTag,

What does it mean Mac?

1 Reply

@McTag,

Vatican denial is routine.

I don't actually hate the vatican, much as I send whales to go up the Tiber. ....

The library is important, let's keep that.

George and I lived the life around the same time and I will not presume re what he thinks.

I'm the nastybody.

http://able2know.org/reply/post-4694141/quote/

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

What does it mean Mac?

What it means is it's very hard to put the stone back after it's been turned over.
If you look at the status of the Catholic church in Ireland, and the catastrophic change in that over the last fifty years, principally but not completely to do with the failure of the clergy to control eradicate paedophilia in the priesthood, and the role of the Vatican in this failure, led for decades by Cardinal Ratzinger, the cover-ups and misinformation that was employed, leading to major failures in the church in America and elsewhere, and now a major Italian newspaper attacking the Vatican or at least its management, hitherto pretty well unimaginable I would have thought, well what it means is, trouble. I'd resign too.

1 Reply

@McTag,

I put such things down to understandable human weakness Mac. Like with bankers, politicians, meat traders, journalists, antique dealers, scientists, waterers of the beer, dressers up of mutton, casting couch operatives, off-shore fundsters, fiddlers of educational standards, lobbyists, etc etc etc.

Your narrow, terrier like, focus does nothing to undermine the Christian teaching. It tells us more about yourself than anything. Media seeks to undermine the Church for pretty obvious reasons. Media deals in carnal indulgence. And when it finally comes to be the only power in the land, as it will, it will be more puritanical than ever the Church has been.

The cops are investigating hundreds of separate allegations of abuse none of which are to do with the Church.

The Pope is retiring for the reason he gave.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

The Pope is retiring for the reason he gave.

And Nick Clegg knew nothing about the alleged sexual misconduct of Lord Rennard.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

We will not be allowed to look at women before long if this nonsense keeps going. He allegedly touched her on the leg and she was upset and embarrassed and disappointed. Aaaah! Poor little thing.

A girl like that should be at home with her Mummie learning cross-stitch.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

The Pope is retiring for the reason he gave.

You may believe that, but a man of your experience, especially given the breadth and depth of your Weltanschauung, will be aware that things are seldom what they seem.

2 Replies

THE BRITISH THREAD II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know