Sneggyblubird wrote:Found not guilty by their peers but I suppose we could try the Chinese method.
rumpo kid wrote:When I did jury service I couldn’t believe about 2/3 of jurors who hadn’t listened to, or understood what they had seen that day.
If we did conduct proceedings in Mandarin, I predict little change in the outcome..
pembroke allan wrote:rumpo kid wrote:When I did jury service I couldn’t believe about 2/3 of jurors who hadn’t listened to, or understood what they had seen that day.
If we did conduct proceedings in Mandarin, I predict little change in the outcome..
Sounds bit like this jury? You are convicted on the evidence heared and presented! Love to know how you can be cleared when there was no disputing the evidence.. simply cannot clear anyone just because you think they have a just cause like extinction rebellion? Done same thing couple days ago with another energy company will they be cleared because its extinction rebellion people? Where will it end
epping blue wrote:pembroke allan wrote:rumpo kid wrote:When I did jury service I couldn’t believe about 2/3 of jurors who hadn’t listened to, or understood what they had seen that day.
If we did conduct proceedings in Mandarin, I predict little change in the outcome..
Sounds bit like this jury? You are convicted on the evidence heared and presented! Love to know how you can be cleared when there was no disputing the evidence.. simply cannot clear anyone just because you think they have a just cause like extinction rebellion? Done same thing couple days ago with another energy company will they be cleared because its extinction rebellion people? Where will it end
Deeply troubling verdict. OK it may have only been a few smashed windows and a bit of sprayed paint but you cant have guilt or innocence determined on the political preference of a jury. They should be made to explain on the basis of the evidence presented how they arrived at the decision. The fact they did it is not in dispute, that its a criminal act is not in dispute.
Wayne S wrote:So a jury of their peers decided that morals are more important that law.
What's the problem? This is how laws are changed.
Tax avoidance is legal but morally the public want it controlled.
Diminished responsibility is taken into account even though murder is illegal.
The courts are progressive not dictatorial to the law.
Bakedalasker wrote:Founding this difficult to believe this has happened then again I should not be surprised.
I just feel the law has got soft on criminals over the last few decades with such sentences that deserve a prison sentence only becoming a slap on the wrist. This seems to be a new level of soft. Next we will be rewarding criminals.
Crayfish wrote:Bakedalasker wrote:Founding this difficult to believe this has happened then again I should not be surprised.
I just feel the law has got soft on criminals over the last few decades with such sentences that deserve a prison sentence only becoming a slap on the wrist. This seems to be a new level of soft. Next we will be rewarding criminals.
In this case it is not the law gone soft as the judge practically told them they had to find them guilty as they had no defence. It was the jury who got them off. Don't forget it was a London jury probably consisting of more then it's fair share of bleeding hearts left wing Guardian readers and that type.
Danny Says wrote:What’s crazy is the jurors were asked to be reminded of their oaths yet even though there was no defence they acquitted.
A clear abrogation of their oaths and a total disrespect to the court and the country.
What though is even worse is the judge thanking the jury for their service.
Disgrace. Total disgrace.
rumpo kid wrote:The big problem with public jurors is that they are pliable. One or two of the more forceful members could coerce other members, regardless of the evidence to their view. Other issue is that the judge is desperate to avoid a re-trial so begs the jury for the majority verdict, even if jurors are unsure.
It’s dodgy..
rumpo kid wrote:Can’t do that al... jury powers are enshrined in the Magna Carta, and there are precedents going back 5-600 years where juries do the same. De facto powers of nullification, so my legal mate says.. something like that anyway..
pembroke allan wrote:The one person who pleaded guilty was in court today and the judge said because the others got off Scott free even though guilty he couldn't seem to be unfairly treating her so he gave her a conditional discharge! But said it didnt mean others would get away with it next time extinction rebellion rabble did similar thing....
Ps they caused 15k worth of damage...
stickywicket wrote:pembroke allan wrote:The one person who pleaded guilty was in court today and the judge said because the others got off Scott free even though guilty he couldn't seem to be unfairly treating her so he gave her a conditional discharge! But said it didnt mean others would get away with it next time extinction rebellion rabble did similar thing....
Ps they caused 15k worth of damage...
15 k of damage.You make me laugh mate. That's a fraction of what Cardiff City scum hooligans have cause over the years via police costs, and damage.
pembroke allan wrote:stickywicket wrote:pembroke allan wrote:The one person who pleaded guilty was in court today and the judge said because the others got off Scott free even though guilty he couldn't seem to be unfairly treating her so he gave her a conditional discharge! But said it didnt mean others would get away with it next time extinction rebellion rabble did similar thing....
Ps they caused 15k worth of damage...
15 k of damage.You make me laugh mate. That's a fraction of what Cardiff City scum hooligans have cause over the years via police costs, and damage.
And you point relevant to this topic is?
stickywicket wrote:pembroke allan wrote:stickywicket wrote:pembroke allan wrote:The one person who pleaded guilty was in court today and the judge said because the others got off Scott free even though guilty he couldn't seem to be unfairly treating her so he gave her a conditional discharge! But said it didnt mean others would get away with it next time extinction rebellion rabble did similar thing....
Ps they caused 15k worth of damage...
15 k of damage.You make me laugh mate. That's a fraction of what Cardiff City scum hooligans have cause over the years via police costs, and damage.
And you point relevant to this topic is?
People in glass houses.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], ias [Bot], Proximic [Bot] and 133 guests