Plod has 'regrets'...

[Brigadier]

Do you think a Juror should research a case in order to see if they agree with the prosecution based on their conscience?

Think of the money we could save, on the Police, the CPS, all of those expensive lawyers and barristers, by getting [the general public] to have a bit of a Google, then go with their gut feeling

 

[motorbiking]

Judge Karen (from Facebook)..

 

[Roy Bloom]

Do you think a Juror should research a case in order to see if they agree with the prosecution based on their conscience?

There's no need. It was never suggested nor implied.
They are expected to listen to the arguments put forward. And if the defence is reasonable, and they think their actions were justified, they can return a not-guilty verdict. Rather like police are found not guilty of killing someone when they quite obviously have.
You're asking silly questions.

 

[motorbiking]

bonkers.

Fortunately most jurors take their role seriously and most people realise that standing outside a court with signs like the above is likely to get you arrested and charged with a fairly serious offence.

 

[denso13]

most people realise that standing outside a court with signs like the above is likely to get you arrested and charged with a fairly serious offence.

They should perhaps have disabled the cameras taking their photos. You surely agree with that?

 

[Roy Bloom]

Fortunately most jurors take their role seriously ...

A strawman argument to start. no-one has suggested that jurors do not take their duty seriously.

... and most people realise that standing outside a court with signs like the above is likely to get you arrested and charged with a fairly serious offence.

Standing outside a court with a poster with exactly the same words on that are displayed inside the court is what the whole protest is about.
It's behaviour nearer to a totalitarian regime than a democarcy.


If the culprit was under your jury service, how would you vote, according to the law broken, or according to your concsience?

 

[motorbiking]

I’d do my duty as Juror and pay close attention to the evidence presented along with any defence including arguments under section 5 of the criminal damage act. I’d also fully disclose and would likely be dropped.

I would also hope that anyone trying to intimidate me as a juror by campaigning outside the court in a hope to influence me would be properly dealt with.

 

[denso13]

I would also hope that anyone trying to intimidate me as a juror by campaigning outside the court in a hope to influence me would be properly dealt with.

But intimidating ULEZ workers is ok?

 

[Roy Bloom]

I’d do my duty as Juror and pay close attention to the evidence presented along with any defence including arguments under section 5 of the criminal damage act. I’d also fully disclose and would likely be dropped.

I would also hope that anyone trying to intimidate me as a juror by campaigning outside the court in a hope to influence me would be properly dealt with.

There's a maahoosive difference between intimidation and education.

These comments of yours seem to be in contradiction to your commments in the ULEZ thread:

 

[motorbiking]

There's a maahoosive difference between intimidation and education.

It's attempted Jury nobbling either way. Particularly as its actually wrong advice.

 

[Roy Bloom]

It's attempted Jury nobbling either way. Particularly as its actually wrong advice.

The sign inside the court buildings:

Near this site William Penn and William Mead were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Grace Church Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the jury, Thos Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others who refused to give a verdict against them although locked up without food for two nights and were fined for their final verdict of not guilty. The case of these jurymen was reviewed on a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the Court which established"The Right of Juries" to give their verdict according to their convictions."

The sign held by Trudi Warner:

Give us your explanation, in your own words, the difference between the two, and how the second version is wrong.

 

[Roy Bloom]

It's entirely subjective and there is no requirement for it be rational. People believe all sorts of things. Its not about your belief, but you view of his honestly held belief. It's why protestors get away with damaging things, even though they and their beliefs are nuts.

And why people get away with transgender critical comments.
As in Maya Forstater

 

[motorbiking]

I think you'll find she won her case and that she spoke the truth "transgender women could not change their biological sex". It would be a good example of an honest belief that does not need to be rationally held or correct, to think she is wrong.

over to you..

 

[Roy Bloom]

I think you'll find she won her case and that she spoke the truth "transgender women could not change their biological sex". It would be a good example of an honest belief that does not need to be rationally held or correct, to think she is wrong.

over to you..

She won her case based on her honestly held belief, which is not necessarily the truth.
Whatever you believe to be the truth is irrelevant to that case.
If the majority of the jury happens to agree with the honestly held belief, and it is used as defence, they will be acquitted.

In the case of Trudi Warner, she was just reminding the jury of their right.

 

[motorbiking]

She [Tridi] was nicked for contempt of court. There had already been injunctions imposed on the case she was protesting about. The rights established in the Penn and Mead case were entirely about the injustice of punishing a Jury for failure to give the judge a verdict he wanted.

The sign on the wall was general her protest was specific. It doesn't need to be any more complex than that.

It is neither gender critical nor wrong, to say that transgender women cannot change their biological sex. if you want to waive your trans activist banner, I suggest you start a new thread.