|
Post by gwenifer on Jan 2, 2007 23:32:30 GMT 1
Duane, up until last week Blair had no choice but to 'suck up' to Bush, we owed them a hell of a lot of money which we have just finished paying, for both the World wars. Now things might change a little but there is always a risk in going up against a world superpower even if he is a big bully!! Again, astonishingly I agree with Brumwolf, carry on in your own little world Duane.
|
|
duane
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by duane on Jan 3, 2007 17:16:48 GMT 1
why you two acting like this, because i've opened up a world benhind closed doors?. thats the real problem isn't it? not me having a "winge"
and oh england will always be in debt with the amercians, I think they've found somthing else we've gotta pay for now,
someone said to me, we've gotta pay so much towards the torps that are in our subs.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jan 3, 2007 17:31:13 GMT 1
MOD HAT ON!!!
Can I remind everyone on here that not all are blessed with the same level of competency in communication and language. Can we remember this and try and have some compassion when speaking to each other.
Please also keep on topic - Britain's debts to America and other things being discussed in the last few posts are not to do with Jury service. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss them.
Thank you.
ADMIN
|
|
duane
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by duane on Jan 3, 2007 17:36:47 GMT 1
just wondering, what does competency mean?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jan 3, 2007 17:52:04 GMT 1
Competency means being able to do something. Someone with a high level of competency would be good at something, someone with a low level would struggle more.
bb Rhiannon
|
|
duane
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by duane on Jan 3, 2007 17:54:32 GMT 1
fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by wyrdewood on Apr 20, 2007 10:54:41 GMT 1
RE: just saying no.
There is a department called the Jury Summoning Bureau whose job it is to handle all things to do with jury service. The senior officer has to ensure that a juror is fit to serve. A juror should have a balanced view and not be biased. In my case, I was called for service but pointed out that, as a conscientious objector and a believer in passive resistance, I would be instantly prejudiced against anyone using violence for whatever means, whether they be the Police, Public or a criminal. For this reason I was excused. However, I do remember that I had to back up my convictions (no pun intended) by having an interview and signing lots of paperwork. I don't think you can just say No straight off.
Lest we forget.
Do what you will, but harm none.
|
|
duane
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by duane on Apr 20, 2007 11:11:13 GMT 1
if you go by that satment then it would mean you shouldn't be in the service becasue you are harming someone by stating your opinion on ralther or not they aren't guilty. if u say they arn't your harming the victom, if your saying they are guilty then your harming the acused.
|
|
|
Post by wyrdewood on Apr 20, 2007 11:35:57 GMT 1
Good point. This was probably one of the reasons I was excused.
|
|
|
Post by brumwolf on May 9, 2007 21:30:31 GMT 1
if you go by that satment then it would mean you shouldn't be in the service becasue you are harming someone by stating your opinion on ralther or not they aren't guilty. if u say they arn't your harming the victom, if your saying they are guilty then your harming the acused. No your not because the jury just decides guilt NOT sentence. The sentence is decided by either the Judge or by pre-set penelties defined by the state. Your forgetting one key point in all this. It was the guilty party who choose to break the law knowing that that they was doing was illigal so to say you are harming them is flawed.
|
|
duane
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by duane on May 10, 2007 16:21:33 GMT 1
how is it flawed? your still harming that person no matter what they did.
so ok, if you stealed somthing from me, and everyone told me you was guilty (acting as jury) I'm well within my right to punish you?
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 10, 2007 16:41:29 GMT 1
Hi Duane I'm afraid I'm not following your argument? Are you saying that it is wrong to (a) decide whether someone is guilty (b) punish someone who has committed a crime? Which?? I'm not sure what "harm none" has to do with the discussion either. Perhaps that's a thread we could drag up from the vaults - why harm none is a patsy! bb Rhiannon
|
|
duane
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by duane on May 11, 2007 11:59:25 GMT 1
i'm arguing that you shouldn't decid ralther that person is guilty or not.
the harm none comes into it when, your saying there guilty your allowing the judge to punish them. and if your saying they arn't guilty your "harming" the victom if the acused is really guilty.
|
|
duane
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by duane on May 11, 2007 12:01:07 GMT 1
was a reply to brumwolf statment.
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 11, 2007 14:27:31 GMT 1
Hi Duane
I'd rather have a jury of 12 of my peers judge me than a judge (apologies to the judges that visit this site!)
I have no problem at all with deciding if someone is guilty or not, and if they are guilty then they should (in an ideal world) take the punishment that society decides.
Of course, I'm also for rehabilitiation as well as punishment.
bb Rhiannon
|
|