He or she may not appreciate my priorities but at the end of the day my family come first . No one will perform their duty properly if they are concerned about the financial implications of income loss on their family whilst performing jury service . Until this is taken on board fully the courts will always have a problem with people refusing to do this service
Look, you obviously want to hang around here, you obviously feel you have something to contribute - is it really such a problem to play nicely like the rest of us? You seem to have grasped posting at the bottom, there's only 3 other things to remember: Quote a bit, snip a lot, remove sig and seperators from previous post. Really, if you can just work with this,you'll get far less abuse and be much more accepted. -- Dnc B1200 - +30bhp ~|~ ZZR1100 - faster when upright V2300 - flat cap and rug ~|~ A6 2.5TDi V6 Quattro Sport MIB#26 two#54(soiled) UKRMMA#26 BOTAFOT#153 X-FOT#003
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:28:11 GMT, "Steve Robinson" snip> That's where the system falls down in a big way. People on high wages don't want a week of poverty so try to avoid jury service leaving it to those that think £50/day for sitting on your arse dreaming of spending your new found wealth is good. I'd do it if required but I'd make it very bloody obvious I wasn't happy about it and I'd be even more pissed off if I ended up with a room rammed full of muppets who wanted to take a week to reach a decision.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:08:46 -0000, "Beav" snip> I'm sure the person relying on me deciding he was innocent would sooner I wasn't worrying about paying my bills instead of paying attention to his evidence. A couple of weeks of short money wouldn't be too big a hassle but if I was stuck in court for a few months I would be in serious financial trouble. The only fair way to resolve this is to compensate jurors based on their last 13 weeks pay. That's what my wages are based on if I'm off work after a work related accident and I can't see any logical reason why courts shouldn't be forced to pay based on the same calculation.
Having done jury duty I can't claim to have been too worried about the financial aspects. However just about everyone else there certainly had other things on their minds which must have reduced their ability to concentrate on the case. Everyone was "keen" for the case to be over with as soon as possible. It took me nearly a week to get onto a jury and I can tell you that being forced to stick around nothing sweet fa is no joke. Are you happy for your taxes to be increased in order to fully compensate for loss of earnings? While I don't disagree with the point about long trials being a serious threat to someone's income, where there is a disparity between their salary and the court payment, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
I agree however society must also accept that those called for jury duty should not be expected to suffer financially May be its time to have employed juries
And the less well off should not be expected to subidise high-earning bastards while they discharge their civic duty.
Alternatively, maybe it's time that companies should be obliged to cover wages up to, say, a fortnight. After all, the judicial system exists to protect corporate entities as much as individuals. No doubt insurance policies could be tailored to cover the cost. I really don't think that employed juries would be a viable option. Far too easy to get hold of a list and lean on people. The randomising effect of the present system acts as a useful filter.
Those high earning bastards already pay a disproportionate amount of tax compared with the services they can receive without those high earning highly taxed bastards the funds to support the less well off would not be available
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:05:11 +0000, Paul Corfield snip> If it ensured that we could have a trial by jury system that people weren't trying their hardest to avoid then the marginal increase in taxes wouldn't be such a bad thing. In fact the government could use a few of their loans to make up the difference so we don't have to even pay for it.
I know. I also know that I'd probably be able to get exemption from serving because of my job but I shouldn't have to pull that sort of stunt.
Many companies already do cover civic duty costs for short periods , however small and medium sized companies would struggle financially to do this Also companies already contribute billions to the exchequer through corporation tax , national insurance , vat , local business rates etc , yet receive very little in return expecting them to finance something else encourages them to piss off overseas where the tax regime is far less of a burden .Many Asian governments offer very large 'relocation' packages for companies transferring or setting up in their countries
I agree. Inconvenient though it is, jury service is something we just have to accept. The jury system is imperfect but I would resist the efforts of some politicians to do away with it - regarding those who decry it with a degree of suspicion, as I believe they have their own motives for undermining it. The jury system will fall into a state of disrepair if more and more people find ways to wriggle out of service and only give ammunition to those who seek to abandon it. -- Dave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a I demand nothing of you except that you amuse me. Folding@Home Team UKRM http://vspx27.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=47957
One Angry Man. "You cunts! He's guilty as sin!" -- Dave GS850x2 XS650 SE6a I demand nothing of you except that you amuse me. Folding@Home Team UKRM http://vspx27.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=47957
