Originally Posted by Editha (Post 11163249)

No it isn't, wasn't and never has been.

You are clearly confused, but it is difficult to tell how.

Originally Posted by Harvester523 (Post 11163131)

They more or less admitted it, they were 'professional jurors', i.e. they volunteered - unemployed or retired. They had made up their minds before the case was even heard. Without going into details, it was obvious to me the other person was the guilty party, and distressing as it was a child abuse case. So, the other party got off scot free, and the accused had their child taken away.
I wouldn't trust any jury in Britain, knowing that, there is virtually no vetting process, anyone can do it. I can think of plenty of people who would be incompetent as jurors.

Originally Posted by Editha (Post 11163256)

Just a guess, but it is possible that you attended a care hearing in the magistrates court. In that case, there would not have been a jury, but a panel of three lay magistrates advised by a court clerk. Lay magistrates are volunteers.

However, you could not have been one of them, or you would not be so ignorant now. You would have either been a witness or a party to the proceedings.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 11163260)

Jurors are selected randomly from the population by the court. Attendance is practically compulsory despite work commitments or booked holiday, although I believe there is some opportunity to postpone. I participated once, and the jury was made up of people from all walks, and every last one did their utmost to reach a just decision in their own minds. There is no "volunteering" for jury duty. To say you wouldn't trust any jury in Britain betrays a complete ignorance of the system.

Originally Posted by Harvester523 (Post 11163270)

Did you read anything? This was 30 years ago? Do try and get all the facts together before you reply.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 11163276)

If your poor experience was so long ago, why do you still harbour such distrust of the UK jury system?

Originally Posted by Grayling (Post 11163277)

Because it fits in with his bias?

Originally Posted by Grayling (Post 11163277)

Because it fits in with his bias?

Originally Posted by Harvester523 (Post 11163282)

'hers' thanks. My view of the UK is my opinion, and just because it doesn't agree with the rose tinted set, doesn't make it any less valid.
Shard's response sums up most of the responses. It doesn't matter whether it's relevant or not as long as we say it. We'll ignore any relevant facts.

Originally Posted by Harvester523 (Post 11163171)

I still work thanks to the Great British government suddenly pulling the rug out from under us and making me wait another 5 years for my pension - without any warning - so the pound is irrelevant. Where else would you get away with that? You're told all your life that you're going to get a pension, then with no time to make any other arrangements, it's snatched away.

Originally Posted by Grayling (Post 11163286)

When did that happen:confused:

When the pension age changed it was phased in....some, like myself were not affected at all although I am still too young to receive it. My wife was affected but it meant she only had to wait an extra year. If you had to wait 5 years then you must have been nowhere near receiving it imminently when the changes were made

Originally Posted by Harvester523 (Post 11163289)

I was due to receive it this year, but just fell foul of the birth date.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 11163290)

So you are 64?