Electoral register and jury duty

[Mr Macaw]

A friend just informed me he doesn't register to vote because it means he cannot be called for jury duty. I thought there was no way out of jury duty?

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:11:44 +0100, "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>A friend just informed me he doesn't register to vote because it means he cannot be called for jury duty. I thought there was no way out of jury duty?

It doesn't mean he cannot be. But in practice it means he will not be, as
jury selection is currently done from the electoral roll.

Given the extremely low probability of being called for jury duty, though,
this is very far from being a rational reason not to register. The
disadvantages of not registering will significantly exceed this particular
benefit.

Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 00:28:43 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> A friend just informed me he doesn't register to vote because it means he cannot be called for jury duty. I thought there was no way out of jury duty?

There are plenty of ways out, although the scope for this was curtailed about a dozen years ago.

Over 70, ill health, stand for MP, join the police, become a magistrate. Businessmen used to frequently get letters saying that jury duty would damage their firm and its employees. This no longer works, although it might for health professionals.

I have been registered over 40 years and never called. My partner ditto and called once and got a simple day and a half theft case.

[Broadback]

What I have never understood about jury selection is why some people get
called several times, others like myself, never called. Seems unfair to me.

[ARW]

"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:op.ygd7x...@red.lan...

>A friend just informed me he doesn't register to vote because it means he
>cannot be called for jury duty. I thought there was no way out of jury
>duty?

A couple of my mates do not have to jury serice and they are now on the
electoral register:-)

--
Adam

[Roland Perry]

In message <8305953d-f4b3-4b20...@googlegroups.com>, at
00:43:44 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com>
remarked:

>I have been registered over 40 years and never called. My partner ditto
>and called once and got a simple day and a half theft case.

A self employed printer (back in the days when the job was pressing wet
ink onto paper) I knew was called up for what turned into a six month
trial at the Old Bailey. Almost took his business down.

Did they give any special consideration to the jurists in the
Hillsborough inquest [other than asking what football team they
supported] - two years three weeks and counting?

Do they get 5.6 weeks holiday a year, or doesn't that legislation apply?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nfhvov$85o$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:26:14 on Sun, 24 Apr
2016, Broadback <messag...@j-towill.co.uk> remarked:

>What I have never understood about jury selection is why some people
>get called several times, others like myself, never called. Seems
>unfair to me.

It's like winning the Lottery more than once (it happens). Very unfair,
as I never have.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 09:26:14 +0100, Broadback
<messag...@j-towill.co.uk> put finger to keyboard and typed:

>On 24/04/2016 08:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:11:44 +0100, "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>> A friend just informed me he doesn't register to vote because it means he cannot be called for jury duty. I thought there was no way out of jury duty?
>>
>> It doesn't mean he cannot be. But in practice it means he will not be, as
>> jury selection is currently done from the electoral roll.
>>
>> Given the extremely low probability of being called for jury duty, though,
>> this is very far from being a rational reason not to register. The
>> disadvantages of not registering will significantly exceed this particular
>> benefit.
>>

>What I have never understood about jury selection is why some people get
>called several times, others like myself, never called. Seems unfair to me.

That's because it's not intended to be fair. It's intended to be random.
Random selection is, by definition, entirely unfair.

It's arguable that some form of fair selection ought to be instituted. But
the problem with that is that complete fairness is impossible due to the
fact that there are more people than are needed to be on juries - a "fair"
selection process would leave most people never selected, and the rest
selected just once. Which still isn't fair.

What's possibly more valid is the idea that serving on a jury just once
automatically excuses you from serving again. That still wouldn't be fair,
as some people would never be selected while others are. But it would, at
least, mean that nobody would be required to serve twice or more.

[kat]

On 24/04/2016 08:43, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Sunday, 24 April 2016 00:28:43 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> A friend just informed me he doesn't register to vote because it means he cannot be called for jury duty. I thought there was no way out of jury duty?
>
> There are plenty of ways out, although the scope for this was curtailed about a dozen years ago.
>
> Over 70, ill health, stand for MP, join the police, become a magistrate. Businessmen used to frequently get letters saying that jury duty would damage their firm and its employees. This no longer works, although it might for health professionals.
>

One other way is to not be in the country. My daughter was on a gap
year backpacking around the world, and not going to be back in time!

> I have been registered over 40 years and never called. My partner ditto and called once and got a simple day and a half theft case.
>

Much the same here.

--
kat
>^..^<

[Mr Macaw]

I'd quite like to do jury duty, I'd find it interesting. And AFAIK they pay your missed wages?

[Mr Macaw]

Because of crimes committed? :-)

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 08:49:00 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:11:44 +0100, "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> A friend just informed me he doesn't register to vote because it means he cannot be called for jury duty. I thought there was no way out of jury duty?
>
> It doesn't mean he cannot be. But in practice it means he will not be, as
> jury selection is currently done from the electoral roll.
>
> Given the extremely low probability of being called for jury duty, though,

I think I know about 3 people who have been called, and can only remember one of them. He got out of it, as he knew the accused - complete chance, he used to live more or less next door to him.

> this is very far from being a rational reason not to register. The
> disadvantages of not registering will significantly exceed this particular
> benefit.

He cannot see any advantages, he sees all politicians as useless. However he does grumble a lot more about certain parties, so you'd think he'd want to vote for the lesser of several evils.

[Janet]

In article <8305953d-f4b3-4b20...@googlegroups.com>,
notya...@gmail.com says...

I've been called twice. Both times I provided evidence of the
unrelated reasons why I couldn't attend, and was excused.

Janet

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.ygfd5...@red.lan>, at 14:23:40 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,
Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>I'd quite like to do jury duty, I'd find it interesting. And AFAIK they
>pay your missed wages?

No, they pay an allowance (in England) of Ł32.47 per half day. I suppose
if you are on minimum/living wage that might just be equivalent.

It roughly doubles after 10 days, and doubles again after 200 days.

You also get a magnificent Ł5.71 meal allowance.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 11:37:58 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

>In message <8305953d-f4b3-4b20...@googlegroups.com>, at
>00:43:44 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com>
>remarked:
>
>>I have been registered over 40 years and never called. My partner ditto
>>and called once and got a simple day and a half theft case.
>
>A self employed printer (back in the days when the job was pressing wet
>ink onto paper) I knew was called up for what turned into a six month
>trial at the Old Bailey. Almost took his business down.
>
>Did they give any special consideration to the jurists in the
>Hillsborough inquest [other than asking what football team they
>supported] - two years three weeks and counting?

If it's expected to be a long one, jurors are usually permitted to recuse
themselves, provided they have a reasonable reason for doing so. Work
duties (including self-employment) are almost always a good enough reason.
The edge cases are the ones which end up running a lot longer than
expected, because once you're on the jury, you can't easily get off it.

>Do they get 5.6 weeks holiday a year, or doesn't that legislation apply?

They get more than that. They will only be required when the court is
sitting, and the courts don't sit every working day of the year.
Long-running trials and inquests have to take breaks, because not just the
jurors but also the judge and barristers will need them.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 15:09:38 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

>In message <op.ygfd5...@red.lan>, at 14:23:40 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,
>Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>
>>I'd quite like to do jury duty, I'd find it interesting. And AFAIK they
>>pay your missed wages?
>

>No, they pay an allowance (in England) of £32.47 per half day. I suppose

>if you are on minimum/living wage that might just be equivalent.
>
>It roughly doubles after 10 days, and doubles again after 200 days.
>

>You also get a magnificent £5.71 meal allowance.

Although, in my experience, that's usually spent in the court canteen,
which is priced to suit :-)

You can also claim travel expenses, which can be significant.

As I discovered when I did jury service, you can claim travel expenses even
if the court is so close to where you normally work that your daily journey
is exactly the same as normal! So I actually came out of the fortnight
slightly ahead, as my employer topped up my salary above what I could claim
for loss of earnings, so that I didn't lose any direct income, but I also
got a free lunch and free travel every day which I wouldn't normally do.

Obviously, that's only going to apply to someone who does have an
understanding employer, but if you do then the finances aren't going to be
a problem.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 14:26:06 +0100, "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> put finger to

keyboard and typed:

>On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 08:49:00 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:11:44 +0100, "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>> A friend just informed me he doesn't register to vote because it means he cannot be called for jury duty. I thought there was no way out of jury duty?
>>
>> It doesn't mean he cannot be. But in practice it means he will not be, as
>> jury selection is currently done from the electoral roll.
>>
>> Given the extremely low probability of being called for jury duty, though,
>
>I think I know about 3 people who have been called, and can only remember one of them. He got out of it, as he knew the accused - complete chance, he used to live more or less next door to him.
>
>> this is very far from being a rational reason not to register. The
>> disadvantages of not registering will significantly exceed this particular
>> benefit.
>
>He cannot see any advantages, he sees all politicians as useless. However he does grumble a lot more about certain parties, so you'd think he'd want to vote for the lesser of several evils.

Being on the electoral roll also affects your credit rating. If you aren't
on it, borrowing money is a lot harder and a lot more expensive.

More pertinently, from a legal perspective, registration is compulsory in
the UK. If you don't register, without a valid reason for not doing so, you
can be fined.

[Roland Perry]

In message <8mpphb1ts8b0tttu0...@news.markshouse.net>, at
16:46:44 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>>Do they get 5.6 weeks holiday a year, or doesn't that legislation apply?
>
>They get more than that. They will only be required when the court is
>sitting, and the courts don't sit every working day of the year.
>Long-running trials and inquests have to take breaks, because not just the
>jurors but also the judge and barristers will need them.

It seems a bit unfair on the employers to excuse them from jury service
during such breaks (and they only get paid by the court when sitting)
simply to be off for most of it on employer-paid vacation. I presume
that the idea is that they don't get less employer-paid vacation
entitlement because they are on jury service rather than their regular
work.

We've covered the problems about people on long term jury service
turning up at work on odd days and expecting to be paid by the employer,
in another thread a year ago.
--
Roland Perry

[Graeme]

In message <NKgdR0Ji...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes

>In message <op.ygfd5...@red.lan>, at 14:23:40 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,
>Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>
>>I'd quite like to do jury duty, I'd find it interesting. And AFAIK they
>>pay your missed wages?
>
>No, they pay an allowance (in England) of Ł32.47 per half day. I suppose
>if you are on minimum/living wage that might just be equivalent.

Would that be only to people who are working, or does that include
unemployed and retired people?

--
Graeme

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 13:30:01 +0100, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 24/04/2016 08:43, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> On Sunday, 24 April 2016 00:28:43 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> A friend just informed me he doesn't register to vote because it means he cannot be called for jury duty. I thought there was no way out of jury duty?
>>
>> There are plenty of ways out, although the scope for this was curtailed about a dozen years ago.
>>
>> Over 70, ill health, stand for MP, join the police, become a magistrate. Businessmen used to frequently get letters saying that jury duty would damage their firm and its employees. This no longer works, although it might for health professionals.
>
> One other way is to not be in the country. My daughter was on a gap
> year backpacking around the world, and not going to be back in time!

I know someone who tried that, you have to prove you booked the flights before the jury duty came up.

[Mr Macaw]

Since you're in a legal group, you must be interested in law, so why didn't you want to go?

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 15:09:38 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <op.ygfd5...@red.lan>, at 14:23:40 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,
> Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>
>> I'd quite like to do jury duty, I'd find it interesting. And AFAIK they
>> pay your missed wages?
>
> No, they pay an allowance (in England) of Ł32.47 per half day. I suppose
> if you are on minimum/living wage that might just be equivalent.

For the first 2 weeks it's a more than minimum wage, after 2 weeks it's much more.

> It roughly doubles after 10 days, and doubles again after 200 days.
>
> You also get a magnificent Ł5.71 meal allowance.

So Ł70 a day for 2 weeks (Ł8.75 an hour), then Ł140 a day thereafter (Ł17.50 an hour). Sounds ok to me. If you're employed, your employer has to give you time off without using sick days or holidays. If you're self employed, well it makes a change from your usual work I guess. And you can work around the jury duty and do anything important on the weekend.

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 16:57:55 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 14:26:06 +0100, "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
> >On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 08:49:00 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:11:44 +0100, "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> put finger to
> >> keyboard and typed:
> >>
> >>> A friend just informed me he doesn't register to vote because it means he cannot be called for jury duty. I thought there was no way out of jury duty?
> >>
> >> It doesn't mean he cannot be. But in practice it means he will not be, as
> >> jury selection is currently done from the electoral roll.
> >>
> >> Given the extremely low probability of being called for jury duty, though,
> >
> >I think I know about 3 people who have been called, and can only remember one of them. He got out of it, as he knew the accused - complete chance, he used to live more or less next door to him.
> >
> >> this is very far from being a rational reason not to register. The
> >> disadvantages of not registering will significantly exceed this particular
> >> benefit.
> >
> >He cannot see any advantages, he sees all politicians as useless. However he does grumble a lot more about certain parties, so you'd think he'd want to vote for the lesser of several evils.
>
> Being on the electoral roll also affects your credit rating. If you aren't
> on it, borrowing money is a lot harder and a lot more expensive.

There is a box to tick to say you don't want to go on the published register.

This is generally ticked by the very well off, who don't want pestered by sales calls and by the badly off, who don't want their creditors to find them.

>
> More pertinently, from a legal perspective, registration is compulsory in
> the UK. If you don't register, without a valid reason for not doing so, you
> can be fined.

Not since Individual Elector Registration came in (~2014).

[Roland Perry]

In message <pLXWvfzt...@binnsroad.myzen.co.uk>, at 15:49:17 on Sun,
24 Apr 2016, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:

>>>I'd quite like to do jury duty, I'd find it interesting. And AFAIK they
>>>pay your missed wages?
>>
>>No, they pay an allowance (in England) of Ł32.47 per half day. I suppose
>>if you are on minimum/living wage that might just be equivalent.
>
>Would that be only to people who are working, or does that include
>unemployed and retired people?

It's restricted to actual loss-of-earnings and/or actual extra expenses
like childcare. Capped of course.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.ygfi5...@red.lan>, at 16:11:45 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,
Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>If you're employed, your employer has to give you time off without
>using sick days or holidays.

And without pay.

>If you're self employed, well it makes a change from your usual work I
>guess. And you can work around the jury duty and do anything important
>on the weekend.

The most important things I do at the moment happen on Tuesdays and
Thursdays - meetings which I know they won't reschedule just for me.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 09:49:46 -0700 (PDT), "R. Mark Clayton"
<notya...@gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and typed:

>On Sunday, 24 April 2016 16:57:55 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 14:26:06 +0100, "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>> >On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 08:49:00 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:11:44 +0100, "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> put finger to
>> >> keyboard and typed:
>> >>
>> >>> A friend just informed me he doesn't register to vote because it means he cannot be called for jury duty. I thought there was no way out of jury duty?
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't mean he cannot be. But in practice it means he will not be, as
>> >> jury selection is currently done from the electoral roll.
>> >>
>> >> Given the extremely low probability of being called for jury duty, though,
>> >
>> >I think I know about 3 people who have been called, and can only remember one of them. He got out of it, as he knew the accused - complete chance, he used to live more or less next door to him.
>> >
>> >> this is very far from being a rational reason not to register. The
>> >> disadvantages of not registering will significantly exceed this particular
>> >> benefit.
>> >
>> >He cannot see any advantages, he sees all politicians as useless. However he does grumble a lot more about certain parties, so you'd think he'd want to vote for the lesser of several evils.
>>
>> Being on the electoral roll also affects your credit rating. If you aren't
>> on it, borrowing money is a lot harder and a lot more expensive.
>
>There is a box to tick to say you don't want to go on the published register.

Credit reference agencies have access to the full register. The point of
doing so is to help verify that you are who you say you are. They aren't
allowed to use it for marketing, but they can check that your registered
name and address match those that you have put on your application.

>> More pertinently, from a legal perspective, registration is compulsory in
>> the UK. If you don't register, without a valid reason for not doing so, you
>> can be fined.
>
>Not since Individual Elector Registration came in (~2014).

It's no longer a criminal offence not to register, but it still carries a
civil penalty not to provide information as required by the registration
officer.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/6/schedule/3/enacted

[Mr Macaw]

Nobody ever told me it was illegal before that, are you sure? I moved house in 2000, and never bothered telling them, as I wasn't interested in voting. I did eventually register as I wanted to vote, about 8 years later.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 18:11:24 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <pLXWvfzt...@binnsroad.myzen.co.uk>, at 15:49:17 on Sun,
> 24 Apr 2016, Graeme <uk...@binnsroad.net> remarked:
>>>> I'd quite like to do jury duty, I'd find it interesting. And AFAIK they
>>>> pay your missed wages?
>>>

>>> No, they pay an allowance (in England) of £32.47 per half day. I suppose

>>> if you are on minimum/living wage that might just be equivalent.
>>
>> Would that be only to people who are working, or does that include
>> unemployed and retired people?
>
> It's restricted to actual loss-of-earnings and/or actual extra expenses
> like childcare. Capped of course.

So a retired person has to do slave labour then?

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 18:14:21 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <op.ygfi5...@red.lan>, at 16:11:45 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,
> Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>
>> If you're employed, your employer has to give you time off without
>> using sick days or holidays.
>
> And without pay.

I thought they always topped it up from the court allowance to your normal pay, but that may just have been the University I worked at.

>> If you're self employed, well it makes a change from your usual work I
>> guess. And you can work around the jury duty and do anything important
>> on the weekend.
>
> The most important things I do at the moment happen on Tuesdays and
> Thursdays - meetings which I know they won't reschedule just for me.

Do it on your mobile from the courtroom :-)

[Norman Wells]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:47zAt0Ft...@perry.co.uk...

If they can go ahead without you, you can't be essential to the process.

Everyone else has other things to do too. But jury service is a civic duty, and it
comes first.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.ygfpx...@red.lan>, at 18:38:09 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,
Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>>>>> I'd quite like to do jury duty, I'd find it interesting. And AFAIK they
>>>>> pay your missed wages?
>>>>
>>>> No, they pay an allowance (in England) of £32.47 per half day. I suppose
>>>> if you are on minimum/living wage that might just be equivalent.
>>>
>>> Would that be only to people who are working, or does that include
>>> unemployed and retired people?
>>
>> It's restricted to actual loss-of-earnings and/or actual extra expenses
>> like childcare. Capped of course.
>
>So a retired person has to do slave labour then?

Or an unemployed one (different rules kick in about having to come off
benefits after a while).

I'm more concerned about the difficulty of the self-employed and part
time workers ("zero hours" contracts if you like), being able to
demonstrate a specific amount of loss of earnings.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.ygfpz...@red.lan>, at 18:39:13 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,

Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 18:14:21 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <op.ygfi5...@red.lan>, at 16:11:45 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,
>> Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>
>>> If you're employed, your employer has to give you time off without
>>> using sick days or holidays.
>>
>> And without pay.
>
>I thought they always topped it up from the court allowance to your
>normal pay, but that may just have been the University I worked at.

Some might, others don't.

>>> If you're self employed, well it makes a change from your usual work I
>>> guess. And you can work around the jury duty and do anything important
>>> on the weekend.
>>
>> The most important things I do at the moment happen on Tuesdays and
>> Thursdays - meetings which I know they won't reschedule just for me.
>
>Do it on your mobile from the courtroom :-)

I has to be done in person. (And obviously the court won't allow a
teleconference from the jury room).
--
Roland Perry

[Mr Macaw]

In the same way as you demonstrate specific profits to the taxman.

[Mr Macaw]

I once refused to reply, as the form had a possible response to go to an email address ending in something like @btinternet.com and not @gov.uk. Apparently it was a genuine registration form, but I binned it because the email address made it look fake to me.

[Roland Perry]

In message <do4fjn...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:54:46 on Sun, 24
Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:47zAt0Ft7PHXF
>A...@perry.co.uk...

>> In message <op.ygfi5...@red.lan>, at 16:11:45 on Sun, 24 Apr
>>2016, Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>
>>>If you're employed, your employer has to give you time off without
>>>using sick days or holidays.
>>
>> And without pay.
>>
>>>If you're self employed, well it makes a change from your usual work
>>>I guess. And you can work around the jury duty and do anything
>>>important on the weekend.
>>
>> The most important things I do at the moment happen on Tuesdays and
>>Thursdays - meetings which I know they won't reschedule just for me.
>
>If they can go ahead without you, you can't be essential to the process.

Being there is essential to me earning my fee. I can't send someone
else, because they don't have the personal relationships with the other
people in the meeting; without which, attendance would be pretty much
futile.

>Everyone else has other things to do too. But jury service is a civic
>duty, and it comes first.

I'd be happy to do jury service for a reasonable amount of time, and
fitted into a schedule which often has other people relying upon what I
do[1].

Something during the Parliamentary Summer Recess (aka "Silly Season")
would normally work well. Although last Summer I was busy preparing some
documentation which needed to be ready by the time Parliament returned.

Depending on whether or not I had to put off an entire project, I might
or might not want paying more than my direct out of pocket expenses.

A lot of that latter would of course depend on where the court was - but
they closed the one ten minutes walk from my house a few years ago. The
two most obvious alternatives are about an hour away. I bet they don't
make allowance for travelling time.

[1] eg Last week was "Stalking Awareness Week", which charities prepare
for at least nine months in advance. Suddenly being unavailable to
participate at the appointed time would be a significant issue. That
story about Lily Allen didn't come out last week by coincidence.

Going quite well so far:

<http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/23/lily-allen-story-
pursuades-stalking-crime-victims-to-come-forward>

They won't be webcasting the announcement on Tuesday, so I suppose I'll
have to get on my horse and go to Westminster. Again.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.ygfts...@red.lan>, at 20:01:35 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,
Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>> I'm more concerned about the difficulty of the self-employed and part
>> time workers ("zero hours" contracts if you like), being able to
>> demonstrate a specific amount of loss of earnings.
>
>In the same way as you demonstrate specific profits to the taxman.

That doesn't work on several levels.

You only report profits to the taxman annually in arrears. The loss of
income from being a juror is immediate.

Business expenses are not hypothecated to income - simple example, if
you are renting an office it's a long term cost; being on jury duty and
unable to work, does that mean you can assign all the rental as a "loss"
to the jury project for its duration, as well as the guestimate of loss
of billings? The quite small office I was looking at recently was £1000
a month (roughly) plus business rates. I think that's all the juror's
allowance gone immediately.

If, like me, you only bill about half your available time, how do you
decide which parts of the billings were destroyed by jury service?
Bearing in mind that people can have schedules like "work all[1] of
every Tuesday and Thursday, and half a day spread over the rest of the
week" = half time. You can't fit jury service into those Fri-Mon and
Weds slots.

But I would like to do jury service, preferably on a case where I'd had
a hand in introducing the law the [alleged] perp was charged under - so
I can see intimately how well it's working. In particular, if they get
off on a technicality I might go back and plug the loophole!

[1] Actually, that means typically 12hrsx2, so arguably it's 24+4hrs
total, which is 28hrs and thus a bit more than half a 35hr week.
--
Roland Perry

[Nogood Boyo]

"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bduohbh7b47vseag8...@news.markshouse.net...

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:11:44 +0100, "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>>A friend just informed me he doesn't register to vote because it means he
>>cannot be called for jury duty. I thought there was no way out of jury
>>duty?
>
> It doesn't mean he cannot be. But in practice it means he will not be, as
> jury selection is currently done from the electoral roll.
>
> Given the extremely low probability of being called for jury duty, though,

> this is very far from being a rational reason not to register. The
> disadvantages of not registering will significantly exceed this particular
> benefit.
>

There was a discussion of the chances of being selected for jury service on
"More or Less", Radio 4 a few minutes ago...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b077jqps#play

Mainly about Scotland but also England and Wales.

--
Nogood Boyo

[Iain Archer]

This is from the Representation of the People (England and Wales)
Regulations 2001 SI 2001/341. I doubt its predecessor would have been
much different.

"3.—(1) A registration officer may require any person to give
information required for the purposes of that officer’s duties in
maintaining registers of parliamentary and local government electors.
(2) A registration officer is under a duty to require persons to give
information required for the purposes of that officer’s duty under
section 3(1) of the Juries Act 1974(a).
(3) If any person—
(a) fails to comply with, or
(b) gives false information in pursuance of, any such requisition of the
registration officer as is mentioned in this regulation, he shall be
liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the
standard scale."
--
Iain Archer

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:21:04 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <do4fjn...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:54:46 on Sun, 24
> Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:47zAt0Ft7PHXF
>> A...@perry.co.uk...
>>> In message <op.ygfi5...@red.lan>, at 16:11:45 on Sun, 24 Apr
>>> 2016, Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> If you're employed, your employer has to give you time off without
>>>> using sick days or holidays.
>>>
>>> And without pay.
>>>
>>>> If you're self employed, well it makes a change from your usual work
>>>> I guess. And you can work around the jury duty and do anything
>>>> important on the weekend.
>>>
>>> The most important things I do at the moment happen on Tuesdays and
>>> Thursdays - meetings which I know they won't reschedule just for me.
>>
>> If they can go ahead without you, you can't be essential to the process.
>
> Being there is essential to me earning my fee. I can't send someone
> else, because they don't have the personal relationships with the other
> people in the meeting; without which, attendance would be pretty much
> futile.
>
>> Everyone else has other things to do too. But jury service is a civic
>> duty, and it comes first.

Replying here as the post from Norman didn't show up: Why should it come first? As has been said by others, there are way more people than jurors required, so why not select those who are available and even want to do it? Having someone be a juror who doesn't want to be there and has something more important to do is not going to help the court case.

> I'd be happy to do jury service for a reasonable amount of time, and
> fitted into a schedule which often has other people relying upon what I
> do[1].
>
> Something during the Parliamentary Summer Recess (aka "Silly Season")
> would normally work well. Although last Summer I was busy preparing some
> documentation which needed to be ready by the time Parliament returned.
>
> Depending on whether or not I had to put off an entire project, I might
> or might not want paying more than my direct out of pocket expenses.
>
> A lot of that latter would of course depend on where the court was - but
> they closed the one ten minutes walk from my house a few years ago. The
> two most obvious alternatives are about an hour away. I bet they don't
> make allowance for travelling time.
>
> [1] eg Last week was "Stalking Awareness Week", which charities prepare
> for at least nine months in advance. Suddenly being unavailable to
> participate at the appointed time would be a significant issue. That
> story about Lily Allen didn't come out last week by coincidence.

I want someone to stalk me :-)

> Going quite well so far:
>
> <http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/23/lily-allen-story-
> pursuades-stalking-crime-victims-to-come-forward>
>
> They won't be webcasting the announcement on Tuesday, so I suppose I'll
> have to get on my horse and go to Westminster. Again.

If you're doing criminal type work like that, surely that is an excuse to not do other criminal type work (jury duty)? They're taking you away from one crime to sort another.

[Mr Macaw]

What was the percentage chance?

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:58:19 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <op.ygfts...@red.lan>, at 20:01:35 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,
> Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>
>>> I'm more concerned about the difficulty of the self-employed and part
>>> time workers ("zero hours" contracts if you like), being able to
>>> demonstrate a specific amount of loss of earnings.
>>
>> In the same way as you demonstrate specific profits to the taxman.
>
> That doesn't work on several levels.
>
> You only report profits to the taxman annually in arrears. The loss of
> income from being a juror is immediate.

It could be assumed that you could have made a similar amount in the month you're on jury duty as you did the month before.

> Business expenses are not hypothecated to income - simple example, if
> you are renting an office it's a long term cost; being on jury duty and
> unable to work, does that mean you can assign all the rental as a "loss"
> to the jury project for its duration, as well as the guestimate of loss
> of billings? The quite small office I was looking at recently was £1000
> a month (roughly) plus business rates. I think that's all the juror's
> allowance gone immediately.

It should be easy enough to work out how much you are down on what you should have been. So yes, if you're paying out rent for nothing, and I'm on the jury too, but I've got no expenses left running, then you should get more.

> If, like me, you only bill about half your available time, how do you
> decide which parts of the billings were destroyed by jury service?
> Bearing in mind that people can have schedules like "work all[1] of
> every Tuesday and Thursday, and half a day spread over the rest of the
> week" = half time. You can't fit jury service into those Fri-Mon and
> Weds slots.

As I said further up, compare it to how much money you made in the previous month.

> But I would like to do jury service, preferably on a case where I'd had
> a hand in introducing the law the [alleged] perp was charged under - so
> I can see intimately how well it's working. In particular, if they get
> off on a technicality I might go back and plug the loophole!

Do they allow people with a law background on the jury?

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:38:52 +0100, Iain Archer <iane...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> wrote on Sun, 24 Apr 2016 at 18:37:40:
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 17:49:46 +0100, R. Mark Clayton
>> <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, 24 April 2016 16:57:55 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>>>> More pertinently, from a legal perspective, registration is compulsory in
>>>> the UK. If you don't register, without a valid reason for not doing so, you
>>>> can be fined.
>>>
>>> Not since Individual Elector Registration came in (~2014).
>>
>> Nobody ever told me it was illegal before that, are you sure? I moved
>> house in 2000, and never bothered telling them, as I wasn't interested
>> in voting. I did eventually register as I wanted to vote, about 8
>> years later.
>
> This is from the Representation of the People (England and Wales)
> Regulations 2001 SI 2001/341. I doubt its predecessor would have been
> much different.
>

> "3.—(1) A registration officer may require any person to give
> information required for the purposes of that officer’s duties in

> maintaining registers of parliamentary and local government electors.
> (2) A registration officer is under a duty to require persons to give

> information required for the purposes of that officer’s duty under

> section 3(1) of the Juries Act 1974(a).

> (3) If any person—

> (a) fails to comply with, or
> (b) gives false information in pursuance of, any such requisition of the
> registration officer as is mentioned in this regulation, he shall be
> liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the
> standard scale."

Me and my friend are both in Scotland if that makes a difference. Now both of us (me from 2000 for several years, and him indefinitely) just didn't respond to the request for available voters. Surely if they cared they would have prosecuted? We both heard nothing.

[Norman Wells]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:m3QHeoMg...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <do4fjn...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:54:46 on Sun, 24
> Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:47zAt0Ft7PHXF
>>A...@perry.co.uk...
>>> In message <op.ygfi5...@red.lan>, at 16:11:45 on Sun, 24 Apr
>>>2016, Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>If you're employed, your employer has to give you time off without
>>>>using sick days or holidays.
>>>
>>> And without pay.
>>>
>>>>If you're self employed, well it makes a change from your usual work
>>>>I guess. And you can work around the jury duty and do anything
>>>>important on the weekend.
>>>
>>> The most important things I do at the moment happen on Tuesdays and
>>>Thursdays - meetings which I know they won't reschedule just for me.
>>
>>If they can go ahead without you, you can't be essential to the process.
>
> Being there is essential to me earning my fee. I can't send someone
> else, because they don't have the personal relationships with the other
> people in the meeting; without which, attendance would be pretty much
> futile.

I doubt if anyone is allowed under the law to penalise you for doing something the
State and society require of you.

>>Everyone else has other things to do too. But jury service is a civic
>>duty, and it comes first.
>
> I'd be happy to do jury service for a reasonable amount of time, and
> fitted into a schedule which often has other people relying upon what I
> do[1].
>
> Something during the Parliamentary Summer Recess (aka "Silly Season")
> would normally work well. Although last Summer I was busy preparing some
> documentation which needed to be ready by the time Parliament returned.

I'm afraid the whole judicial system does not revolve around you, or around anyone
else for that matter. It doesn't operate for your convenience. As I said, civic
duty comes first.

> Depending on whether or not I had to put off an entire project, I might
> or might not want paying more than my direct out of pocket expenses.
>
> A lot of that latter would of course depend on where the court was - but
> they closed the one ten minutes walk from my house a few years ago. The
> two most obvious alternatives are about an hour away. I bet they don't
> make allowance for travelling time.
>
> [1] eg Last week was "Stalking Awareness Week", which charities prepare
> for at least nine months in advance. Suddenly being unavailable to
> participate at the appointed time would be a significant issue.

But not insoluble. As they say, cemeteries are full of indispensible people.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.ygfvp...@red.lan>, at 20:42:45 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,
Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>> [1] eg Last week was "Stalking Awareness Week", which charities prepare
>> for at least nine months in advance. Suddenly being unavailable to
>> participate at the appointed time would be a significant issue. That
>> story about Lily Allen didn't come out last week by coincidence.
>
>I want someone to stalk me :-)

No, you really don't.

>> Going quite well so far:
>>
>> <http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/23/lily-allen-story-
>> pursuades-stalking-crime-victims-to-come-forward>
>>
>> They won't be webcasting the announcement on Tuesday, so I suppose I'll
>> have to get on my horse and go to Westminster. Again.
>
>If you're doing criminal type work like that, surely that is an excuse
>to not do other criminal type work (jury duty)? They're taking you away
>from one crime to sort another.

It all depends what one means by "criminal work".

That meeting is about lobbying for a greater penalty (which Parliament
would have to approve) for severe forms of stalking.

We only just got it introduced as a specific offence at all (five
years), and I'd probably prefer that more offenders were actually
prosecuted for the five year offence, rather than negotiated down to the
less serious one year offence. If all that happens is a ten year offence
is negotiated down to one year, that doesn't help very much.

But at a public relations level, any greater exposure of the whole
stalking thing is to be welcomed.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:op.ygfvp...@red.lan...

The question is who defines 'available'? Most people have something else they'd
rather be doing, even if only walking the dog. Does that make them 'unavailable'?

And if you restrict your choice to just those who want to do it, you're then
selecting from a skewed group, probably just middle class, well off, white,
leisured, elderly, conservative, do-gooding, hat-wearing, Womens Institute members.

Rather like most magistrates in fact.

Do you really think that's a good idea?

> Having someone be a juror who doesn't want to be there and has something more
> important to do is not going to help the court case.

Juries are supposed to be selected at random from the general populace so as to
reflect a wide range of personal experience. Once you start allowing opt-outs at
the drop of a hat, you're very seriously narrowing the group from which they can be
appointed. And that, I suggest, is not a good thing.

[Paul Rudin]

August West <aug...@kororaa.com> writes:

> The entity calling itself Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>> Do they allow people with a law background on the jury?
>

> Just a legal background - law grad, law academic, paralegal, etc -
> yes. Enrolled solictiors (or trainee), advocates, sheriff, senators of
> the College of Justice, no (in Scotland, at least). Advocate's and
> fiscal's clerks and court employees, and some others, are also
> ineligible.
>
> The full list is here:
>
> http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/scs---court-users/juryhighcourtsheriffcourt.pdf?sfvrsn=2

In England being a lawyer, or indeed a judge, is (no longer) a bar to
jury duty.

[Iain Archer]

In Scotland, over a typical lifetime eligibility of 53 years, it was
estimated:

The chance of getting a citation to attend for balloting is about 95%
The chance of actually serving on a jury is about 30%

For England and Wales the roughly corresponding figures were estimated
roughly at:

35% of being summoned across a lifetime
Only about half summoned spend any time in court

When the commentator talked about the particular inquirer's chances,
given his current age of 61, she used the term "at least once". He was
said to have an estimated probability of ~40% of being cited at least
once in the next ten years, and a chance of actually serving on a jury
as 6%.

From that I take it that all the figures include possible _multiple_
summonses or appearances, and represent the chance of being a person who
has had at least one of either of those over a lifetime.
--
Iain

[Mr Macaw]

I'm sure a set of rules could be drawn up as to what is too important to interrupt with jury duty. For example someone doing a job where any of his colleagues can fill in is not excused. But if he is indispensable to the company, then he is excused.

> And if you restrict your choice to just those who want to do it, you're then
> selecting from a skewed group, probably just middle class, well off, white,
> leisured, elderly, conservative, do-gooding, hat-wearing, Womens Institute members.
>
> Rather like most magistrates in fact.
>
> Do you really think that's a good idea?

I disagree on the skewed group you've selected. Why don't you think lower classes would want to get involved in a good crime-beating?

>> Having someone be a juror who doesn't want to be there and has something more
>> important to do is not going to help the court case.
>
> Juries are supposed to be selected at random from the general populace so as to
> reflect a wide range of personal experience. Once you start allowing opt-outs at
> the drop of a hat, you're very seriously narrowing the group from which they can be
> appointed. And that, I suggest, is not a good thing.

I would say the average person is not qualified to make sensible objective intelligent decisions on the outcome of a trial.

[Pedt]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:58:19 +0100, Roland Perry says...

>

>
> But I would like to do jury service, preferably on a case where I'd had
> a hand in introducing the law the [alleged] perp was charged under - so
> I can see intimately how well it's working. In particular, if they get
> off on a technicality I might go back and plug the loophole!

I would have thought that having a vested interest in the outcome of a
case would bar you from being on the jury.


--
Pedt

[Nogood Boyo]

"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:op.ygfwy...@red.lan...

Higher in Scotland than in E&W but not what I'd call "extremely low". I'd
need to listen again for the details.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 21:23:27 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:m3QHeoMg...@perry.co.uk...
>> In message <do4fjn...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:54:46 on Sun, 24
>> Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:47zAt0Ft7PHXF
>>> A...@perry.co.uk...
>>>> In message <op.ygfi5...@red.lan>, at 16:11:45 on Sun, 24 Apr
>>>> 2016, Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> If you're employed, your employer has to give you time off without
>>>>> using sick days or holidays.
>>>>
>>>> And without pay.
>>>>
>>>>> If you're self employed, well it makes a change from your usual work
>>>>> I guess. And you can work around the jury duty and do anything
>>>>> important on the weekend.
>>>>
>>>> The most important things I do at the moment happen on Tuesdays and
>>>> Thursdays - meetings which I know they won't reschedule just for me.
>>>
>>> If they can go ahead without you, you can't be essential to the process.
>>
>> Being there is essential to me earning my fee. I can't send someone
>> else, because they don't have the personal relationships with the other
>> people in the meeting; without which, attendance would be pretty much
>> futile.
>
> I doubt if anyone is allowed under the law to penalise you for doing something the
> State and society require of you.

But if not being at the meeting stops him getting some promotion or other, I doubt his employer could be done for that.

>>> Everyone else has other things to do too. But jury service is a civic
>>> duty, and it comes first.
>>
>> I'd be happy to do jury service for a reasonable amount of time, and
>> fitted into a schedule which often has other people relying upon what I
>> do[1].
>>
>> Something during the Parliamentary Summer Recess (aka "Silly Season")
>> would normally work well. Although last Summer I was busy preparing some
>> documentation which needed to be ready by the time Parliament returned.
>
> I'm afraid the whole judicial system does not revolve around you, or around anyone
> else for that matter. It doesn't operate for your convenience. As I said, civic
> duty comes first.

Why should it? The country won't run properly if everyone keeps getting interrupted. They should only take those who have equals in their job who can cover for them.

>> Depending on whether or not I had to put off an entire project, I might
>> or might not want paying more than my direct out of pocket expenses.
>>
>> A lot of that latter would of course depend on where the court was - but
>> they closed the one ten minutes walk from my house a few years ago. The
>> two most obvious alternatives are about an hour away. I bet they don't
>> make allowance for travelling time.
>>
>> [1] eg Last week was "Stalking Awareness Week", which charities prepare
>> for at least nine months in advance. Suddenly being unavailable to
>> participate at the appointed time would be a significant issue.
>
> But not insoluble. As they say, cemeteries are full of indispensible people.

And if they hadn't have died, great things could have arisen.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 21:24:00 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <op.ygfvp...@red.lan>, at 20:42:45 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,
> Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:
>>> [1] eg Last week was "Stalking Awareness Week", which charities prepare
>>> for at least nine months in advance. Suddenly being unavailable to
>>> participate at the appointed time would be a significant issue. That
>>> story about Lily Allen didn't come out last week by coincidence.
>>
>> I want someone to stalk me :-)
>
> No, you really don't.

Depends who they are. I have had a woman stalk me (of sorts). It was amusing at times.

>>> Going quite well so far:
>>>
>>> <http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/23/lily-allen-story-
>>> pursuades-stalking-crime-victims-to-come-forward>
>>>
>>> They won't be webcasting the announcement on Tuesday, so I suppose I'll
>>> have to get on my horse and go to Westminster. Again.
>>
>> If you're doing criminal type work like that, surely that is an excuse
>> to not do other criminal type work (jury duty)? They're taking you away
>> from one crime to sort another.
>
> It all depends what one means by "criminal work".

I see.

> That meeting is about lobbying for a greater penalty (which Parliament
> would have to approve) for severe forms of stalking.
>
> We only just got it introduced as a specific offence at all (five
> years), and I'd probably prefer that more offenders were actually
> prosecuted for the five year offence, rather than negotiated down to the
> less serious one year offence. If all that happens is a ten year offence
> is negotiated down to one year, that doesn't help very much.
>
> But at a public relations level, any greater exposure of the whole
> stalking thing is to be welcomed.

Doesn't stalking usually involve things which are crimes already?

[Wm]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:58:19 +0100, in uk.legal.moderated, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:


> But I would like to do jury service, preferably on a case where I'd had
> a hand in introducing the law the [alleged] perp was charged under - so
> I can see intimately how well it's working. In particular, if they get
> off on a technicality I might go back and plug the loophole!

I wonder if your knowledge would make you undesirable as a juror from the
prosecution's POV ?

--
Wm

[Roland Perry]

In message <bkbg5am7hoj9$.1tglxjpi...@40tude.net>, at 22:36:09 on
Sun, 24 Apr 2016, Wm <tcn...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>> But I would like to do jury service, preferably on a case where I'd had
>> a hand in introducing the law the [alleged] perp was charged under - so
>> I can see intimately how well it's working. In particular, if they get
>> off on a technicality I might go back and plug the loophole!
>
>I wonder if your knowledge would make you undesirable as a juror from the
>prosecution's POV ?

A good question. I'm meeting a senior CPS prosecutor later today and
I'll ask.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.ygf0x...@red.lan>, at 22:35:43 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,
Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:

>Doesn't stalking usually involve things which are crimes already?

No, and that's a significant part of it having its own little bubble
inside the harassment law. It's not otherwise illegal to leave a note
under someone's windscreen wiper saying "I know where you live, and one
day you'll come home to find your cat nailed to your front door", for
example. [That's a real example, btw].
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.ygfwx...@red.lan>, at 21:09:23 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,

My work is lumpier than monthly, for example I billed perhaps twice as
much in January and February, as either December or March.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <87twiqr...@news2.kororaa.com>, at 09:10:20 on Mon, 25
Apr 2016, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:
>
>In Scotland, at least, you are no longer "exccused" service, but are
>"deferred", and required to give dates when you will be able to
>undertake service.

On the grounds of a level playing field in the criminal justice system,
I wonder how this would work if made comparable to the situation one of
our clients was in, that as a victim a witness statement was required,
and the police gave her two specific days to choose from, spread over a
couple of months, to come into the police station.

Apparently the officer handling the case was either too busy, or on
vacation, all the other days; and obviously they were indispensible
because no other police officer was expected to substitute.
--
Roland Perry

[Nogood Boyo]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:8s1xINV1...@perry.co.uk...

Really..? The police and CPS wouldn't be able to find a criminal provision
to cover that..?

[kat]

On 24/04/2016 16:12, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 13:30:01 +0100, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 24/04/2016 08:43, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>>> On Sunday, 24 April 2016 00:28:43 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> A friend just informed me he doesn't register to vote because it
>>>> means he cannot be called for jury duty. I thought there was no way
>>>> out of jury duty?
>>>

>>> There are plenty of ways out, although the scope for this was
>>> curtailed about a dozen years ago.
>>>
>>> Over 70, ill health, stand for MP, join the police, become a
>>> magistrate. Businessmen used to frequently get letters saying that
>>> jury duty would damage their firm and its employees. This no longer
>>> works, although it might for health professionals.
>>
>> One other way is to not be in the country. My daughter was on a gap
>> year backpacking around the world, and not going to be back in time!
>
> I know someone who tried that, you have to prove you booked the flights
> before the jury duty came up.

As she had already been away for 4 months when the summons came in, all
I did was phone up and tell them - she wasn't able to. I couldn't
easily get in touch with her, no phone, and an email would sit waiting
until she found another internet cafe. Didn't have to prove anything.

--
kat
>^..^<

[Norman Wells]

"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:op.ygf0u...@red.lan...

They have been already. How on earth do you think anyone gets out of it?

> For example someone doing a job where any of his colleagues can fill in is not
> excused. But if he is indispensable to the company, then he is excused.

There are rules that allow for that sort of thing, though not exactly as you
suggest.

>> And if you restrict your choice to just those who want to do it, you're then
>> selecting from a skewed group, probably just middle class, well off, white,
>> leisured, elderly, conservative, do-gooding, hat-wearing, Womens Institute
>> members.
>>
>> Rather like most magistrates in fact.
>>
>> Do you really think that's a good idea?
>
> I disagree on the skewed group you've selected. Why don't you think lower classes
> would want to get involved in a good crime-beating?

Because they're busy. They have things to do. Kids to look after. Divorces to
arrange. Prison visits. That sort of thing.

>>> Having someone be a juror who doesn't want to be there and has something more
>>> important to do is not going to help the court case.
>>
>> Juries are supposed to be selected at random from the general populace so as to
>> reflect a wide range of personal experience. Once you start allowing opt-outs at
>> the drop of a hat, you're very seriously narrowing the group from which they can
>> be
>> appointed. And that, I suggest, is not a good thing.
>
> I would say the average person is not qualified to make sensible objective
> intelligent decisions on the outcome of a trial.

They don't have to individually. They decide, as a group of 12. It's a hive mind
thing.

[Norman Wells]

"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:op.ygf01...@red.lan...

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 21:23:27 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:m3QHeoMg...@perry.co.uk...
>>> In message <do4fjn...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:54:46 on Sun, 24
>>> Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:47zAt0Ft7PHXF
>>>> A...@perry.co.uk...

>>>>> The most important things I do at the moment happen on Tuesdays and
>>>>> Thursdays - meetings which I know they won't reschedule just for me.
>>>>
>>>> If they can go ahead without you, you can't be essential to the process.
>>>
>>> Being there is essential to me earning my fee. I can't send someone
>>> else, because they don't have the personal relationships with the other
>>> people in the meeting; without which, attendance would be pretty much
>>> futile.
>

>>>> Everyone else has other things to do too. But jury service is a civic
>>>> duty, and it comes first.
>>>
>>> I'd be happy to do jury service for a reasonable amount of time, and
>>> fitted into a schedule which often has other people relying upon what I
>>> do[1].
>>>
>>> Something during the Parliamentary Summer Recess (aka "Silly Season")
>>> would normally work well. Although last Summer I was busy preparing some
>>> documentation which needed to be ready by the time Parliament returned.
>>
>> I'm afraid the whole judicial system does not revolve around you, or around
>> anyone
>> else for that matter. It doesn't operate for your convenience. As I said, civic
>> duty comes first.
>
> Why should it? The country won't run properly if everyone keeps getting
> interrupted.

They don't. The chances of you being called even once in your 52 years of
eligibility are well under 50%.

> They should only take those who have equals in their job who can cover for them.

No-one who is arrogant enough to think himself irreplaceable even for a couple of
weeks ever thinks he has an equal.

>>> Depending on whether or not I had to put off an entire project, I might
>>> or might not want paying more than my direct out of pocket expenses.
>>>
>>> A lot of that latter would of course depend on where the court was - but
>>> they closed the one ten minutes walk from my house a few years ago. The
>>> two most obvious alternatives are about an hour away. I bet they don't
>>> make allowance for travelling time.
>>>
>>> [1] eg Last week was "Stalking Awareness Week", which charities prepare
>>> for at least nine months in advance. Suddenly being unavailable to
>>> participate at the appointed time would be a significant issue.
>>
>> But not insoluble. As they say, cemeteries are full of indispensible people.
>
> And if they hadn't have died, great things could have arisen.

But statistically unlikely.

[Roland Perry]

In message <do4oah...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:23:27 on Sun, 24

Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>>> The most important things I do at the moment happen on Tuesdays and
>>>>Thursdays - meetings which I know they won't reschedule just for me.
>>>
>>>If they can go ahead without you, you can't be essential to the process.
>>
>> Being there is essential to me earning my fee. I can't send someone
>> else, because they don't have the personal relationships with the other
>> people in the meeting; without which, attendance would be pretty much
>> futile.
>
>I doubt if anyone is allowed under the law to penalise you for doing
>something the State and society require of you.

As a freelance, the people who commission my work can't be forced to pay
me if I fail to deliver a project because I was on jury service.

>>>Everyone else has other things to do too. But jury service is a civic
>>>duty, and it comes first.
>>
>> I'd be happy to do jury service for a reasonable amount of time, and
>> fitted into a schedule which often has other people relying upon what I
>> do[1].
>>
>> Something during the Parliamentary Summer Recess (aka "Silly Season")
>> would normally work well. Although last Summer I was busy preparing some
>> documentation which needed to be ready by the time Parliament returned.
>
>I'm afraid the whole judicial system does not revolve around you, or
>around anyone else for that matter. It doesn't operate for your
>convenience. As I said, civic duty comes first.

In the long term, yes. but not in the short term. It wouldn't be right
to find you had a shortage of jurors, and pop next door to the hospital
and pick a random surgeon and say "cancel all our operations today, you
are needed o a jury.

>> Depending on whether or not I had to put off an entire project, I might
>> or might not want paying more than my direct out of pocket expenses.
>>
>> A lot of that latter would of course depend on where the court was - but
>> they closed the one ten minutes walk from my house a few years ago. The
>> two most obvious alternatives are about an hour away. I bet they don't
>> make allowance for travelling time.
>>
>> [1] eg Last week was "Stalking Awareness Week", which charities prepare
>> for at least nine months in advance. Suddenly being unavailable to
>> participate at the appointed time would be a significant issue.
>
>But not insoluble. As they say, cemeteries are full of indispensible people.

We haven't yet got to the point where we cull people at random, picked
from the electoral roll.
--
Roland Perry

[newshound]

On 4/24/2016 8:43 AM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Sunday, 24 April 2016 00:28:43 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> A friend just informed me he doesn't register to vote because it means he cannot be called for jury duty. I thought there was no way out of jury duty?
>
> There are plenty of ways out, although the scope for this was curtailed about a dozen years ago.
>
> Over 70, ill health, stand for MP, join the police, become a magistrate. Businessmen used to frequently get letters saying that jury duty would damage their firm and its employees. This no longer works, although it might for health professionals.
>

You didn't mention having a conviction as another get-out! Aren't
solicitors exempt too?

> I have been registered over 40 years and never called. My partner ditto and called once and got a simple day and a half theft case.

I've also just been called once, after 40-odd years. Had two cases, each
just under a week. *Very* interesting experience, I can't see any reason
to want to avoid it other than compelling personal or business
circumstances.

[The Todal]

See eg
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jun/17/politics.politicalnews

[Roland Perry]

In message <do6211...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:15:59 on Mon, 25
Apr 2016, Nogood Boyo <use...@bwllfa.co.uk> remarked:

>>>Doesn't stalking usually involve things which are crimes already?
>>
>> No, and that's a significant part of it having its own little bubble
>> inside the harassment law. It's not otherwise illegal to leave a note
>> under someone's windscreen wiper saying "I know where you live, and one
>> day you'll come home to find your cat nailed to your front door", for
>> example. [That's a real example, btw].
>
>Really..? The police and CPS wouldn't be able to find a criminal provision
>to cover that..?

No, that was why the harassment law was passed in the first place.

It's a bit like saying "why do you need an offence of dangerous driving,
when you could surely charge someone with criminal damage in the event
that they hit an inanimate object, and assault if they hit a person".
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:Seaa0SYK...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <do4oah...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:23:27 on Sun, 24 Apr 2016,
> Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>
>>>>> The most important things I do at the moment happen on Tuesdays and
>>>>>Thursdays - meetings which I know they won't reschedule just for me.
>>>>
>>>>If they can go ahead without you, you can't be essential to the process.

>>>>Everyone else has other things to do too. But jury service is a civic
>>>>duty, and it comes first.
>>>
>>> I'd be happy to do jury service for a reasonable amount of time, and
>>> fitted into a schedule which often has other people relying upon what I
>>> do[1].
>>>
>>> Something during the Parliamentary Summer Recess (aka "Silly Season")
>>> would normally work well. Although last Summer I was busy preparing some
>>> documentation which needed to be ready by the time Parliament returned.
>>
>>I'm afraid the whole judicial system does not revolve around you, or around anyone
>>else for that matter. It doesn't operate for your convenience. As I said, civic
>>duty comes first.
>
> In the long term, yes. but not in the short term. It wouldn't be right to find you
> had a shortage of jurors, and pop next door to the hospital and pick a random
> surgeon and say "cancel all our operations today, you are needed o a jury.

If you are selected for jury service, you will be given considerable notice so that
you can arrange your affairs accordingly. You can also defer attending on the dates
specified though they don't like it if you then try to defer it a second or
subsequent time.

It's a perfectly reasonable system. If you can go on holiday, you can do jury
service.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:10:20 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

>

>The entity calling itself Mr Macaw wrote:
>>

>> I'm sure a set of rules could be drawn up as to what is too important
>> to interrupt with jury duty. For example someone doing a job where
>> any of his colleagues can fill in is not excused. But if he is
>> indispensable to the company, then he is excused.
>

>In Scotland, at least, you are no longer "exccused" service, but are
>"deferred", and required to give dates when you will be able to

>undertake service. So each calling will result in a trip to the
>courthouse at some point, unless te clear agrees you have a permanent
>reason for being excused.

It's the same in England and Wales now. Essentially, you have a choice
between doing it now and doing it later, and if you choose to do it later
then you are obliged to do it when "later" comes around. You have some
discretion over when it can be deferred to, but you can't pick specific
dates or defer it a second time.

Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com

[Roland Perry]

In message <do61tq...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:13:32 on Mon, 25

Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>> They should only take those who have equals in their job who can cover for them.
>
>No-one who is arrogant enough to think himself irreplaceable even for a
>couple of weeks ever thinks he has an equal.

Lewis Hamilton probably thinks Nico Rosberg is almost an equal; after
all the latter is winning more races at the moment. And in the long term
Lewis isn't irreplaceable because no doubt his team would poach someone
nearly as good[1] from another team. They can't do that this season
though, and an outsider has no chance.

If Lewis were compelled to do jury service mid-season, his minimum wage
expenses won't compensate for his (and Mercedes's) lost points in the
championship (even if Mercedes continue to pay his £40k/week basic
salary) and the result could well result into a combined loss of
hundreds millions of pounds.

That's an extreme example, but not dissimilar scenarios do exist
sporadically all the way down the food chain.

[1] On current rankings neither is as good as that pair, and Nico is
already driving for the same team.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <V7OdneQ2wcereYDK...@brightview.co.uk>, at
10:32:37 on Mon, 25 Apr 2016, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com>
remarked:

>I've also just been called once, after 40-odd years. Had two cases,
>each just under a week. *Very* interesting experience, I can't see any
>reason to want to avoid it other than compelling personal or business
>circumstances.

I agree entirely. My concerns are the extent to which it can be
scheduled around my personal/business circumstances, and also
restricted to on average a week at a time.

But I suppose I'm asking for the same sort of flexibility that no doubt
magistrates enjoy, although they are substitutable by fellow magistrates
as long as a case hasn't started yet.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <do6a6o...@mid.individual.net>, at 11:34:48 on Mon, 25

Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>>I'm afraid the whole judicial system does not revolve around you, or
>>>around anyone else for that matter. It doesn't operate for your
>>>convenience. As I said, civic duty comes first.
>>
>> In the long term, yes. but not in the short term. It wouldn't be
>>right to find you had a shortage of jurors, and pop next door to the
>>hospital and pick a random surgeon and say "cancel all our operations
>>today, you are needed o a jury.
>
>If you are selected for jury service, you will be given considerable
>notice so that you can arrange your affairs accordingly. You can also
>defer attending on the dates specified though they don't like it if you
>then try to defer it a second or subsequent time.
>
>It's a perfectly reasonable system. If you can go on holiday, you can
>do jury service.

My consultant books appointments a year in advance, having had to inform
the hospital of his vacation requirements.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:02:22 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

Then he would be one of the relatively small number for whom deferral
beyond a year is acceptable. Alternatively, excusal may well be considered
appropriate in these circumstances.

The timescale for deferral is not set in stone. It is at the discretion of
the Summoning Officer. The guidance stipulates only that it should
"normally" be within a year of the original date. Nor are there hard and
fast rules about what qualifies for complete excusal. Ultimately, the
Summoning Officer has the right to decide.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228867/9780108508400.pdf

[Mr Macaw]

Which of these is the UK version of "magistrate"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrate

[Mike Bristow]

In article <8s1xINV1...@perry.co.uk>,

Sounds like common-or-garden harrassment to me, if they did something
similar twice.

--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Norman Wells]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:8v7BoStO...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <do61tq...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:13:32 on Mon, 25
> Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>
>>> They should only take those who have equals in their job who can cover for them.
>>
>>No-one who is arrogant enough to think himself irreplaceable even for a
>>couple of weeks ever thinks he has an equal.
>
> Lewis Hamilton probably thinks Nico Rosberg is almost an equal; after
> all the latter is winning more races at the moment. And in the long term
> Lewis isn't irreplaceable because no doubt his team would poach someone
> nearly as good[1] from another team. They can't do that this season
> though, and an outsider has no chance.
>
> If Lewis were compelled to do jury service mid-season, his minimum wage
> expenses won't compensate for his (and Mercedes's) lost points in the
> championship (even if Mercedes continue to pay his £40k/week basic
> salary) and the result could well result into a combined loss of
> hundreds millions of pounds.

If called, he could defer his jury service once and do it later. But there's no
reason why he shouldn't do it at all, is there?

Anyway, he only works about one day in ten through the year, so there's plenty of
time to fit it in.

[Norman Wells]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:SrTKpEwu...@perry.co.uk...

Does he book his illnesses and emergencies too?

[Norman Wells]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:Er5PJuwG...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <V7OdneQ2wcereYDK...@brightview.co.uk>, at 10:32:37 on
> Mon, 25 Apr 2016, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com> remarked:
>>I've also just been called once, after 40-odd years. Had two cases, each just
>>under a week. *Very* interesting experience, I can't see any reason to want to
>>avoid it other than compelling personal or business circumstances.
>
> I agree entirely. My concerns are the extent to which it can be scheduled around
> my personal/business circumstances, and also
> restricted to on average a week at a time.

You are usually called for two weeks, but will likely only be required to sit on
just a few of those.

You are also expected to make some effort. It's your civic duty.

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:44:20 +0100, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

> I suspect my interest in jury nullification has permanently disbarred
> me ..

I must say I'd be likely to do that.

[Janet]

In article <do6oa8...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...

The year-in-advance appts may be made for existing patients with a
longterm condition, who attend once a year for routine follow-up
consults. For many years I attended two such clinics where at the end of
the consult, I saw the departmental clerk to book my appointment for
next year's review.

IME that system has mostly changed now. I still get seen annually but
the hospital doesn't send out an appointment until much closer to its
date. The NHS is trying to minimise no-shows , which waste a lot of
outpatient clinic time.

Janet.

[Roland Perry]

In message <do6m06...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:56:06 on Mon, 25

Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>> If Lewis were compelled to do jury service mid-season, his minimum wage
>> expenses won't compensate for his (and Mercedes's) lost points in the
>> championship (even if Mercedes continue to pay his £40k/week basic
>> salary) and the result could well result into a combined loss of
>> hundreds millions of pounds.
>
>If called, he could defer his jury service once and do it later. But there's no
>reason why he shouldn't do it at all, is there?

If deferred to the middle of next year's Grand Prix season, how would
that help?

>Anyway, he only works about one day in ten through the year, so there's plenty of
>time to fit it in.

I think you'll find they work pretty much solidly through the season,
preparing and unofficial practice, let alone the official practice days.

If they've got a Grand Prix next weekend the other side of the planet,
can the court service guarantee the case they start sitting on today
will be over by Wednesday lunchtime?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <87eg9ts...@news2.kororaa.com>, at 14:47:30 on Mon, 25
Apr 2016, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:

>> That's an extreme example, but not dissimilar scenarios do exist
>> sporadically all the way down the food chain.
>

>And allowance is made for them to defer their service until a more
>suitable time, which they can then plan for. Nobody is called for
>service the next week, or withiout possibility of deferment.
>
>You appear to be seeing a problem were one does not exist.

The problem is deferring it from the middle of this year's Grand Prix
season to the middle of next year's. If we believe those who say you
can't choose the deferment date.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <slrnnhs979...@cheddar.urgle.com>, at 15:08:41 on Mon,
25 Apr 2016, Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com> remarked:

>>>Doesn't stalking usually involve things which are crimes already?
>>
>> No, and that's a significant part of it having its own little bubble
>> inside the harassment law. It's not otherwise illegal to leave a note
>> under someone's windscreen wiper saying "I know where you live, and one
>> day you'll come home to find your cat nailed to your front door", for
>> example. [That's a real example, btw].
>
>Sounds like common-or-garden harrassment to me, if they did something
>similar twice.

It should be, but the police don't appear to be capable of realising
that unless a specific offence is created.

Take the recent scares about "drones". Not only are all the ones which
hit the headlines already illegal under aviation law; if they managed to
bring down a plane landing at Heathrow wouldn't it be an open and shut
Manslaughter case?
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

"Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:op.yghdj...@red.lan...

That's why we have twelve jury members all of whom have to be agreed. You can't do
it on your own. Nor will you succeed if you try.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 19:19:33 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

When applying for deferral, you are asked to give a selection of dates on
which you will be available. It would be very unusual for one of them not
to be picked for the deferred summons. And when that does happen, it's
usually because the person applying for deferral has given a very
restricted set of options.

[Roland Perry]

In message <do6oji...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:40:33 on Mon, 25
Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>>I've also just been called once, after 40-odd years. Had two cases,
>>>each just under a week. *Very* interesting experience, I can't see
>>>any reason to want to avoid it other than compelling personal or
>>>business circumstances.
>>
>> I agree entirely. My concerns are the extent to which it can be
>>scheduled around my personal/business circumstances, and also
>> restricted to on average a week at a time.
>
>You are usually called for two weeks, but will likely only be required
>to sit on just a few of those.

The problem with that, for the self employed, is you would need to
cancel all your engagements for a fortnight just in case. But the court
only pays those half-days you are actually required. Apparently using up
half a day of your time being called to court and not required to sit
doesn't get you any compensation - or am I misreading the rules?

>You are also expected to make some effort. It's your civic duty.

The court should also make some effort to accommodate the self employed.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <MPG.31886e7...@news.individual.net>, at 19:12:39 on
Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Janet <nob...@home.com> remarked:

>> > My consultant books appointments a year in advance, having had to inform the
>> > hospital of his vacation requirements.
>>
>> Does he book his illnesses and emergencies too?
>
> The year-in-advance appts may be made for existing patients with a
>longterm condition, who attend once a year for routine follow-up
>consults. For many years I attended two such clinics where at the end of
>the consult, I saw the departmental clerk to book my appointment for
>next year's review.
>
> IME that system has mostly changed now.

Not where I attend.

>I still get seen annually but the hospital doesn't send out an
>appointment until much closer to its date. The NHS is trying to
>minimise no-shows , which waste a lot of outpatient clinic time.

erm... with the clinics typically running at best half an hour late,
and frequently much worse, they should be happy with a few no-shows
because it allows them to get a tiny bit closer to the advertised
time for the patients who do show up.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <do6oa8...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:35:35 on Mon, 25

Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>> My consultant books appointments a year in advance, having had to
>>inform the hospital of his vacation requirements.
>
>Does he book his illnesses and emergencies too?

He gives every appearance of not having illnesses, and if he has an
emergency then his clinic runs N-hrs late.

Can a juror with an emergency on the day cause the whole court to run
N-hrs late with no comeback?

Occasionally I get an appointment cancelled at fairly short notice, and
rescheduled a week or two later. Can jurors do that?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.yghdm...@red.lan>, at 16:07:35 on Mon, 25 Apr 2016,
Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> remarked:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrate#England_and_Wales

Obviously.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

Absolutely. Drones near aeroplanes are already very illegal. But I
gather some tedious pressure group is eager to get its own new little
law specifically about drones.

--

Roger Hayter

[Mike Bristow]

In article <xegSUg5h...@perry.co.uk>,

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <slrnnhs979...@cheddar.urgle.com>, at 15:08:41 on Mon,
> 25 Apr 2016, Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com> remarked:
>>>>Doesn't stalking usually involve things which are crimes already?
>>>
>>> No, and that's a significant part of it having its own little bubble
>>> inside the harassment law. It's not otherwise illegal to leave a note
>>> under someone's windscreen wiper saying "I know where you live, and one
>>> day you'll come home to find your cat nailed to your front door", for
>>> example. [That's a real example, btw].
>>
>>Sounds like common-or-garden harrassment to me, if they did something
>>similar twice.
>
> It should be,

So it does usually involve things that which are crimes already, then,
just ones the police don't bother with?

> but the police don't appear to be capable of realising
> that unless a specific offence is created.

That sounds like a management problem for the executive, rather than
a legislative problem for Parliament.

My guess is the police do know it's a crime, but categorise it as "not
important enough, fob the punter off ASAP". Fixing that is done by
changing their priorities and/or giving the additional resources;
giving them another charge they won't bother to investigate doesn't
help.

> Take the recent scares about "drones". Not only are all the ones which
> hit the headlines already illegal under aviation law; if they managed to
> bring down a plane landing at Heathrow wouldn't it be an open and shut
> Manslaughter case?

No. Manslaughter requires either the desire to cause death or
serious injury in the case of voluntary manslaughter, or recklessness
or criminal negligence in the case of involuntary manslaughter.

Obviously, the desire to cause injury is absent, so you would have
to try for involuntary manslaughter.

Gross negligence requires the existence of a duty of care to the
deceased as the first step of a four step test; none exists so
involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence fails.

The CPS say that criminal negligence manslaughter - well, they call it
Unlawful Act Manslaughter in the guidance I'm reading, but I think it's
the same thing - requires a three step test: the death must be

1) the result of the defendant's unlawful act;
2) where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable
people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of
some physical harm
3) whether or not the defendant realised this.

The first step is easy; the second may be tricky; the third will
be damn near impossible. It would obviously depend on the exact
facts, but I don't think any dronists think that people will be
hurt by their droning on, even when they do it near an airport;
and I reckon if you ask People on a Putney Platform if a 1kg toy
could hurt the passenger on a jumbo, you'd get some who'd say yes
- but many who'd say no, too.

In short, if it happens (and I hope it doesn't, obviously), then
it probably won't be manslaughter, and proving it be manslaughter
(even if it actually was) would be near impossible.


--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Norman Wells]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:dMu5wD8Y...@perry.co.uk...

If he defers it once, he will be invited to give the dates in the next twelve months
when he will not be able to do jury service because of prior commitments. But he
will be expected to do it in that time, otherwise he faces a fine of £1000 which
will doubtless bankrupt him.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <do6oa8...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman

Wells) wrote:

> > My consultant books appointments a year in advance, having had to
> inform the hospital of his vacation requirements.
>
> Does he book his illnesses and emergencies too?

We normal people have to, why shouldn't he?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:15:06 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> put

finger to keyboard and typed:

>In message <do4oah...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:23:27 on Sun, 24

>Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>

>>>>> The most important things I do at the moment happen on Tuesdays and
>>>>>Thursdays - meetings which I know they won't reschedule just for me.
>>>>
>>>>If they can go ahead without you, you can't be essential to the process.
>>>
>>> Being there is essential to me earning my fee. I can't send someone
>>> else, because they don't have the personal relationships with the other
>>> people in the meeting; without which, attendance would be pretty much
>>> futile.
>>
>>I doubt if anyone is allowed under the law to penalise you for doing
>>something the State and society require of you.
>
>As a freelance, the people who commission my work can't be forced to pay
>me if I fail to deliver a project because I was on jury service.

You can insure against loss of earnings due to being required to do jury
service. As the probability of it happening is relatively low, the cost of
such insurance is low too. If I was in a position where I'd suffer
significantly from having to do jury service again, I'd take out the
insurance. It would be sheer foolishness not to.

[Norman Wells]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:HcA$Uc9hOm...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <do6oji...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:40:33 on Mon, 25 Apr 2016,
> Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>>I've also just been called once, after 40-odd years. Had two cases, each just
>>>>under a week. *Very* interesting experience, I can't see any reason to want to
>>>>avoid it other than compelling personal or business circumstances.
>>>
>>> I agree entirely. My concerns are the extent to which it can be scheduled around
>>> my personal/business circumstances, and also
>>> restricted to on average a week at a time.
>>
>>You are usually called for two weeks, but will likely only be required to sit on
>>just a few of those.
>
> The problem with that, for the self employed, is you would need to cancel all your
> engagements for a fortnight just in case.

Just like anyone else then.

> But the court only pays those half-days you are actually required. Apparently
> using up half a day of your time being called to court and not required to sit
> doesn't get you any compensation - or am I misreading the rules?

If you're not required, you'll be sent home. If you're self-employed and sent home,
you'll have plenty to be getting on with, believe me.

>>You are also expected to make some effort. It's your civic duty.
>
> The court should also make some effort to accommodate the self employed.

It does, but it doesn't let them game the system, or make the world revolve around
them as if they're super-important. They're not.

[Norman Wells]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

news:ace4078Z...@perry.co.uk...

> In message <do6oa8...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:35:35 on Mon, 25 Apr 2016,
> Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>
>>> My consultant books appointments a year in advance, having had to inform the
>>> hospital of his vacation requirements.
>>
>>Does he book his illnesses and emergencies too?
>
> He gives every appearance of not having illnesses, and if he has an emergency then
> his clinic runs N-hrs late.

How wonderful never to be ill.

> Can a juror with an emergency on the day cause the whole court to run N-hrs late
> with no comeback?

The likely outcome is that the judge will adjourn the case until the next day or
whenever the juror is likely to be able to return.

> Occasionally I get an appointment cancelled at fairly short notice, and
> rescheduled a week or two later. Can jurors do that?

Anyone on jury service has to make sure they can attend, so they have to.

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:13:32 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message news:op.ygf01...@red.lan...

>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 21:23:27 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message

>>> news:m3QHeoMg...@perry.co.uk...
>>>> In message <do4fjn...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:54:46 on Sun, 24

>>>> Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>>>> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:47zAt0Ft7PHXF
>>>>> A...@perry.co.uk...

>
>>>>>> The most important things I do at the moment happen on Tuesdays and
>>>>>> Thursdays - meetings which I know they won't reschedule just for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they can go ahead without you, you can't be essential to the process.
>>>>
>>>> Being there is essential to me earning my fee. I can't send someone
>>>> else, because they don't have the personal relationships with the other
>>>> people in the meeting; without which, attendance would be pretty much
>>>> futile.
>>

>>>>> Everyone else has other things to do too. But jury service is a civic
>>>>> duty, and it comes first.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be happy to do jury service for a reasonable amount of time, and
>>>> fitted into a schedule which often has other people relying upon what I
>>>> do[1].
>>>>
>>>> Something during the Parliamentary Summer Recess (aka "Silly Season")
>>>> would normally work well. Although last Summer I was busy preparing some
>>>> documentation which needed to be ready by the time Parliament returned.

>>>
>>> I'm afraid the whole judicial system does not revolve around you, or around
>>> anyone
>>> else for that matter. It doesn't operate for your convenience. As I said, civic
>>> duty comes first.
>>

>> Why should it? The country won't run properly if everyone keeps getting
>> interrupted.
>
> They don't. The chances of you being called even once in your 52 years of
> eligibility are well under 50%.

>
>> They should only take those who have equals in their job who can cover for them.
>
> No-one who is arrogant enough to think himself irreplaceable even for a couple of
> weeks ever thinks he has an equal.

Then you don't leave it up to the individual to decide. Certain types of jobs could be excluded. And it's easy enough to find out of there are others with the same job description in a company.

>>>> Depending on whether or not I had to put off an entire project, I might
>>>> or might not want paying more than my direct out of pocket expenses.
>>>>
>>>> A lot of that latter would of course depend on where the court was - but
>>>> they closed the one ten minutes walk from my house a few years ago. The
>>>> two most obvious alternatives are about an hour away. I bet they don't
>>>> make allowance for travelling time.
>>>>
>>>> [1] eg Last week was "Stalking Awareness Week", which charities prepare
>>>> for at least nine months in advance. Suddenly being unavailable to
>>>> participate at the appointed time would be a significant issue.
>>>
>>> But not insoluble. As they say, cemeteries are full of indispensible people.
>>
>> And if they hadn't have died, great things could have arisen.
>
> But statistically unlikely.

Why do you say that? We're discussing a small number of people who should not have their lives interrupted by jury duty. There are a fair number of people that achieve great things.

[Roger Hayter]

As you have written it, the criterion 3 for unlawful act manslaughter is
quite hard *not* to meet - is there an error here? Google suggests not,
and the defendant merely has to deliberately carry out an act he knows
is unlawful and carries a risk of harm to people.


--

Roger Hayter

[Chris R]

In message <do6m06...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:56:06 on Mon, 25
> Apr 2016, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>
> >> If Lewis were compelled to do jury service mid-season, his minimum wage
> >> expenses won't compensate for his (and Mercedes's) lost points in the
> >> championship (even if Mercedes continue to pay his £40k/week basic
> >> salary) and the result could well result into a combined loss of
> >> hundreds millions of pounds.
> >
> >If called, he could defer his jury service once and do it later. But
> >there's no
> >reason why he shouldn't do it at all, is there?
>

> If they've got a Grand Prix next weekend the other side of the planet,
> can the court service guarantee the case they start sitting on today
> will be over by Wednesday lunchtime?

Interesting: I can't think of a single instance of any public disruption
being caused by a prominent person being being called for jury service. Rock
stars, politicians, big company CEO's, sportsmen, actors? I suppose we
wouldn't necessarily be told the reasons for absence.
--
Chris R

[Roland Perry]

In message <slrnnhstta...@cheddar.urgle.com>, at 21:01:46 on Mon,

25 Apr 2016, Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com> remarked:
>In article <xegSUg5h...@perry.co.uk>,
> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <slrnnhs979...@cheddar.urgle.com>, at 15:08:41 on Mon,
>> 25 Apr 2016, Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com> remarked:
>>>>>Doesn't stalking usually involve things which are crimes already?
>>>>
>>>> No, and that's a significant part of it having its own little bubble
>>>> inside the harassment law. It's not otherwise illegal to leave a note
>>>> under someone's windscreen wiper saying "I know where you live, and one
>>>> day you'll come home to find your cat nailed to your front door", for
>>>> example. [That's a real example, btw].
>>>
>>>Sounds like common-or-garden harrassment to me, if they did something
>>>similar twice.
>>
>> It should be,
>
>So it does usually involve things that which are crimes already, then,
>just ones the police don't bother with?
>
>> but the police don't appear to be capable of realising
>> that unless a specific offence is created.
>
>That sounds like a management problem for the executive, rather than
>a legislative problem for Parliament.

One of the tools the executive has is introducing new legislation,
because that triggers both general awareness, but also specific
training.

>My guess is the police do know it's a crime, but categorise it as "not
>important enough, fob the punter off ASAP". Fixing that is done by
>changing their priorities and/or giving the additional resources;

I'm not guessing, and the front line police give every impression of not
knowing that certain activities are a crime. Some are still stuck in the
1980's and think that the only admissible evidence of domestic violence
is broken bones.

>giving them another charge they won't bother to investigate doesn't
>help.

It precisely does help re-align priorities (and the scarce resource is
funding, so that's saying the same thing twice). Read about Lily Allen,
and decide if what she went through really shouldn't have been dealt
with. And by implication nothing less serious (shoplifting, littering..)
should ever have been investigated instead.

And that's exactly the class of arguments made why those "existing laws"
(before harassment was given its own law) could not in practice be used.

And in round two, why "existing harassment law" wasn't working against
stalkers.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <I92s8xT4...@perry.co.uk>, at 08:43:52 on Mon, 25 Apr
2016, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>> But I would like to do jury service, preferably on a case where I'd had
>>> a hand in introducing the law the [alleged] perp was charged under - so
>>> I can see intimately how well it's working. In particular, if they get
>>> off on a technicality I might go back and plug the loophole!
>>
>>I wonder if your knowledge would make you undesirable as a juror from the
>>prosecution's POV ?
>
>A good question. I'm meeting a senior CPS prosecutor later today and
>I'll ask.

Meeting postponed :(
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <1mma7d3.z3ka2q13jhbc0N%ro...@hayter.org>, at 22:13:13 on
Mon, 25 Apr 2016, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>> Take the recent scares about "drones". Not only are all the ones which
>> hit the headlines already illegal under aviation law; if they managed to
>> bring down a plane landing at Heathrow wouldn't it be an open and shut
>> Manslaughter case?
>
>Absolutely. Drones near aeroplanes are already very illegal. But I
>gather some tedious pressure group is eager to get its own new little
>law specifically about drones.

Airline pilots isn't it? Better tedious than dead.

--
Roland Perry