Archive for  
 


        Forum Index -> The Midden
SengaMcp

Trial by judge

The first trial without a jury is to be held in England soon. Ostensibly because the accused are so 'connected' that jury tampering is the reason why their trial has been abandoned three times already.

This worries me. The new trial will be held in front of one judge only and who's to say he can't be got at as well? If it were to be held in front of a panel of judges I might be a bit happier. It brings me back to one of my favourite bees, this is what comes of being a subject instead of a citizen. Our rights are protected by custom only, there's no charter, unless you count Magna Carta. Whoever these men are, whatever their crime, they are entitled to trial by a jury of their peers and setting that aside opens the door eventually, to more such. Suspected terrorists may be next, and then who?

How can we be sure that justice is done and seen to be done if trials are to be held in camera before one fallible man?
Neil

Ah agree. Anither nail in the coffin o oor freedoms, an anither reason for Scotland tae brak awaa fae the increasinly authoritarian neighbour tae oor sooth.
dosser

I can see some sense in a trial before a panel of judges - or even professsional jurors. But one judge....... No way.

Do you remember this load o' bollocks by Sir Bernard Caulfield during the Jeffrey Archer libel case. (Described by Ludovic Kennedy as possibly the most eccentric summing up by a british judge ever.)

........of Mrs Mary Archer:

“Has she elegance? Has she fragrance? Would she have, without the strain of this trial, radiance? … Has she been able to enjoy rather than endure her husband Jeffrey? Is she right when she says to you — you may think with delicacy — ‘Jeffrey and I lead a full life’? … Is he in need of cold, unloving, rubber-insulated sex in a seedy hotel?”

The jury gave Archer £500,000, and Caulfield added on costs of £700,000. In 2001, Lord (he had been ennobled by Prime Minister John Major in 1992) Archer got four years for perjury at the trial, and he eventually had to pay back £1.5 million.


Noo, wance-upon-a-since-a-when, Ah wiz goin'oot wi' a lady solicitor whit wiz best pals wi' some o' Sir Bernard Caulfield's femmly and Ah met wi' some o' them fae time tae time. (But no' the man himsel', Ah'll admit.)Thon plonker wiz a joke within his ane femmly. He hud a thing aboot wummin. He yased tae weep openly and uncontrollably at weddings. He wiz fuckin' nuts!

Elsewhere Ah've read o' a judge wurkin back in the fifties. This judge's clerk yased tae huv tae keep a spare pair o' breeks handy cause the judge yased tae ejaculate when handin doon a sentence o' hangin' or birchin'......

They're pervertit, prejudiced and badly flawed shites, jist like the rest o' us. It wid be madness tae let any wan o' us decide anyone else's guilt or innocence, and it's madness tae allow any wan o' they.
dosser

dosser wrote:
INoo, wance-upon-a-since-a-when, Ah wiz goin'oot wi' a lady solicitor whit wiz best pals wi' some o' Sir Bernard Caulfield's femmly


Incidentally, efter ra bitch ditched me, the last Ah heard o' thon lady solicitor wiz on ra news. She wiz involved in tryin' tae get a appeal thegither fur hur client on ra grounds that ra judge hud fawn asleep durin' the trial.
dosser

Ah've been tryin' tae find the case referred tae above involvin' ra cruel and evil, twa-timin' Ingurlish lawyer wummin whit ditched me in favour o' a Liverpool barrister and didnae return nah collectit wurks o' Swinburn or anither book aboot Marc Chagall or mah cigarette lichter, but Ah cuidnae find it.

However, Ah did find this. It seems it's no a' that uncommon fer a judge tae fa asleep.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3415739.stm
notanimby

On a slightly diffrint tac, a formur colleague ov mines's faithur wizza judge, he wiz ra judge that tellt ra polis and ra DPP that thur case against Colin Stagg furra Rachel mique; murder wizza lot of pish and throo it oot.
Dunno if he nodded aff onra job though
ayrshiretattie

notanimby wrote:
Rachel mique; murder

Shocked
Aye, very good nota. Gonnae no bluddy dae that!!
notanimby

ayrshiretattie wrote:
notanimby wrote:
Rachel mique; murder

Shocked
Aye, very good nota. Gonnae no bluddy dae that!!


OOOooooooooooops sorry ah heed tae learn tae proof read before postin, fingur must huv slipped aff ra l ontae ra ;
Heidy

Naw! Like ra fuggin judges ye fell asleep...........................or ejaklaytit! Laughing
notanimby

Heidy wrote:
Naw! Like ra fuggin judges ye fell asleep...........................or ejaklaytit! Laughing


Come Again..............
AG

dosser wrote:
' ra cruel and evil, twa-timin' Ingurlish lawyer wummin whit ditched me..'


Ah've been a bit busy tae get roond tae readin this threid afore now Doss.

But ah ken a fella whit kens anithur fella whit could mibbae introduce ye tae anithur no bad lookin <coff> kwalyfyed wummin legul profeshnil. Ah hear tell hur bark's wurse than hur bite.

Ye'd huvtae convince hur thit ye wur much mair desiribul than Heidy tho but.
dosser

If she wuild jist put oan a pair o' sunglessis so's she wisnae blindit by the sunlight bouncin' aff o' Heidy's heid.........

        Forum Index -> The Midden
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum