From: roger@hayter.org
On 21 Aug 2025 at 14:06:06 BST, "JNugent" wrote:
> On 21/08/2025 12:28 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:51:25 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/08/2025 05:20 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 15:07:08 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20/08/2025 12:41 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 01:25:21 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19/08/2025 07:20 PM, GB wrote:
>>>>>>>> [quoted text muted]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He admitted what he was alleged to have said. But he said he didn't
>>>>>>> mean it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Heard that before?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again. The jury made the decision. However sceptical you may be,
>>>>>> 12 of them accepted his version of events.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All 12. In 30 minutes. I take longer to drink a cup of coffee.
>>>>>
>>>>> A LONDON jury, with their own prejudices?
>>>>
>>>> Let's get rid of juries then.
>>>
>>> Or ensure that they are not biased?
>>
>> By what mechanism ?
>>
>> The whole point of having 12 - rather than 2 - is to try and provide a
>> fair spread of opinion to balance out bias.
>>
>> And if 12 out of 12 jurors happen to agree is that bias, or merely a
>> reflection of the fact they don't agree *with you*.
>
> is it disputed that juries and their "preferences" vary geographically?
>
> If it were not the case, the concept ofthe Liverpool jury", widely cited
> at the time of Ken Dodd's trial, could not exist.
Do you think the concept of a "Liverpool jury" was ever valid though? If I
had
been on that jury (as I might well have been only a few years before) I
would
have found it very hard to pass up the opportunity to get Ken Dodd off the
telly for a few years.
>>
>> I will always remember the first time I asked a shopkeeper if they sold
>> only to be told "No, there's no call for it." immediately followed by
>> "Funny, you're the third person today who's asked ...."
--
Roger Hayter
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
