From: JNugent73@mail.com 
  
 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. 
 > 
 > 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 ...." 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)