doing my civic duty - by bike

[Peter Clinch]

David Martin wrote:

> Funnily enough, I have been dragged up for jury service in a couple of
> weeks time. I'll phone them and see what the cycle parking is like -
> Any ideas Pete?

I just locked the bike (at the time I think it was the Orbit Crystal
'bent) to some railings outside the court. Since there's police going
in and out all day and Tayside Police are HQ-ed 100m round the corner I
assumed it wouldn't exactly a crime black spot, and indeed the bike had
nothing done to it.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[davek]

Nick Kew wrote:
> So you're being forced to participate in a corrupt charade
> that is based on depriving 12 innocent people of liberty and
> livelihood for an *unlimited* period[1].

If I had work for the notional two weeks I've been called up for, I
would earn enough to outweigh the fine for non-attendance,
notwithstanding the so-called "loss of earnings" pittance that won't
even cover my mortgage. The longer the trial goes on, the more it would
be in my interest to skive.

I tell you, if I go in to that court and I hear the words "McLibel",
I'm out of there faster than you can say "super size me".

> There's only one way to treat that: conscientious non-cooperation.

I'm disinclined to send people to prison anyway, which probably makes
me a very unsuitable juror in the eyes of the court (wonder if they
read usenet?) but perfect in the eyes of the defence...

However...

> In order not to make yourself complicit in the
> greater crime, you must still acquit.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. It's an interesting thought,
though, and I admire your cynicism.

d.

 

[Simon Mason]

"davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've been called up for jury service in October - I already put them
> off once but looks like I won't be able to get out of it this time (not
> that I mind doing my civic duty, but being self-employed there's the
> loss of earnings to consider).
>

I lost shed loads of money. I was in court for 3 weeks and had to turn down
loads of call-ins from work at £100 a go. Thankfully I've not been called up
since then (1990).

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

[[email protected]]

davek wrote:
> I've been called up for jury service in October - I already put them
> off once but looks like I won't be able to get out of it this time (not
> that I mind doing my civic duty, but being self-employed there's the
> loss of earnings to consider).
>
> Anyway, got a pack of info through from them the other day with
> information on allowable expenses, which mentioned 6.5p per mile if you
> travel to court by bike. (Which is considerably more generous than the
> allowance for driving to court.)
>
> Just wondering if anyone has any experience of claiming this - is it
> worth the bother?

it wasn't any bother to claim (other than writing in your daily mileage
on the timesheet) and seems worth doing if only to make utility cycling
appear on the Stats. Southwark crown court (the one at LB) had
sheffields out the front. There were jury only loos which would have
done fine for a stand-up wash but my company have an offive with
showers round the corner so I used that. Most days I took the cheaper
child-hauling bike as the hours meant I could drop DD off at her
pre-school on the way. Luckily my employer simply deducted my
loss-of-earning allowance from my salary (expecting me to claim it
back). Bit more of a pain for you. I sat for 2.5 weeks on a prurient
sounding but ultimately very dull case and we aquitted on the one
charge that we returned a verdict on. Take a good book

best wishes
james

 

[Colin Blackburn]

davek wrote:

> If I had work for the notional two weeks I've been called up for, I
> would earn enough to outweigh the fine for non-attendance,
> notwithstanding the so-called "loss of earnings" pittance that won't
> even cover my mortgage. The longer the trial goes on, the more it would
> be in my interest to skive.
>
> I tell you, if I go in to that court and I hear the words "McLibel",
> I'm out of there faster than you can say "super size me".

The McLibel trial had no jury. McD's managed to persuade the judge that
the issues were far too complex for ordinary mortals---thus sparing them
two years of their lives. ObCycling: I believe the McLibel two both
cycle regularly.

Colin

 

[Tony Raven]

davek wrote:
>
> I tell you, if I go in to that court and I hear the words "McLibel",
> I'm out of there faster than you can say "super size me".
>

Unfortunately the reality is much more boring and trivial than the TV
would lead you to believe. Some people do end up on high profile or
interesting cases, but very few.


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Peter Clinch]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Unfortunately the reality is much more boring and trivial than the TV
> would lead you to believe. Some people do end up on high profile or
> interesting cases, but very few.

I spent two days waiting for overrunning cases to finish and then not
get selected for the final jury, so total waste of time (except I
remembered to buy a book on the way and it was a very good one (The
Bridge, Iain Banks), so: Top Tip! Take a good book with you for the
waiting around elements) but it could have been worse, they could have
selected me. Since the case looked to be a fairly unpleasant bit of GBH
between rather unpleasant individuals I think I was well out of it not
learning the gory details. I'd sooner put up with boring than violence.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[davek]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Unfortunately the reality is much more boring and trivial than the TV
> would lead you to believe.

Fortunately, I've heard enough from friends and colleagues who have
done jury service to harbour any illusions on that score.

d.

 

[davek]

[email protected] wrote:
> it wasn't any bother to claim (other than writing in your daily mileage
> on the timesheet) and seems worth doing if only to make utility cycling
> appear on the Stats.

That's another vote for the "use it or lose it" theory, and that's
convincing enough for me - though I also take Pete Clinch's point about
the administration costs. (It's about 5-6 miles to court from home -
guess I'll have to take the long way round to make it worthwhile for
the taxpayer!)

> Take a good book

I've been meaning to read Bleak House for ages - could be a good
opportunity.

d.

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:12:44 +0100, Simon Mason wrote:

> Thankfully I've not been called up
> since then (1990).

My wife was called up only once (mind you, she'd only had British
citizenship for about a year [1]). She took great pleasure in telling them
she was emigrating to Australia the week before her attendance date. At
least the guy she spoke to had a sense of humour, "Was it something I
said?" was his only question.

Graeme

[1] I wonder if it's like the Premium Bond theory (you're more likely to
win if you buy/sell a few Bonds), i.e. you're more likely to get picked if
you change nationality? Maybe they think "Oh this one's new to the country,
they won't have had time to be corrupted by those shirkers on
uk.rec.cycling"

 

[Nick Kew]

davek wrote:

>>Take a good book
>
>
> I've been meaning to read Bleak House for ages - could be a good
> opportunity.

That's a great book! But the central case won't look all that
relevant to a jury trial: it's all about civil law destroying
lives (which it still does). Two lawsuits (the second is a
contrast to the main one - a harmless rich mens game), no jury.

The most interesting perspective is just how much didn't change.
When Dickens wrote Nicholas Nickleby, it helped end the scandal
personified by Mr Squeers and Dotheboys Hall within a few years
of publishing. Bleak House did no such thing, the legal
establishment was - and still is - far too firmly entrenched and
invulnerable to criticism. A big game of arcana, where the
objective is to get one up on your old sparring partners, and
deliver the Right result for your Best Clients.

--
Nick Kew

 

[Peter Fox]

Following on from davek's message. . .
>I've been meaning to read Bleak House for ages - could be a good
>opportunity.
Dombey and Son would be more appropriate.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the porcelain business went down the pan
[email protected]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

 

[Arthur Clune]

Graeme Dods <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> My wife was called up only once (mind you, she'd only had British
> citizenship for about a year [1]).

Do you have a be a citizen then? I thought you just had to be on the
Electral Roll?

Arthur


--
Arthur Clune

 

[Dave Larrington]

Also sprach Arthur Clune <[email protected]>:
> Graeme Dods <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> My wife was called up only once (mind you, she'd only had British
>> citizenship for about a year [1]).
>
> Do you have a be a citizen then? I thought you just had to be on the
> Electral Roll?

"Jurors are chosen at random from the electoral roll to serve on a jury"
sayeth the CJS' web site.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
The thing about Tony Parsons, though, the defining aspect of his
personality, is that he is a complete ****.

 

[Roos Eisma]

Graeme Dods <[email protected]> writes:

>My wife was called up only once (mind you, she'd only had British
>citizenship for about a year [1]).

Off on a sideline: what was her original citizenship, did she lose that,
and why did she take British citizenship?
As it looks like I'm staying here I wonder occasionally if there is any
point in formalising that.


Roos

 

[soup]

Bertie Wiggins wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2005 09:53:23 -0700, "davek" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I've been called up for jury service in October - I already put them
> > off once but looks like I won't be able to get out of it this time
> > (not that I mind doing my civic duty, but being self-employed
> > there's the loss of earnings to consider).
>
> If you manage to get yourself charged with a criminal offence or
> sectioned under the Mental Health Act, IIRC, you can get out of jury
> service. I think that nuns and monks are exempt too.


Or indeed anyone who has went to the doctor and said "this will cause
untold mental suffering" [1]gets an exemption form and bingo.

[1]Can't remember the exact wording but you (TINY) have to have a doc
that, whilst not easily manipulatable, will let you (TINY) think they
are easily manipulated.

--
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value. The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

yours S
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

 

[Peter Clinch]

soup wrote:

> Or indeed anyone who has went to the doctor and said "this will cause
> untold mental suffering" [1]gets an exemption form and bingo.

So is bingo felt to be good for those undergoing mental suffering?

(coat already collected...)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Nobody Here]

On 31 Aug 2005 14:36:08 GMT, Roos Eisma wrote:
> Graeme Dods <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>My wife was called up only once (mind you, she'd only had British
>>citizenship for about a year [1]).
>
> Off on a sideline: what was her original citizenship, did she lose that,
> and why did she take British citizenship?
> As it looks like I'm staying here I wonder occasionally if there is any
> point in formalising that.

We never have in 20 years. Although I grew up in Oz and have never
lived there I have New Zealand citizenship, my parents never took
Australian citizenship and have since retired back to NZ. My
wife is an Australian and the kids (all born here in the UK) have
New Zealand citizenship, none of us has taken British citizenship
in all that time.

However, that's not for any reason other than we haven't bothered.
Because we are all Commonwealth citizens, and we are also permanently
resident, we are as fully entitled to everything here as a British
citizen. That probably doesn't apply to non commonwealth residents,
though. Also, I can see changes in the rules coming which may force
us to do something in the next few years. However, (and cynically)
we are all white and my wife and I have lost our native accents to
a great degree - I've not been picked out in years and my wife very
rarely, more often than not as being a sothern lass rather than being
foreign. Also, I think these days we have to take an English test
to get citizenship which I'd find a bit irritating, being able to
speak it better than many of the Anglo-Saxon natives

--
Nobby

 

[Dave Larrington]

Also sprach Roos Eisma <[email protected]>:

> Off on a sideline: what was her original citizenship, did she lose
> that, and why did she take British citizenship?
> As it looks like I'm staying here I wonder occasionally if there is
> any point in formalising that.

TWFKAML - currently German - says she is going to switch to being a BRITON
in the not-too-distant future, since it irks her to be obliged to pay taxes
to a collection of time-wasting babbling idiots^w^w^w^w^w^w government for
which she is not permitted to vote.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of
the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and
credulity encourages.

 

[Mike Causer]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:52:17 +0100, Dave Larrington wrote:

> TWFKAML - currently German - says she is going to switch to being a BRITON
> in the not-too-distant future, since it irks her to be obliged to pay
> taxes to a collection of time-wasting babbling idiots^w^w^w^w^w^w
> government for which she is not permitted to vote.

I the same problem in the USofA had, where the door-knocking politicians
very confused would become when their position on Taxation Without
Representation asked was. Rather than them join, I to the Continent of
Drinkable Beer return decided.


Mike