On Fri, 13 Nov 2020 at 13:56:55, Mike McMillan
Post by Mike McMillanPost by Vicky AyechSomeone asked who had done it as they had 4 times and otehrs said if
they had and did they like it. It made me wonder if that has been
Called once, two cases. Certainly _interesting_; not sure I'd say I
_liked_ it.
We (in this thread) are probably all in deep trouble - aren't we not
supposed to talk about certain aspects? But since several others have:
First case was a rather nasty rape case. I don't mean it was nasty in
the sense normally shown (or hinted at) in CSU and other dramas, i. e.
excessive violence etc.: it was just nasty in the relationships. Couple
had been together for years - they had a small boy - though IIRR had
never actually married; going through a bad patch, one night she called
the cops, who had no option but to treat it seriously. Basically, my
impression was that it was really sad, and court was not the place to
sort it. Eventually not guilty - I can't remember whether they were
advised to take counselling; IMO things would have been far better if
they'd done so in the first place.
Second case was careless/dangerous driving - or something like that; we
had to choose between two of that sort of thing (or innocent of all of
course). Driver had pulled in front of another car (small 4WD) - IIRR,
to get to a slip road to leave the motorway, doing so in such a manner
that the latter had to break so sharply that it was hit by the lorry
behind. (Driver had just overtaken that lorry and car, then realised he
was closer to the exit he wanted to take than he thought.) Nobody killed
or AFAICR _seriously_ injured, though the back of the hit car pretty
mangled; lorry driver hurt his wrist enough to be in local hospital for
a few days. Trouble is, case was over a year later - that was nobody's
fault, that's just how overloaded the system is - _but_, (a) nobody'd
asked the lorry driver for his version before he went back to Poland,
(b) they'd delayed long enough before asking the mobile 'phone company
if the swerving driver was on the 'phone at the time, that their records
weren't available. Didn't help that the accused was the sort of person
we're programmed to dislike - company director or something, fancy car.
I hope we managed to suppress that. We _did_ find him guilty - I can't
remember, but I _think_ it was the more serious charge. (I think he got
disqualification, retests, and lots of financial penalty - I don't
_think_ any custodial; I don't think that would have helped anyone. But
I can't remember for sure.)
First case took about first week; second case took IIRR three or four
days. I had to attend for rest of second week, but wasn't called.
Applied for and received the compensation available.
Post by Mike McMillanPost by Vicky Ayechsuspended. B thinks it has in Scotland. How would they have it now if
it is 12 people from different bubbles? I do know the speeding course
that you can take if you get a ticket was only online during lockdown
but you can't do juries with zoom, can you?\
Might give an new meaning to the term ‘in camera’ I suppose.
Origin of "camera" is of course just the word for a room - via perhaps
"camera obscura", "darkened room". (Same root as "chamber".) The camera
obscura was a Victorian (?) novelty - a darkened room, often placed in
or by a park, with a pivotable lens/mirror assembly on top; on a sunny
day, this projected an image of the surrounding scene onto a screen
inside, so that those inside the room could see it, unknown to anyone in
the location (allegedly including courting couples; I think the lens
assembly might have been telescopic). Photographic cameras are just a
darkened chamber.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Anybody can garble quotations like that -- even with the Bible... Er... "And he
went and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5). Go, and do thou likewise (Luke 10:37)."