Flybhoy Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: And how do you think Pablo started, ffs? f**k knows mate, I'd ask him but he's pan breed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 23 hours ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said: I've been on a High Court Jury. Most people in there thought that they were there to decide whether the defendant is guilty, not to decide whether the defendant has been proven guilty. I assume that goes for just about every case. That's a subtle but important distinction. You're probably right in what you're saying, but of course unless directed by a judge, the idea of 'proven beyond reasonable doubt' introduces subjectivity. I've never been on a jury, but was called for duty once, before being balloted out. Even during that process though, I've got to say I was a bit horrified by many of those also in the hat. Some joked openly about the pints they'd sunk at lunchtime, while others were relaxed about displaying their prejudices regarding the group the defendant came from. It all left me a bit aghast about the whole bloody process. Having said all that though, I'm sure a panel of judges would have struggled to convict those involved in this case, and despite the contradictions and hypocrisy Involved, I'm therefore glad that a flawed jury got to rule here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 5 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: That's a subtle but important distinction. You're probably right in what you're saying, but of course unless directed by a judge, the idea of 'proven beyond reasonable doubt' introduces subjectivity. I've never been on a jury, but was called for duty once, before being balloted out. Even during that process though, I've got to say I was a bit horrified by many of those also in the hat. Some joked openly about the pints they'd sunk at lunchtime, while others were relaxed about displaying their prejudices regarding the group the defendant came from. It all left me a bit aghast about the whole bloody process. Having said all that though, I'm sure a panel of judges would have struggled to convict those involved in this case, and despite the contradictions and hypocrisy Involved, I'm therefore glad that a flawed jury got to rule here. I'll get the tin foil hat on, but I think the 'justice system' wants the person put away if it has gone that far. Therefore the judge deliberately advises the jury as little as possible about anything. I was amazed at how much we were just left to it. Especially given the extreme lack of evidence. Once you are in the dock, the odds are massively stacked against you IMO. On the plus side, lunch was fucking excellent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: . I've never been on a jury, but was called for duty once, before being balloted out. Even during that process though, I've got to say I was a bit horrified by many of those also in the hat. Some joked openly about the pints they'd sunk at lunchtime, while others were relaxed about displaying their prejudices regarding the group the defendant came from. It all left me a bit aghast about the whole bloody process. It needs remembered Juries are selected basically from a random selection of the public and that also the general public is largely made up of c***s. Can anyone seriously look round a room and think ‘yea I trust this mob to decide if I’d be going to jail for 20 years?’ Edited January 11, 2020 by parsforlife 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 1 minute ago, parsforlife said: It needs remembered Juries are selected basically from a random selection of the public and that also the general public is largely made up of c***s. Can anyone seriously look round a room and think ‘yea I trust this mob to decide if I’d be going to jail for 20 years?’ Indeed. I find myself in agreement with a principle which requires trial by a group of peers, but alarmed by the reality of it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 17 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said: I'll get the tin foil hat on, but I think the 'justice system' wants the person put away if it has gone that far. Therefore the judge deliberately advises the jury as little as possible about anything. I was amazed at how much we were just left to it. Especially given the extreme lack of evidence. Once you are in the dock, the odds are massively stacked against you IMO. On the plus side, lunch was fucking excellent. If you got the choice of a jury or judge only trial, which would you choose? A. If you're guilty. B. If you're not guilty. Having had very little experience of the Criminal Justice system, and being white, Scottish and fairly articulate, think I'd go: A. Jury B. Judge 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted January 11, 2020 Share Posted January 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, welshbairn said: If you got the choice of a jury or judge only trial, which would you choose? A. If you're guilty. B. If you're not guilty. Having had very little experience of the Criminal Justice system, and being white, Scottish and fairly articulate, think I'd go: A. Jury B. Judge You'd be right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 7 hours ago, Flybhoy said: He was guilty of possession of cannabis and cocaine but absolutely 100% not guilty of supplying it, the police inferred he was a dealer and charged him with such, a sentence that carries a custodial sentence almost every time as opposed to a fine and a bit of community service at most for possession, which is precisely the point I'm making about 'No Comment' they trumped up a charge to a very serious one because he naively said he smokes weed and snorts cocaine on occasions with his mates, he's no angel the lad but I made mistakes like that at his age and he certainly is no Pablo Escobar like the police tried to portray him as, thankfully his lawyer did his job in court and the supply charge was dropped and he got a fine for the possession but, he could well have done prison time for naively answering a loaded question with a hidden subtext. So he didn't go down the 'no comment' route and he didn't end up getting done with it then? That's exactly what I'm saying. If he had chosen to refuse the questions he may well have found himself getting convicted. Also, in no way does dealing almost always end up in getting the jail. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Empty It Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 The defence lawyer for Cairney is such a smug wee c**t, every time he pauses and does that face after a witness answers a question should result in a swift slap. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 14 hours ago, Dee Man said: This is all true but what is also true is that the only people who ever reply "no comment" are guilty parties. If you are innocent and tell the truth then it is literally impossible to incriminate yourself. This is just incorrect. There’s a plethora of false confession cases to show that the police can manipulate innocent people into confessing or saying things that would falsely incriminate them. 14 hours ago, Dee Man said: If I was a juror and they repeatedly refused to comment and I didn't like their face, that would be good enough for me to send them down. I’m sure this is a joke but unfortunately it’s the genuine reality for a lot of the general public who end up on a jury, and why it’s so terrifying to think of being falsely accused of something serious. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8MileBU Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 And how do you think Pablo started, ffs? f**k knows mate, I'd ask him but he's pan breed.No he isn’t. He’s working as a gangmaster and recruiting Polish agricultural workers to pick strawberries near Invergowrie.Going back to the Margaret Fleming case - I know a demolition order was served on Cairney’s house in 2017, but has it actually been demolished yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 18 minutes ago, 8MileBU said: No he isn’t. He’s working as a gangmaster and recruiting Polish agricultural workers to pick strawberries near Invergowrie. Going back to the Margaret Fleming case - I know a demolition order was served on Cairney’s house in 2017, but has it actually been demolished yet? Yes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 38 minutes ago, Honest_Man#1 said: This is just incorrect. There’s a plethora of false confession cases to show that the police can manipulate innocent people into confessing or saying things that would falsely incriminate them. A false confession is completely different from an innocent person telling a true version of events. The same applies to an interrogator manipulating you into saying something that didn't happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maicoman Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 Who commits murder and steals that amount of money and gets a life sentence with only a minimum sentence of only 14 year WTF was that all about? He will die inside but hopefully the Scottish Government will get the law changed and she will have to tell what really happened before they let her out 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eindhovendee Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 The defence lawyer for Cairney is such a smug wee c**t, every time he pauses and does that face after a witness answers a question should result in a swift slap.He also sounded like Chic Young so I couldn't take him seriously at all although he was up against it having to defend an arsehole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmeister Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 The defence lawyer for Cairney is such a smug wee c**t, every time he pauses and does that face after a witness answers a question should result in a swift slap.When he did his summing up rather than tear a pretty flimsy prosecution case to tatters he rambled on about 12 Angry Men and Henry Fonda. And what was with the script that he carried his laptop over to the stand when he went to question a witness.Him getting telt by the English Teacher was superb. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 The look in the lawyers face when Cairney was giving evidence was a picture. He may as well have mouthed “for fucks sake” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 The look in the lawyers face when Cairney was giving evidence was a picture. He may as well have mouthed “for fucks sake”He's obviously been advised, quite rightly, to say nothing but was he was convinced that he could destroy the prosecutor by being a smart arse. The prosecutor must have been absolutely delighted when he took the stand. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RH33 Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 5 hours ago, 8MileBU said: No he isn’t. He’s working as a gangmaster and recruiting Polish agricultural workers to pick strawberries near Invergowrie. Going back to the Margaret Fleming case - I know a demolition order was served on Cairney’s house in 2017, but has it actually been demolished yet? To add to this my uncle live there and said he was surprised anyone lived in it as it was as good as delerict. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shandon Par Posted January 12, 2020 Share Posted January 12, 2020 On 11/01/2020 at 09:44, RH33 said: Unless info, the female DI was SOC officer when I had reason to go to police. 8 minutes ago, RH33 said: To add to this my uncle live there and said he was surprised anyone lived in it as it was as good as delerict. Anything you want to confess or are you happy to let those two innocent halfwits rot in their cells you monster? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.