Jury Service

HenryBG 4 March 2012 123

I was greeted on Friday afternoon by an unwelcome-looking summons-like document in my mail.

“Oh no”, I thought, “they’ve finally caught up with me for….that DUI I skipped 20 years ago in Victoria by using erm, a creative ID?”, nah, not possible.

Open it up – I’ve got #$@*ing Jury Service for 3 weeks. They’ll pay “an allowance”, they say…

What I need to know is this:

1/ Will the allowance cover my company’s loss of $1400/day for me being stuck in a room of slow-moving lawyers doing %$@#-all to stop a limp-wristed magistrate from giving some scumbag druggie his 35th “chance”?

2/ Please give me the best strategy for getting out of this, because it’s just not going to work. Not for me, nor for anybody else. Pretty please.

3/ How much is the contempt-of-court fine for mouthing off at the slow-motion lawyers/magistrates for being parasites fleecing the public with their time-wasting bollocks? (If it’s less than a couple of $,000, it might be worth it, if it gets me kicked off quick smart).

Tags

What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
123 Responses to Jury Service
Filter
Order
« Previous 1 5 6 7
ungruntled ungruntled 11:09 am 30 Apr 15

I’ve served on 3 juries. I regarded it as a duty, a responsibility & a privilege.

Interesting, that you perceive your value in terms of the money you earn. In this case it seems to have

addled values. Or was it that the values were addled, causing the choices and the attitudes expressed

here?

My late father was bombed out in Darwin & continued repairing communication lines while a Japanese

bomber was strafing after him & anyone else who moved.

He remained an honest & honourable man all his days & made a good income. I am appalled that your approach to community & duty is what has resulted.

Can I suggest you grow up and endeavour to become a whole & responsible human being.

potatosalad potatosalad 9:32 pm 22 Mar 12

While I agree that HenryBG could have approached this with a little more tact, people seem very very petty for making such a big deal about the $1400. My last employer charged a daily rate of $1650 for my services and paid me less than $100k, and it made perfect sense because they materials costs and the costs of the people employed above me and around me etc. were reflected in those rates. Therefore, if I had gone off to jury duty for a few weeks, then yes, it would have cost my company a fortune covering those losses and no I wouldn’t have been an overpaid jerk.

HenryBG HenryBG 4:39 pm 16 Mar 12

Mr Evil said :

HenryBG and Passy should hook up sometime and have a chat!

I’ve got one of Passy’s mates in the family. Despite their far higher average IQ, there is something seriously broken in the way they lefties think which prevents them from appreciating some aspects of reality.
They’re basically wishful-thinkers.

Mr Evil Mr Evil 3:52 pm 11 Mar 12

HenryBG and Passy should hook up sometime and have a chat!

bethybobs bethybobs 3:35 pm 11 Mar 12

I was summoned for Jury Duty in the February batch. But I never had to serve. My name wasn’t called out for three of the trials and in the fourth the lawyer objected to me.
I did hear that a friend’s father was summoned and when they read out the list of witnesses he got up and said he knew one of them. The next trial he got up and claimed he was a third cousin of the accused. So there are ways to get out if you don’t mind lying under oath. Not what I personally recommend.
Also if you are going away for work or other reasons during the trial period you can try and get out of it. But it doesn’t always work if they are running out of jurors.
I do think it is unfair that Jury duty can be a financial hardship for many people. I know if I had to serve since I have a commission based job I would have been left significantly out of pocket. While others get full salaries while serving.
On another note don’t walk around the courts during business hours if you are trying to avoid Jury service we were short jurors on the last trial and they had to go pull a random from the street. Now that really sucks. Imagine going for a lunch break and failing to return because you are stuck on a 20day jury. Then again for all those saying they would love to serve maybe you should camp outside.

Stevian Stevian 8:54 am 08 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

I don’t recall doing any bragging whatsoever – but it is interesting that you interpret my plain statement of facts as such – I suspect a psychologist would diagnose your misinterpretation as a fairly straightforward case of envy.

And that same psychologist would diagnose you as afflicted by a Narcissistic Sociopathic mental disorder, since your tale is one great tissue of lies as you seek to make yourself the centre of attention

Tooks Tooks 8:05 am 08 Mar 12

Just ignore the summons. What are they gonna do about it?

toriness toriness 7:22 am 08 Mar 12

nevermind being handed a summons at your front door – one can be simply walking the streets of civic and be called upon to perform our civic duty!!

i might spend more time walking around the law courts in hope of finally getting jury duty 🙂

colourful sydney racing identity colourful sydney racing identity 2:59 pm 07 Mar 12

Jim Jones said :

HenryBG said :

Not many of the benefits of our civilisation were provided by poor people.

It must really burn you inside that you’re too poor to afford a couple of weeks away from your meaningless wage-slave existence.

/thread

Jim Jones Jim Jones 2:56 pm 07 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

Not many of the benefits of our civilisation were provided by poor people.

It must really burn you inside that you’re too poor to afford a couple of weeks away from your meaningless wage-slave existence.

HenryBG HenryBG 2:49 pm 07 Mar 12

Watson said :

HenryBG said :

Watson said :

I turned on 666 today and the first sentence I heard was: “Research has shown that wealthy people are more inclined to break the law because they have a real sense of entitlement.”

OR, people are wealthy because they are less inclined to consider others and more likely to take risks and trample a few (poor) people underfoot in the process.

Not many of the benefits of our civilisation were provided to poor people.

Sense of entitlement x100.

The give-away there is the meaningless leftie jargon – “sense of entitlement” is a verbal weapon in the leftie war against everybody they suffer envy of.

They do not let facts intrude and that’s what makes believing in this “sense of entitlement” a text-book example of “political correctness”.

Let me give you a fact from the real world: Alexander Fleming was rich. Poor people all over the world live much longer and healthier lives as a result of Alexander Fleming’s work.

And there are millions more examples of how poor people all over the world today benefit from what they have been given by the world’s productive minority.

If you want to know what happens when over-educated do-nothings end up in charge – look no further than Soviet Russia – a sick, sick society run by people who were consumed with envy and inferiority complexes.

Incidentally – it is *extremely* poor form to change somebody else’s words and to still pretend you are quoting them.
Presumably you learn this sort of ill-mannered dishonesty in your soft-as-jelly University Arts degrees.

HenryBG HenryBG 2:41 pm 07 Mar 12

colourful sydney racing identity said :

HenryBG said :

I am rich and I hate the poor

Well, if I were rich I wouldn’t be living in Canberra and I wouldn’t bother working, but, generally, yes – the poor get paid to do nothing, using my taxes.
I’d be much happier if that money was handed over on condition they get themselves neutered first.

Watson Watson 2:37 pm 07 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

Watson said :

I turned on 666 today and the first sentence I heard was: “Research has shown that wealthy people are more inclined to break the law because they have a real sense of entitlement.”

OR, people are wealthy because they are less inclined to consider others and more likely to take risks and trample a few (poor) people underfoot in the process.

Not many of the benefits of our civilisation were provided to poor people.

Sense of entitlement x100.

colourful sydney racing identity colourful sydney racing identity 2:26 pm 07 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

I am rich and I hate the poor

HenryBG HenryBG 2:07 pm 07 Mar 12

Watson said :

I turned on 666 today and the first sentence I heard was: “Research has shown that wealthy people are more inclined to break the law because they have a real sense of entitlement.”

OR, people are wealthy because they are less inclined to follow rules and more likely to take risks and embrace change.

Not many of the benefits of our civilisation were provided by poor people.

HenryBG HenryBG 2:00 pm 07 Mar 12

Thumper said :

Without getting into the intricate ins and outs of each weapon, I couldn’t hit a barn door with an SLR but was pretty bloody good with the Austeyr.

Same with me and the M16 – I was amazed at how little you needed to concentrate to hit target after target after target. It aimed itself.
The SLR needed vastly more concentration, but in my book was well worth it for the effect. Especially at nice long ranges – with the M16, once the bullet started to drop, that was the end of it, but with the SLR you could very confidently aim the dropping bullet.

Thumper Thumper 1:26 pm 07 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

Disinformation said :

As for ballistic comparison, the SS109 round was designed to try and replicate the performance of the 7.62, which required a different center of mass, longer projectile and more aggressive rifling rate of twist compared to a standard .223.

The tighter rifling just compensates a bit for the lack of mass. It’s not in and of itself a good thing.

The SLR’s projectile gave you 840m/s X 25.4g = 21336N.
The Steyr gives you 11446N, not much more than half. This gives you less punch and less range, and increases the value of whatever cover is available to the enemy.

As I see it, the decision was entirely political – the shiny bums in Canberra got it into their heads that a/ they could deliver a much greater *quantity* of 5.56 rounds using the same transport and b/ this silly idea of “compatibility” with our allies.

We worked alongside our allies in Vietnam – and the thing the bad guys learnt in Vietnam was that if somebody was firing at you with an M16, just duck behind a wall or a tree. But, if an Aussie was firing at you with his SLR, forget about that wall or tree being useful protection and get the $#@% out of there.

Yes, the M16 was great on the range – its lightness and gentleness meant you could get off a very high rate of fire (of single, accurate shots) compared with the SLR. But the range isn’t the field, and in the field, the SLR proved itself a great morale-breaker against the enemy. Even an enemy in decent cover could be panicked to move by a well-placed meaty ricochet, not something that works very well with the lighter calibre.

Without getting into the intricate ins and outs of each weapon, I couldn’t hit a barn door with an SLR but was pretty bloody good with the Austeyr.

The latter is also incredibly light compared with the SLR, which for a little bloke like me was a bonus.

Having said that, an SLR could just about penetrate anything.

Henry82 Henry82 1:21 pm 07 Mar 12

Watson said :

And hope you never have to appear before a jury…

The keen ones would balance out the unemployed. I’d rather 50% of people don’t want to be there, than 100%

HenryBG HenryBG 1:16 pm 07 Mar 12

Disinformation said :

As for ballistic comparison, the SS109 round was designed to try and replicate the performance of the 7.62, which required a different center of mass, longer projectile and more aggressive rifling rate of twist compared to a standard .223.

The tighter rifling just compensates a bit for the lack of mass. It’s not in and of itself a good thing.

The SLR’s projectile gave you 840m/s X 25.4g = 21336N.
The Steyr gives you 11446N, not much more than half. This gives you less punch and less range, and increases the value of whatever cover is available to the enemy.

As I see it, the decision was entirely political – the shiny bums in Canberra got it into their heads that a/ they could deliver a much greater *quantity* of 5.56 rounds using the same transport and b/ this silly idea of “compatibility” with our allies.

We worked alongside our allies in Vietnam – and the thing the bad guys learnt in Vietnam was that if somebody was firing at you with an M16, just duck behind a wall or a tree. But, if an Aussie was firing at you with his SLR, forget about that wall or tree being useful protection and get the $#@% out of there.

Yes, the M16 was great on the range – its lightness and gentleness meant you could get off a very high rate of fire (of single, accurate shots) compared with the SLR. But the range isn’t the field, and in the field, the SLR proved itself a great morale-breaker against the enemy. Even an enemy in decent cover could be panicked to move by a well-placed meaty ricochet, not something that works very well with the lighter calibre.

dpm dpm 12:55 pm 07 Mar 12

poetix said :

Watson said :

I had a whole rant prepared about community spirit etc, but this is RA so I’ll just move on.

I come for the news but I stay for the rants. Don’t disappoint please. Particularly if it’s that rarest of things, a (mildly) left wing rant.

Just out of interest, do they arrange childcare for people with young children who do jury duty? (That’s a general question not for Watson particularly.)

People who have to look after kiddies are one of the exemptions:
http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/section/view/260#applicationstobeexcused

« Previous 1 5 6 7

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site