Ok the trial wasn't totally over but the woman she conacted had already been aquitted. I mean I dont feel for the woman because she's clearly a moron and trailer trash scum but I cant believe u can get done for something like that when jury service is forced upon you in the first place. Also is that article on the blow up doll really from the Metro?! That spelling and grammar is atrocious and yet I can't get a writing job for shit. Smh.
I think your lack of knowledge about reporting on the judicial system may be affecting your chances of entering the 'writing' profession
I wasn't comparing crime to football decisions, I said the unnecessary time/money/deliberation is comparable. And I don't have an alternative to jury service except with certain cases such as paedos where they should automatically get a life sentence. But funnily enough I'm not a politican, I just said the system is dated and while I can't think of an alternative at the moment, I can guarantee there will be one in 100 years time and it will make this one look silly. Also do u know anyone who gets the dreaded letter through the post and is happy about it? Didn't think so. Anyway this all started because the thread was 'what shocked...you' and this case shocked me. Im sure I wasn't the only one. Like I said I dont have all the answers but reading it surprised and amused me. Its like your dad asking you to help him in the garden and then moaning at you for doing it wrong.
I assume in this great new world of yours, no-one ever gets wrongly accused of paedophilia? In which case I am very pleased and surprised about the inpending arrival of Utopia.
I think you'll find there are a lot of people who are very disapointed never to have been called for jury service.
I did Jury service at the Old Bailey for a murder case a couple of years ago and would recommend it as a fascinating experience.
We were told not to discuss anything with anybody even our partners and families . This Lady must have been stupid to make contact with anyone involved with the case , indeed we were also told to be careful when leaving the court room . I was surprised how quickly you left the 'world' of the trial and were walking down the same streets as the perpetrators and victims families , I even altered my journey home so as to not come into contact with anyone .
I would be concerned if the system changed , our Jury consisted of a real mix of age ,genders and racial backgrounds which proved vital in our collective understanding of the case . We all took our responsibility seriously and everyone brought a different perspective which added value to the final outcome. For example the 19 year old Juror was able to interpret a particular text message much better than the rest of us whilst the oldest member brought a perspective form the older generation and their fear of walking alone at night in parts of London .
There is no other way this could happen other than through the Jury system.
I also found jury service a fascinating experience, although theer wasn't a great mix of ages on the jury because there were 9 defendants, each is allowed 3 objections to jurors, and it was in their interests to have a young jury so they objected to anyone over about 35. Also it was a 5 week case so the Judge excused anyone who had a holiday booked. At the start there were about 60 potential jurors and there was no one left when they got down to the final 12.
To the one who said my lack of knowledge on the judicial system is affecting my chances of being a writer, I'm not sure what your point is or whether you were being sarcastic but a) no job application has ever asked me for my understanding of the judicial system b) there isnt even any evidence here that I DON'T understand it, I just don't agree with it all and c) I want to be a writer because I can write well, not because I already know everything about everything.
And the paedo thing - who said anything about a new world? Of course some are wrongly accused, I'm not saying everyone accused should die, but eg. I was reading the other day about one who filmed his crime and I thought to myself, why do so many of them film it? But they do, so in those cases they should get the death penalty because there's hard evidence.
Can't believe how blown out of proportion this has got but just to reiterate, that case shocked me. If I was the only one to be shocked by it then Charlton will be back in the Prem in 2 seasons!!
The reason I mention the judicial system and the reporting of it, is because it is a basic requirement for journalism, whether or not you ever end up reporting on it. The fact that you can't see anything wrong with talking about a case outside the court leads me to suspect you have not been through basic journalism training and therefore this is impeding your ability to secure a job as a 'writer'. However, I may have misunderstood your use of the word 'writer' and you would actually like to be an author. In which case I am not sure why you want a 'job' as this. Just sit down and write, the difficulty is getting published, not getting the 'job' of a writer.
I also mentioned peados as you wanted to do away with jurers and simply give paedos athe death sentence. I am pointing out that the entire point of the jury is to work out whether or not someone is guilty. They don't the sentence, the judge alone does this anyway.
One of the (many) reasons for doing away with the death penalty is because someone actually has to do it. And who among men is allowed to take anothers life. There were reported cases back int he day of executioners being addicted to killing as much as those convicted.
And finally I'm not getting the connection to not being shocked that someone went to prison for speaking to defendants whilst being a juror and Charlton getting back to back promotions.
But that's probably just because I obviously have a deeper connection with reality than you do.
I don't know how this turned into debate on my career choices but since it has, I'm a recent graduate trying to figure out how best to utilise my degree and writing (in whatever capacity) seems to be calling me.
The guilt thing - like I said, where it is 100% certain that the defendant is guilty because of eg. video evidence they should be killed, end of. Any adult who has sex with any child under the age of (for argument's sake) 10 should be straight up killed, it really really is that simple. It doesn't matter who does it because he is acting on behalf of the state. Does it matter who locks the door of the cell of someone starting a life sentence? No of course not.
The Charlton promotion thing was another way of me saying I'd eat my own hat so let's make it simple for you; if I am the only person to be shocked that this woman got 8 months, I'd eat my own hat. (btw that's an expression - i don't own a hat)
LOL at being in touch with reality - that's why you're arguing with someone on an Internet forum is it?
I think the point DRF was making was that to be a writer you need to be able to express a view and understand the issues and other side of the argument ie the pros and cons of the jury system, it's history, the alternatives and not assume that all "hard, working people" don't want to do it so it's a waste of time.
In that way you can build a cogent case for and against rather than a, sorry, pub style rant of "kill them all".
You'll get very few people arguing against strict punishment for child abusers but that is nothing to do with the jury system.
And the death penalty is a whole other debate. There are lots of arguments for and against the death penalty for which this is not the place. Understanding what those arguments are however will make you better at building a case and so a better writer.
Good luck with the writing career. Why not write a monthly article for Charlton Life. 400 - 500 words is about right for the internet IMHO. You'll get some criticism, some valid, some jealous and some just very silly (tell me about it) but that can be useful as well. And if you can deal with CL then the real world will be a breeze. Plus you will have a portfolio of work to show an employer.
Chill out chaps... ! JaShea you have ended up taking a bit of an undeserved pounding here, although I have to say I think you might be wise to buy a hat as it wouldn't surprise me if you were the only one who is shocked that she got time.
I think you are looking at this wrong the wrong perspective - i.e. from that of a single, individual member of the jury. Hence your view is "i'm doing them a favour so why should i be held accountable". In my opinion you need to consider it from an alternative angle, e.g. that of the collective general public / society, that of defendants standing trial, or that of the victims of crime, or families of victims of crime. So rather than think about "i'm doing them a favour", think "what would happen if i didn't do this?".
As people have indicated above, the judicial system as it stands is the only way in which trials can be decided. And that necessitates a jury. If we didn't have as fair and democratic judicial system as we do/ as possible, where would this leave society? In short, chaotic and corrupt and we would be a 3rd world country. It is therefore an absolutely essential duty for people to have to do jury service. When something is so essential, compromising or undermining it should be considered a very serious crime. Imagine if you were the family of a murder or rape victim, and you found out the jury had been discussing the trial with the defendant(s)? I think you would be pretty effing miffed to say the least. Similarly, if you were up on trial and you knew your jury had been discussing the case with witnesses, or trying to find things out about you from work colleagues etc, you would fuming.
And what you have to remember is employers are still obliged to pay people when they are on jury service, so for most (e.g. those who aren't self-employed) it is not really that much of an inconvenience.
Having said that the reality comment is a bit harsh!
Thanks. I did Law at A level so I do have a basic understanding of the legal system. And my degree was in Sociology so I know all about balanced arguments and forming conclusions etc. I just didn't expect this onslaught when I responded to the thread to share what had shocked me. So I didn't go into the 'argument' on the best foundation.
I might try writing for the site but Id feel like I'd be under scrutiny now. Plus I never said I was an amazing journalist I just think writing is one of my strengths and when I see a respected newspaper like the Metro publishing an article written so badly it makes me think if someone like that can get a job with the Metro imagine what I could do.
Or maybe I should just give up, admit that no one cares about good writing anymore, join the LOL/apostrophe/Only Way is Essex army and get a job in Asda
JaShea, just let it go over your head mate. honestly, this site is murder for know it alls. its charlton fans writing stuff on an internet forum...we are all geeks here.
Thanks. I did Law at A level so I do have a basic understanding of the legal system. And my degree was in Sociology so I know all about balanced arguments and forming conclusions etc. I just didn't expect this onslaught when I responded to the thread to share what had shocked me. So I didn't go into the 'argument' on the best foundation.
I might try writing for the site but Id feel like I'd be under scrutiny now. Plus I never said I was an amazing journalist I just think writing is one of my strengths and when I see a respected newspaper like the Metro publishing an article written so badly it makes me think if someone like that can get a job with the Metro imagine what I could do.
Or maybe I should just give up, admit that no one cares about good writing anymore, join the LOL/apostrophe/Only Way is Essex army and get a job in Asda
Come on, you made a controversial statement and people disagreed with you. No one died.
As I said if you want to be a writer you will get a lot of criticism. It goes with the territory. You are doing it yourself digging out the metro writer.
How long do you think they had to prepare that piece. Minutes is my guess. They get a Press Association story and they have to quickly re-hash it into a 200 word piece in 10 minutes. Then straight on to the next story. Sure they make mistakes but so would you or I if we were knocking out 50 such articles a day. It's not "all the presidents men" these days.
Thanks. I did Law at A level so I do have a basic understanding of the legal system. And my degree was in Sociology so I know all about balanced arguments and forming conclusions etc. I just didn't expect this onslaught when I responded to the thread to share what had shocked me. So I didn't go into the 'argument' on the best foundation.
I might try writing for the site but Id feel like I'd be under scrutiny now. Plus I never said I was an amazing journalist I just think writing is one of my strengths and when I see a respected newspaper like the Metro publishing an article written so badly it makes me think if someone like that can get a job with the Metro imagine what I could do.
Or maybe I should just give up, admit that no one cares about good writing anymore, join the LOL/apostrophe/Only Way is Essex army and get a job in Asda
Nowt wrong with a job in Asda, get off your high horse. Mate, to be completely fair, you seem to have a bit of an attitude problem, but I guess that's youth for you.
HOW HAVE I GOT AN ATTITUDE PROBLEM?! I EXPRESSED AN OPINION THEN DEFENDED MYSELF AGAINST ACCUSATIONS OF 'NOT KNOWING ABOUT LAW', BEING PLAIN WRONG AND GOD KNOWS WHAT ELSE. Then when I was attacked for a desire to be a writer I jokingly suggested completely giving up and getting a menial job.
This has literally got ridiculous. It's over now, no more, finito
HOW HAVE I GOT AN ATTITUDE PROBLEM?! I EXPRESSED AN OPINION THEN DEFENDED MYSELF AGAINST ACCUSATIONS OF 'NOT KNOWING ABOUT LAW', BEING PLAIN WRONG AND GOD KNOWS WHAT ELSE. Then when I was attacked for a desire to be a writer I jokingly suggested completely giving up and getting a menial job.
This has literally got ridiculous. It's over now, no more, finito
"Attacked"?
When? Did you ring the police? Are you going to defend yourself in court? Are you going to demand the death penalty?
JaShea, just let it go over your head mate. honestly, this site is murder for know it alls. its charlton fans writing stuff on an internet forum...we are all geeks here.
what in the name of rusty lee has this thread turned into, i was under the impression it was light hearted stuff... my recent feeling is disapointed BUT not shocked by this.
what in the name of rusty lee has this thread turned into, i was under the impression it was light hearted stuff... my recent feeling is disapointed BUT not shocked by this.
I'm disappointed that you're disappointed. But I'm pleased that you're not shocked - that would annoy me.
what in the name of rusty lee has this thread turned into, i was under the impression it was light hearted stuff... my recent feeling is disapointed BUT not shocked by this.
I'm disappointed that you're disappointed. But I'm pleased that you're not shocked - that would annoy me.
"Come on, you made a controversial statement and people disagreed with you. No one died."
This. Although I found the whole thing hilarious, but that may be my cynical, black sense of humour.
Oh and one last thing, mistakes in journalists copy are often the result of the sub editing process (which has been shipped off-shore by a number of papers) and not the journalist's lack of ability.
Comments
I assume in this great new world of yours, no-one ever gets wrongly accused of paedophilia? In which case I am very pleased and surprised about the inpending arrival of Utopia.
I think you'll find there are a lot of people who are very disapointed never to have been called for jury service.
I did Jury service at the Old Bailey for a murder case a couple of years ago and would recommend it as a fascinating experience.
We were told not to discuss anything with anybody even our partners and families . This Lady must have been stupid to make contact with anyone involved with the case , indeed we were also told to be careful when leaving the court room . I was surprised how quickly you left the 'world' of the trial and were walking down the same streets as the perpetrators and victims families , I even altered my journey home so as to not come into contact with anyone .
I would be concerned if the system changed , our Jury consisted of a real mix of age ,genders and racial backgrounds which proved vital in our collective understanding of the case . We all took our responsibility seriously and everyone brought a different perspective which added value to the final outcome. For example the 19 year old Juror was able to interpret a particular text message much better than the rest of us whilst the oldest member brought a perspective form the older generation and their fear of walking alone at night in parts of London .
There is no other way this could happen other than through the Jury system.
I also found jury service a fascinating experience, although theer wasn't a great mix of ages on the jury because there were 9 defendants, each is allowed 3 objections to jurors, and it was in their interests to have a young jury so they objected to anyone over about 35. Also it was a 5 week case so the Judge excused anyone who had a holiday booked. At the start there were about 60 potential jurors and there was no one left when they got down to the final 12.
Rizzo
And the paedo thing - who said anything about a new world? Of course some are wrongly accused, I'm not saying everyone accused should die, but eg. I was reading the other day about one who filmed his crime and I thought to myself, why do so many of them film it? But they do, so in those cases they should get the death penalty because there's hard evidence.
Can't believe how blown out of proportion this has got but just to reiterate, that case shocked me. If I was the only one to be shocked by it then Charlton will be back in the Prem in 2 seasons!!
The reason I mention the judicial system and the reporting of it, is because it is a basic requirement for journalism, whether or not you ever end up reporting on it. The fact that you can't see anything wrong with talking about a case outside the court leads me to suspect you have not been through basic journalism training and therefore this is impeding your ability to secure a job as a 'writer'.
However, I may have misunderstood your use of the word 'writer' and you would actually like to be an author. In which case I am not sure why you want a 'job' as this. Just sit down and write, the difficulty is getting published, not getting the 'job' of a writer.
I also mentioned peados as you wanted to do away with jurers and simply give paedos athe death sentence. I am pointing out that the entire point of the jury is to work out whether or not someone is guilty. They don't the sentence, the judge alone does this anyway.
One of the (many) reasons for doing away with the death penalty is because someone actually has to do it. And who among men is allowed to take anothers life. There were reported cases back int he day of executioners being addicted to killing as much as those convicted.
And finally I'm not getting the connection to not being shocked that someone went to prison for speaking to defendants whilst being a juror and Charlton getting back to back promotions.
But that's probably just because I obviously have a deeper connection with reality than you do.
The guilt thing - like I said, where it is 100% certain that the defendant is guilty because of eg. video evidence they should be killed, end of. Any adult who has sex with any child under the age of (for argument's sake) 10 should be straight up killed, it really really is that simple. It doesn't matter who does it because he is acting on behalf of the state. Does it matter who locks the door of the cell of someone starting a life sentence? No of course not.
The Charlton promotion thing was another way of me saying I'd eat my own hat so let's make it simple for you; if I am the only person to be shocked that this woman got 8 months, I'd eat my own hat. (btw that's an expression - i don't own a hat)
LOL at being in touch with reality - that's why you're arguing with someone on an Internet forum is it?
In that way you can build a cogent case for and against rather than a, sorry, pub style rant of "kill them all".
You'll get very few people arguing against strict punishment for child abusers but that is nothing to do with the jury system.
And the death penalty is a whole other debate. There are lots of arguments for and against the death penalty for which this is not the place. Understanding what those arguments are however will make you better at building a case and so a better writer.
Good luck with the writing career. Why not write a monthly article for Charlton Life. 400 - 500 words is about right for the internet IMHO. You'll get some criticism, some valid, some jealous and some just very silly (tell me about it) but that can be useful as well. And if you can deal with CL then the real world will be a breeze. Plus you will have a portfolio of work to show an employer.
I might try writing for the site but Id feel like I'd be under scrutiny now. Plus I never said I was an amazing journalist I just think writing is one of my strengths and when I see a respected newspaper like the Metro publishing an article written so badly it makes me think if someone like that can get a job with the Metro imagine what I could do.
Or maybe I should just give up, admit that no one cares about good writing anymore, join the LOL/apostrophe/Only Way is Essex army and get a job in Asda
when I see a respected newspaper like the Metro
..........
We may well share different definitions of what constitutes "respected", anything published by Associated Newspapers fails the test for me.
As I said if you want to be a writer you will get a lot of criticism. It goes with the territory. You are doing it yourself digging out the metro writer.
How long do you think they had to prepare that piece. Minutes is my guess. They get a Press Association story and they have to quickly re-hash it into a 200 word piece in 10 minutes. Then straight on to the next story. Sure they make mistakes but so would you or I if we were knocking out 50 such articles a day. It's not "all the presidents men" these days.
This has literally got ridiculous. It's over now, no more, finito
what in the name of rusty lee has this thread turned into, i was under the impression it was light hearted stuff... my recent feeling is disapointed BUT not shocked by this.
You could turn this into a very good article.
do you think i should?
"Come on, you made a controversial statement and people disagreed with you. No one died."
This. Although I found the whole thing hilarious, but that may be my cynical, black sense of humour.
Oh and one last thing, mistakes in journalists copy are often the result of the sub editing process (which has been shipped off-shore by a number of papers) and not the journalist's lack of ability.