Just beat Jury Service!! Yayyy!!!

[vetran]

From an auditing angle I think one of those could be quite interesting, though there's the danger it could drag on and on.

the dragging on is what is worrying me.

2 weeks will be fun. 3 - 6 months of disorganisation will be annoying.

[speling bee]

the dragging on is what is worrying me.

2 weeks will be fun. 3 - 6 months of disorganisation will be annoying.

I knew someone who was on the Kevin Maxwell trial.

[d000hg]

It's one thing to talk about Public Duty but the costs of taking time off for Jury Service can easily run into the tens of thousands of pounds - it's just not reasonable to expect someone to take that sort of a hit. The compensation offered for loss of earnings is desultory.

You can't get insurance for jury duty through PCG?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Really? How incredibly selfish.

You believe that people can only be motivated by threats of punishment. I am glad I don't have to live in your head.

Really? How incredibly moronic.

I think that if you read the post you're referring to again, you'll see that I NEVER stated, nor implied, that '... people can only be motivated by threats of punishment.'. In fact, as strident and unabashed voluntaryist such a position would be untenable.

1) I'll not participate in condemning men for victimless crimes.
2) If someone wants my assistance they can ask me nicely.

it sounds to me, as I'd risk kidnap & imprisonment in large part to avoid being complicit in convicting innocent men of victimless crimes, that I'm actually leaning more towards the selfLESS end of the scale.

Either it's you who is selfish in wanting to force your preferences on other people, convicting men for breaking your bulltulip laws - or you're just very confused. If you'd said something like 'I disagree - there is still good that be gotten, or evil to be avoided, by participating...' then perhaps we'd have something to talk about.

I'd prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt, but by pulling out a (not even very inconspicuous) straw man it makes it look much more like classic psychological projection to me.

The sad fact is that you DO live in my imagined head. You live your entire life soaked in the stink of violence, and the belief that men must be motivated by force, that you can't see the wood for the trees.

[BrilloPad]

Well if you do not like the commitments you have to give to the UK feel free to feck off....

If not a court order tying me into the UK I would be off. The future is in the East.

I have been f**ked over by family courts, currently being f**ked over by civil courts and will probably be f**ked over by bankruptcy courts at request of HMRC.

The UK has treated me with contempt and I will behave the same way back.

[TheFaQQer]

1) I'll not participate in condemning men for victimless crimes.

Will you participate in condemning women for victimless crimes?

What do you define as a victimless crime?

[SpontaneousOrder]

You can't get insurance for jury duty through PCG?

I think you get is as standard. Up to 7.5k I think.

[d000hg]

I think that if you read the post you're referring to again, you'll see that I NEVER stated, nor implied, that '... people can only be motivated by threats of punishment.'

Yeah you did. Over and over and over again, despite everyone laughing at you.

it sounds to me, as I'd risk kidnap

nope

& imprisonment in large part to avoid being complicit in convicting innocent men of victimless crimes, that I'm actually leaning more towards the selfLESS end of the scale.

No, you would be selfless by doing something to try and prevent an innocent person being found guilty, BY BEING ON THE JURY.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Will you participate in condemning women for victimless crimes?

What do you define as a victimless crime?

I tend to refer to women as men unless I need to be gender specific. Man kind, etc.

A victimless crime is one...er... where there is no victim Take possession of drugs for example.

In fact attending court and helping to enforce it's illegal status makes people personally responsible for scores of dead teenagers & young men & women each year. When you make proper drugs illegal, people who are determined to get high - as they have every right to do - are compelled to take these crappy legal highs, etc, which are often far worse for them than the 'proper' drugs.

Making drugs illegal causes organised crime, localised gang violence, etc, etc.

That's all besides the point, of course, but it's pretty typical result of inventing a criminal offence that has no legitimate reason to exist.

[TheFaQQer]

A victimless crime is one...er... where there is no victim Take possession of drugs for example.

The general public are the victims in that case.

Even if we accept that drug possession is a victimless crime (and I don't), does that mean you'd be willing to serve on a jury for every other crime apart from that one, or is there a list of crimes that you wouldn't serve on a jury for?