Stupid people (Vicky Pryce jury discharged)

[Superphil]

And if there was vetting for juries then defence lawyers may use that to claim bias. The system is probably as good as it could be. As for your job, there are employment laws to protect you. What would happen if you had an accident and are off work. If you were sacked then you would use a tribunal (another form of Justice). As for unions, they don't just apply to public sector employees. I sat on a jury last year for the first time and don't think anyone sat there complaining. There was only one public sector employee and one retired chap. I'm self employed but arranged work around it although I appreciate that not everyone can.

Finally, if your employer refuses to give you time off for Jury service, which presumably includes forcing you to take paid holiday, they can be held in contempt of court!!!

If I was ill and off work for any length of time I would be screwed, no sales, equals no pay, no law protects me against that, I'm paid based on what I sell. I knew the risks when I took the job, it goes with the territory.

It would be in my own interest to take Jury Service as holiday, as that is when I get a sales target relief, I wouldn't get target relief it for doing Jury Service, hence I would struggle to hit target, hence I simply couldn't afford to do it any other way than during my annual holiday allowance.

It is a citizen's duty to sit on a jury if called to do so. If anyone was sacked as a result they would have a strong case of unfair dismissal, and the company concerned would have made itself look a complete tit.

I wouldn't be sacked for doing Jury Duty, I'd be sacked for not hitting my target. Employment law, carefully studied by those who employ sales people, I can assure you.

 

[clapham_gull]

It is a citizen's duty to sit on a jury if called to do so. If anyone was sacked as a result they would have a strong case of unfair dismissal, and the company concerned would have made itself look a complete tit.

Wouldn't even get that fair. It's illegal to make someone redundant due to Jury service.

 

[drew]

Wouldn't even get that fair. It's illegal to make someone redundant due to Jury service.

But superphil obviously is working under a Victorian employment contract. He clearly has unfair terms of contract but presumably is happy with the pay!

 

[pasty]

I love the judges comment of "fundamental deficit in understanding"

Come on Judge, just say it.... they were thick as pigshit

 

[Superphil]

But superphil obviously is working under a Victorian employment contract. He clearly has unfair terms of contract but presumably is happy with the pay!

I have a target to hit, it's not flexible, if I was hooked out of work for a three month jury duty, I'd miss my target.

It's not Victorian, its nothing to do with jury duty, as you all say, my employer could do nothing to stop me doing jury duty, but they can do something if I don't hit my target.

I've been in jobs like this for 25 years, I'm not a qualified person, this is how I can earn a half decent wage. I've seen people sacked for missing their targets, I've worked with them, and I was threatened with it once myself. Fortunately I was able to turn things around at that time, don't reckon I'd have a chance in the current climate, struggling as it is. The world of work isn't a level playing field.

My contract is simple, I am required to sell X amount of product, if I don't, then what are the company I work for supposed to do?

If I was to be called to do 2 weeks of jury service I would get it deferred as many times as possible, and if I was under threat of legal action I would take the 2 weeks as holiday to protect my job and my livelihood.

I ask again, if I fail to hit my target, what do you expect my company to do? They're hardly going to say, 'oh never mind Phil' are they?

 

[clapham_gull]

I wouldn't be sacked for doing Jury Duty, I'd be sacked for not hitting my target.

...because of Jury service. In which case you would have a case of unfair dismissal.

Employment law carefully studied by those who work on behalf of those unfairly dismissed.

I do sympathise with your situation though. I've been threatened with things that have no basis contractually or legally. On one occasion told that if I was off sick the day of a strike (which I didn't or have intention of taking part in) unless I was able to produce a doctors note, I wouldn't get paid.

In my situation it was in fantasy land. The only threat being the threat of my employer to be sued. Reality is that the people who tend to issue these threats have no idea about the law of the technicalities of your contract. If they did have a Scooby they wouldn't be doing their current job.

 

[beorhthelm]

I've been in jobs like this for 25 years, I'm not a qualified person, this is how I can earn a half decent wage. I've seen people sacked for missing their targets

was this ever for being on jury service? or otherwise indisposed, say serious illness/accident? honestly?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Even allowing for the maximum protection that employment law might offer, I can see Superphil's point.

You get sacked for failing to meet your targets. You appeal against an unfair dismissal, because the failure arose from the legal obligation to do jury service. You win the Employment Tribunal case. You get compensation from your former employer. There's no obligation on the former employer to take you back. You've still lost your job. Can you get a new job? Unlikely in a world where discreet references are taken up by employers who aren't at all keen on anyone who can't give a satisfactory answer the "why did you leave your last job?" question.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I have a target to hit, it's not flexible, if I was hooked out of work for a three month jury duty, I'd miss my target.

It's not Victorian, its nothing to do with jury duty, as you all say, my employer could do nothing to stop me doing jury duty, but they can do something if I don't hit my target.

I've been in jobs like this for 25 years, I'm not a qualified person, this is how I can earn a half decent wage. I've seen people sacked for missing their targets, I've worked with them, and I was threatened with it once myself. Fortunately I was able to turn things around at that time, don't reckon I'd have a chance in the current climate, struggling as it is. The world of work isn't a level playing field.

My contract is simple, I am required to sell X amount of product, if I don't, then what are the company I work for supposed to do?

If I was to be called to do 2 weeks of jury service I would get it deferred as many times as possible, and if I was under threat of legal action I would take the 2 weeks as holiday to protect my job and my livelihood.

I ask again, if I fail to hit my target, what do you expect my company to do? They're hardly going to say, 'oh never mind Phil' are they?

Which company is this, just so I can avoid them in future.

PS. I would expect your company to say "well done Phil for fulfilling your important civic duty on behalf of the citizens of this our fair and just country, thereby bestowing an important benefit on us all (our company included). Now go and sell stuff"

 

[amexee]

I have a target to hit, it's not flexible, if I was hooked out of work for a three month jury duty, I'd miss my target.

It's not Victorian, its nothing to do with jury duty, as you all say, my employer could do nothing to stop me doing jury duty, but they can do something if I don't hit my target.

I've been in jobs like this for 25 years, I'm not a qualified person, this is how I can earn a half decent wage. I've seen people sacked for missing their targets, I've worked with them, and I was threatened with it once myself. Fortunately I was able to turn things around at that time, don't reckon I'd have a chance in the current climate, struggling as it is. The world of work isn't a level playing field.

My contract is simple, I am required to sell X amount of product, if I don't, then what are the company I work for supposed to do?

If I was to be called to do 2 weeks of jury service I would get it deferred as many times as possible, and if I was under threat of legal action I would take the 2 weeks as holiday to protect my job and my livelihood.

I ask again, if I fail to hit my target, what do you expect my company to do? They're hardly going to say, 'oh never mind Phil' are they?

That is exactly what i would expect them to say. Followed by: "we are obviously aware as we are not stupid, that there are extenuating circumstances and we hope that you do not feel under any pressure whilst on jury service."

If they value you as a salesman then why would they sack you for being unavailable for work through no fault of your own. It would not be in their interest if you are any good.

 

[TheJasperCo]

This whole farce reminds me of the Malcolm in the Middle episode where Lois has jury duty and she keeps deliberately changing her mind until the other jurors decide to sit down and discuss the case properly.

Seriously though, these things are a waste of taxpayers' money and court time. The whole judicial system is something we in the developed world should be proud of, it's what separates us from dictatorships and brutal regimes elsewhere, by hearing the facts of the case and the defence side in front of members of public who ought to come to a balanced and reasoned decision. Now we have incompetent half-wits making a mockery of our penal system, and it's not on.

 

[drew]

Be interesting to know what Superphil's employers would think of a jury that found someone innocent of defrauding them of thousands, just because the members of the jury couldn't be arsed. I very much suspect that, legally, his employers contracts are not watertight but, as Lord Bracknell highlighted, you're caught between a rock and hard place.

 

[Gwylan]

I feel sorry for the people on that jury who were clued-up, followed the case assiduously and were prepared to do their duty accordingly. Now, by the actions of a few people they've been branded thick, it's a bit unfair. We have no idea how many of these people were on the jury, there could have been as many as nine.

We can't help having people less bright on a jury. I was the foreman on a jury when a couple of people insisted on asking the judge the same question that was asked in the VP trial - "Can we consider evidence that was not heard in court?" I had to pass this note to the judge, feeling like an idiot, as I awaited his inevitable answer.

I don't agree with intelligence tests though. The whole point of a jury is that it's 12 people at random. If we start selecting by one criterion or another then we're moving into dangerous territory.

 

[drew]

I feel sorry for the people on that jury who were clued-up, followed the case assiduously and were prepared to do their duty accordingly. Now, by the actions of a few people they've been branded thick, it's a bit unfair. We have no idea how many of these people were on the jury, there could have been as many as nine.

We can't help having people less bright on a jury. I was the foreman on a jury when a couple of people insisted on asking the judge the same question that was asked in the VP trial - "Can we consider evidence that was not heard in court?" I had to pass this note to the judge, feeling like an idiot, as I awaited his inevitable answer.

I don't agree with intelligence tests though. The whole point of a jury is that it's 12 people at random. If we start selecting by one criterion or another then we're moving into dangerous territory.

Exactly, it only take 3 on a jury who are either not capable of considering the facts or can't be bothered and the system falls down. The other 9 may all be very capable but are now tarred with the same brush.

 

[Randsta]

This makes me worry if I'm ever in a trial by jury situation ... people are idiots!

 

[Titanic]

I am surprised and disappointed that the professionals in this case.

"As the prosecuting counsel, Andrew Edis QC, said, this was a jury that didn’t understand its function or the very basic concept of jury trial. Mr Justice Sweeney said he’d never seen such a situation in his career."

You are both highly paid, and supposedly high knowledgeable... it is you duty to explain the proceeding and their responsibilities to the jury.

If anyone failed here, it was the judge and lawyers.

 

[Titanic]

I am surprised and disappointed by the professionals in this case.

"As the prosecuting counsel, Andrew Edis QC, said, this was a jury that didn’t understand its function or the very basic concept of jury trial. Mr Justice Sweeney said he’d never seen such a situation in his career."

You are both highly paid, and supposedly high knowledgeable and experienced... it is your duty to explain the proceedings and their responsibilities to the jury.

If anyone failed here, it was the judge and lawyers.

 

[keaton]

Did no-one read there questions and be reminded of the incredibly stupid questions people asked on the thread about Dunk et al's trial?

 

[Nibble]

Did Jury duty over ten years ago. The jury is supposed to be a fair reflection of society. Cannot disagree, 90 % of them were thick as shit. One even said "He must be guilty, he's greek, they're all dodgy aren't they". Problem is I cannot think of a better system, except maybe tossing a coin.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I would be able to take 2 weeks of it as part of my paid holiday although we are expected to be available when we are on holiday (Mobiles, Blackberries and VPNs and all that).

Assuming it's part of your statutory leave then your company are sailing very close to the wind legally - a good employment lawyer would have a field day with that condition ! The problem with many employment contracts is they contain wholly illegal or at a minimum, unenforceable, clauses. Given what you've told us about your employer I bet your contract has a clause about not being allowed to work for a competitor for say six months after you've left ? Employers put this clause in with the hope that employees don't know their rights - it's actually totally unenforceable.