I think both your points are massive issues.Mr Munch recently did jury service . He was picked for a trial with 4 defendants lasting AT least 12 weeks they said . His company would only “top up “ his allowance from the court to his normal wage level . The issue is you claim the allowance at the end of the trial ! Therefore 3 months with no wages ! The judge excused him . He wanted to do it and asked the court could they give payment during trial every 4 weeks but they wouldn’t. This worries me as whole swathes of the population can NOT afford to attend jury service !
I only found out recently there is NO counselling afterwards and you are left to fend for yourself ! (I’m a therapist ) I have read that is changing.
We were told that if we were required for less than 4 hours a day at court, then we were expected to go back to work that day. The same for any days when we were on a jury but we weren't required in for a certain day, we were told to go back to work.A question re jury service, are you off work the whole time or can you go back between all the stop/starts?
I think that depends on your employer / job and on what notice you get of breaks. If you’re told at 4pm not to be in court tomorrow, work may have had cover already planned. But if there’s a 2 week gap you’ll have to work as work are only bound to give you time off for when you’re actually sitting (I think)A question re jury service, are you off work the whole time or can you go back between all the stop/starts?
I can't imagine how much that must destroy your life to spend so long on a trial. You can't chat about it the way you would a normal work day. You have limited conversation with your fellow jurors and spend so long focusing on the evidence.Scotland, but still UK
'We spent almost two years sitting on a jury'
Four of the jurors from the longest trial in criminal history tell how it is still affecting them.www.bbc.co.uk
She did make it the Constance Marten Show though. Daddy Bear was portrayed as being the sidekick who just went along with what she decided.This pisses me off.
He was there too. He’s responsible too. He’s on trial too!
View attachment 2972622View attachment 2972623View attachment 2972624View attachment 2972625View attachment 2972627
He’s a man, he’s not an aristo and he’s got a common nameThis pisses me off.
He was there too. He’s responsible too. He’s on trial too!
View attachment 2972622View attachment 2972623View attachment 2972624View attachment 2972625View attachment 2972627
He IS a convicted rapist though. You would expect him to be seen as the villain in all this..Corrupting and manipulating a vulnerable, naive aristo and controlling everything. Yet the opposite is true..He's seen as passive and the "underling"...mainly because he declined to take the stand. No wonder the headlines focus on Connie. She's hardly a shrinking violet.He’s a man, he’s not an aristo and he’s got a common name
I don’t know if he’s so clever, he’s just had 20 years in the American prison system to educate him on how to wheedle out of responsibility for his wrongdoings, blame everything and anything else and manipulate the system/situation. Sly maybe.His played a blinder in all of this, bagged himself a millionaire when his got convictions and a low paid job which most women would run from and then played on her trauma from what I’ve read.
Then when arrested been obstructive and non responsive, sat in the dock and continued the facade.
Whereas she’s let her loose jaw and sense of responsibility over him take over and dropped herself further and further into shit on some misguided crusade to protect him.
In her head maybe she sees it as well I’m white and from a privileged background with no convictions whereas his a man of colour with major convictions that could bias the jury whether they’d liked to admit it or not.
She’s not stupid but very naive, if she can’t see that his thrown her under the bus massively by his behaviour to this point which will land her with a hefty sentence (we hope) and him looking like the poor sidekick who followed her lead.
His a very clever man.
A woman failing her own child will always be seen as a worse monsterHe IS a convicted rapist though. You would expect him to be seen as the villain in all this..Corrupting and manipulating a vulnerable, naive aristo and controlling everything. Yet the opposite is true..He's seen as passive and the "underling"...mainly because he declined to take the stand. No wonder the headlines focus on Connie. She's hardly a shrinking violet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?