To think that the Justice system is completely f***ed?

Hopefully they will retrial. Otherwise the Palestine Action group will do what they want. They appear to be above the law anyway. Feels a 2 tier system now.

Did the jury actually reach a verdict? There are a lot of people calling for a retrial. Seems the best plan if it’s legally possible.

BTW @TheThinkingEconomist the definition of unbiased is being UNFAIRLY prejudiced against someone. It’s not unfair to deduce that a man who assaults a police officer with a sledgehammer is a POS

You don’t feel anything when you see a man breaking the spine of a woman who’s just doing her job?

Im not sure I’m the one who shouldn’t be sitting on juries TBH. Jurors should have regard for others unconnected to them and understand the impacts of crimes on victims.

Do any crimes that have happened stoke feelings in you.?

BTW you are COMPLETELY wrong about “They have to convince 10 of them”. Completely and utterly. I think for your own sake you should stop talking like you know the British judicial system.

Did you say you’ve served on 2 juries? Terrifying. Truly terrifying.

I can act as emotional as I want when I’m not on a jury. I don’t sit around saying “I feel nothing, and will never feel anything because I may be called for jury service one day”.

I am also disgusted by Wayne Couzens and what he did to Sarah Everard. Is that being “biased”?

I don't feel anything.

He is a complete stranger who has been accused of a crime and charged by the CPS.

What you seem unable to comprehend is that the prosecution has to make their case for the charge to the jury. They have to convince at least 10 of them beyond any reasonable doubt.

But like most people, you react emotionally rather than logically, which is the main reason you would make a nad juror.

What a stupid idea

I don’t think that poster knows what biased actually means.

Then again they think that felonies are a thing in the U.K. so can hardly be relied upon for their good opinion on U.K. law.

Recognising that a man has broken a woman’s spine and being outraged by it is NOT biased. It’s being called a normal human.

Tell me, how do YOU feel about what Samuel Corner did?

And do you think everyone who’s ever served on a jury never had an opinion 🤣 the important part is being able to leave bias behind when serving on a jury, on that particular case ONLY.

Not that you are never suitable for a jury if you dare take a side in a situation where you are NOT a jury member.

Anyway I hope you didn’t pull a muscle with that stretch.

In what way is that poster biased?

Why thank god?

Because I’ve viewed a video of a man breaking a police officers back and find it unacceptable? Therefore I shouldn’t be in a jury room?

Sorry what?

I’ve just seen a still of the sledgehammer man just before the attack doing something which looks very much like a Nazi salute

Peace protestors you say 🤔

It’s very very worrying the verdict after seeing the video!

They planned to break in they had weapons and were intent on doing damage …to property and/or people! No two ways about it.

its all on video and someone was attacked with a sledgehammer how is that ok?

I can’t believe the verdict.

We are in deep trouble as a society !

The Palestine protesters are scary and intimidating.

Try to do what this group did in some other countries and attack the police - well you’d not do it again - you would likely be shot.

Here they got off , unbelievable.

I'm just saying 'if' because I don't know the exact reasons why each juror decided to vote the way they did.

We might find ourselves in a situation where murderers are acquitted simply because the jury “approves” of them. Would Corbyn and Polanski be cheering if the guy had killed the policewoman?

There'd be little chance of a fair trial for the 'agent' who murdered Renee Good either. We've all read about it. We're all part of a community and prone to groupthink- its a quirk of our evolution. Therefore there are 2 separate narratives, each with visual evidence to support, and each with influential highly visible cheerleaders.

Our brains simply can't reliably pull the truth out of these situations. Or at least, not many of us can.

I don't know what the answers are. I do worry about the world ive bought my kids into.

Your analogy is wrong:
Intent means you specifically meant to hit the person.

Yeah you're not wrong. Especially about subjects like this.

Because going by opinions on here, and the instructions given to the judge to disregard their opinions on the Israel / Palestine issue... what was on trial wasn't just whether or not these 'protesters' commited GBH with intent aggravated burglary etc, it was the whole moral issue of whats going on in the ME. Which is a much more complex and nuanced issue than a jury is qualified to decide.

And thats the internet saturated world we all now live in.

Once upon a time jury selection was a thing, and it didn’t go down well (look at the OJ trial)

Why would a fair trial be impossible? It’s a hell of a lot less high profile than other court cases which have gone perfectly fairly

I'm not sure how feasible it would be to screen for neutral opinions. Its become a moral bellweather.
I think this speaks to the society we live in now. I think theres so much information about everything out there, and such divided narratives on real life events, that getting a fair trial in this case was always going to be very difficult if not impossible.
Human minds haven't kept up with the pace of technology. Theres no realistic way of making most people neutral.

Humans invented the internet and this is where its bought us.

Why do you keep saying “if”? Have you not seen the video?

Of course jurors lie, especially the above the law Pro-Pal people lie, and would be thrilled to get on a jury where they can exonerate their fellow blue haired haters

Yeah if that's what went on it's bad. Surely they must screen the jury so only those 'neutral' on Palestine could be included. Though I guess they'd just lie.

so there is more to come with regards to those charges