Please or to access all these features

News

Russell Brand 🤢🤮 - crunch time

421 replies

KidsDoBetter · 02/11/2026 11:18

Continuing the docky wock

don’t want to jinx it by referring to potentially Jaily Wail

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
Fast800goingforit · Today 13:32

missgoodytwoshoes · Today 12:52

I wonder if in the legal directions by the judge the jury would have been given written guidance on this. The legal guidance must have explanatory guidance. But I’m not a lawyer so don’t know.

Yes the jury get hard copy documents. There is a document called something like "The route to a verdict". The jury get paper copies of all the documents used in evidence in court and of the judge's directions on how to decide whether the evidence meets the legal requirements for the charges.

KidsDoBetter · Today 13:34

Fast800goingforit · Today 13:32

Yes the jury get hard copy documents. There is a document called something like "The route to a verdict". The jury get paper copies of all the documents used in evidence in court and of the judge's directions on how to decide whether the evidence meets the legal requirements for the charges.

Edited

It was posted here in a link above from Sky news yesterday I think.

OP posts:
Wilsonthedog · Today 13:44

Piglet89 · Today 13:23

This weak cognition, poor ability to comprehend and dreadful analytical skills stand out as some of the major reasons juries should be abolished.

I saw it first hand during deliberations when I served on a jury. One jury member clocked the defendant had worn glasses in court and wanted to send a note to the judge to ask whether he always wore glasses or whether (essentially) he was wearing them for court attendance only, to create a certain image. She argued until she was blue in the face that this was (or at least could be) relevant to the question the jury had been asked to determine (ie whether he was guilty of the offence on the indictment)

I tried all angles to explain why it was irrelevant but it was like speaking with a brick wall.

It was absolutely mind boggling.

I vaguely remember something pivotal to do with glasses in Twelve Angry Men. Perhaps she'd watched that in preparation.

eastegg · Today 13:55

Wilsonthedog · Today 13:44

I vaguely remember something pivotal to do with glasses in Twelve Angry Men. Perhaps she'd watched that in preparation.

Yes! Off topic alert. It was the central Henry Fonda character who spots the marks left on his nose by someone who normally wears glasses but wasn’t wearing them for the trial. Raising a doubt about how well he’d seen what he claimed to have seen.

eastegg · Today 13:56

Not that I’ve seen it 5 times or anything…😂

LetsTalkAboutKevinNow · Today 13:57

Klippin · Today 10:18

There’s no chance they’d be able to retrial fairly. It’s all been broadcast worldwide.

Indeed. And with all the podcast/ SM analysis and opinions etc would be hard to find neutral jurors.

KidsDoBetter · Today 14:02

Do RB and LB have to hang around indefinitely in Southwark in case the jury returns with a verdict? I wonder how much notice they get particularly when the defendant has not been detained?

@eastegg do you know?

Jury will be finishing lunch now and presumably returning to the deliberation room.

OP posts:
Whosthetabbynow · Today 14:08

Yes. They have to be within 10 minutes of the court

KidsDoBetter · Today 14:12

Whosthetabbynow · Today 14:08

Yes. They have to be within 10 minutes of the court

Good intel thanks.

OP posts:
Whosthetabbynow · Today 14:14

KidsDoBetter · Today 14:02

Do RB and LB have to hang around indefinitely in Southwark in case the jury returns with a verdict? I wonder how much notice they get particularly when the defendant has not been detained?

@eastegg do you know?

Jury will be finishing lunch now and presumably returning to the deliberation room.

They’re not allowed out for lunch. They have to take lunch in the room.

eastegg · Today 14:22

KidsDoBetter · Today 14:02

Do RB and LB have to hang around indefinitely in Southwark in case the jury returns with a verdict? I wonder how much notice they get particularly when the defendant has not been detained?

@eastegg do you know?

Jury will be finishing lunch now and presumably returning to the deliberation room.

Yes RB has to stay at court. You get very little notice of a verdict, literally a tannoy goes out and everyone scurries along. And ime the tannoy doesn’t tend to say it’s a verdict, which it might not be as parties have to be called back in if it’s a question from the jury. All very nerve wracking for everyone.

LetsTalkAboutKevinNow · Today 14:23

Whosthetabbynow · Today 14:14

They’re not allowed out for lunch. They have to take lunch in the room.

Do they say overnight in a hotel?

KidsDoBetter · Today 14:25

LetsTalkAboutKevinNow · Today 14:23

Do they say overnight in a hotel?

No that’s only in the certain jurisdictions in the US I think - sequestering doesn’t happen here. You’re just instructed not to discuss with anyone or look up news SM etc

OP posts:
Whosthetabbynow · Today 14:26

LetsTalkAboutKevinNow · Today 14:23

Do they say overnight in a hotel?

No. I was told that had been stopped (jury service in London this February)

KidsDoBetter · Today 14:26

Whosthetabbynow · Today 14:14

They’re not allowed out for lunch. They have to take lunch in the room.

God I’d forgotten that bit. We had a canteen at our court though - I thought we went to that as we had during the trial. It was 7 years ago tho.

OP posts:
Piglet89 · Today 14:26

SwedishEdith · Today 13:30

Sounds like she thought she was sitting at the Traitors round table.

Everyone I know who has sat on a jury as said they'd hate to be tried by jury.

@SwedishEdithsame. I’d hate to be unjustly charged with a crime. Given juries try only Crown Court matters (serious crime) I’d hope that’d never happen but, yeah - it was absolutely mortifying.

Even in the face of a qualified lawyer explaining it to her (and everyone else supporting me) she just adopted this kind of obstinacy and wouldn’t back down - for no logical reason. We did actually end up asking the question of the judge. I wanted the ground to swallow me up in that moment.

Terrifying.

Whosthetabbynow · Today 14:28

KidsDoBetter · Today 14:26

God I’d forgotten that bit. We had a canteen at our court though - I thought we went to that as we had during the trial. It was 7 years ago tho.

Just the deliberation room with no phones and a private toilet attached.

Piglet89 · Today 14:29

If professional juror were a job, I’d do it in a heartbeat. Even better if I could have a portfolio career also being a private investigator (I am the nosiest person alive).

Whosthetabbynow · Today 14:30

Piglet89 · Today 14:29

If professional juror were a job, I’d do it in a heartbeat. Even better if I could have a portfolio career also being a private investigator (I am the nosiest person alive).

I’d love that. Can we set up together? 😂

missgoodytwoshoes · Today 14:32

Whosthetabbynow · Today 14:30

I’d love that. Can we set up together? 😂

I’d love that too! The jury members can send notes to the judge to ask for clarification on matters . (I think!) I was a jury member once though we didn’t need to ask the judge anything. My group took the job seriously and were very diligent.

CoconutSwirl · Today 14:32

@KidsDoBetter
@Piglet89
@Harpsichord23

Your accounts of jury experience are as I expected.

When Brand took to the stand, if he delivered one of his rapid high-energy speeches containing elevated diction and multi-syllabic jargon, I believe there will be members on the jury who won't have really understood what he said. There are enough highly intelligent people who are unable to make any actual sense of what he rambles on about. This is fine if the jury use his nonsensical argument against him. The worry is if it works in his favour with the jury.

The other thing I worry about is how easily most people can be persuaded if the argument put forward is strong enough. My boss is a highly intellectual woman, at the top of her game, with a top tier salary. If a member of our team puts forward a case for something well enough, she can be very easily persuaded to agree with them. Then if I, or someone else, talks to her afterwards and disagrees with the first person and puts forward our own strong opposing case, she'll change her mind and be persuaded by us instead. Basically she'll go with whoever convinces her at the time but can then do a U turn upon hearing the other person's points. This is someone highly intelligent whose job involves complex decision making. And all sorts of people are easy to persuade if you try hard enough, in my experience. So it worries me how easily the defence could persuade the jury even if they previously felt persuaded by the prosecution beforehand.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page