"consent" on channe 4 last night -am stunned there isnt a thread

[CODNoMore]

werent the JUry terrible?
theri deliberations were POINT Less and not based onevidence at all
if we deliberated like that in cout we'd be chucked out
intersting how the women were (with one guardian reader excepetion- hooray to her)the most veneomous and unforgiving. God that lot would haev been shaving heads of collaberators in ww2

and hte Indian woman was useless as she coudltn get away fromt eh fact that the woman had had sex full stop.

is it on again>>>>>>>>>>

erm it was a one off
god did nO ONE see it
ti was compelling
i stayed up till 11 30 and hten fell asleep btu sky plussed the verdict

the advocates were very good
better than in rl ime

bum.....had meant to sky plus it, but got distracted.....

sometimes they repeat stuff on more4

ohg od well have a look to see if tis on more 4
well roth a watch

if it was on at 9 pm we were all watching Big Brother

pmsl!!!

sigh

s'alright cod, wasn;t expecting you to check the channel guide for me

I didnt see it Cod but read review of it today about behaviour of jurors however not surprised having done jury duty twice

imagine when i was teahcer, a coleague of mine turned up tot he crown court to find the thickest shittiest kid ( ex pupil) there with ehr on jury service

I know at least one person who, dare I say it, was not equipped to sit on a jury hearing a very series case.

I remember thinking bloomin' eck I'm glad its not me in the dock

serious

Was too tired to see it. I have no faith in the jury system at all. If i was in trouble I would rather be tried by magistrates - much more sensible or a professional jury. There are far too many stupid people out there to risk having them on a jury! Was it worth watching?

ohi agree
they are veeeery sensible
sewiussly you do haeva point

I've never met a sensible magistrate yet.

have some celery cod

I saw it and was glued, had to keep pinching myself to stay awake but it was worth it as it was really good, and yes the jurors were bloody awful.

at last! well done birdy pants!

arf
that was sewuiss

am very sensible when on the job

yes yes but what about when you're at work

I so agree about the jurors: the women were especially disappointing (with exception of guardian reader, I agree). A depressing programme

the veneomous jade a like was terrible

"Finally, Consent (Channel 4, Sunday) re-created a genuine rape trial using real policemen, lawyers and judges, and a jury compiled from the electoral register. The jury were, frankly, terrifying. They fixated on the oddest things (?He [the rapist] was a rower, so you wouldn?t see the bruises.?) They eventually acquitted him ? just before we saw a re-creation of the night, which left us in no doubt of his guilt. It was a definite black mark against the jury system but ? with it?s disappointing air of predictability ? not really a merit for television
"

The duncan james/jamie oliver lookalike was a total pratt, i thought he was taking it all in when you saw his face during the trial but back in their room after he proved that in fact he is just a total pratt. Still wondering at what point the man did get his thing out though??!!

the wrinkly one with bad highlights? TERRIFYING!

I saw it!! And oh my god if half of that jury were put before a real court, god love the person on trial and the victim! They had nothing valid to say. I agree the indian woman was as much use as a chocolate fireguard. I knew he had raped her. The jurer who stood in front of the woman & asked her what she would do if he had his arms round her...he would have left marks exactly like the woman had on her wrist... it was the best tv I have seen in a long time. Although I almosy didn't see it as I hadn't realised it was on for so long.. & half fell asleep round 11.15 but woke again at 11.25 So didn't miss any of it really...