Page 3 of 14

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:37 pm
by Vinny the Mackem
Socceroo wrote:Will there be a clear cut verdict? Or will we after all these weeks see the Judge direct the Jury before they retire to reach a verdict?


There only has to be a majority. The judge will not direct the jury one way or the other - he will give them directions in terms of the law and may highlight certain parts of the evidence, but should not be influencing the jury one way or another; the facts are strictly a matter for the jury to decide.

Again, all that's ever needed is a simply majority, and that's either a conviction, with at least 8 for guilty, or an acquittal, with less than 8 for a guilty verdict.

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:56 pm
by pingu
do you think people could hate a paper that much for it to sway them in a jury?

simply NOT reading it would do most people

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:49 pm
by hungryjoe
pingu wrote:do you think people could hate a paper that much for it to sway them in a jury?

simply NOT reading it would do most people

This is the paper who (im)famously published the page one lead headline:
I SAW COUPLES INJECTING REEFERS

They have never changed and I suspect that most people with anything at all between their ears, would suspect them of anything.

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:10 pm
by pingu
i never read it and know its full of bull but i dont know if i HATE it enough to free someone who i might feel is guilty tho, just because its against the sun/notw

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:42 pm
by Socceroo
Vinny the Mackem wrote:
Socceroo wrote:Will there be a clear cut verdict? Or will we after all these weeks see the Judge direct the Jury before they retire to reach a verdict?


There only has to be a majority. The judge will not direct the jury one way or the other - he will give them directions in terms of the law and may highlight certain parts of the evidence, but should not be influencing the jury one way or another; the facts are strictly a matter for the jury to decide.

Again, all that's ever needed is a simply majority, and that's either a conviction, with at least 8 for guilty, or an acquittal, with less than 8 for a guilty verdict.


Aye that's what I meant direct...directions its all the same to me.

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:52 pm
by BrigitDoon
pingu wrote:do you think people could hate a paper that much for it to sway them in a jury?

Oh yes :)

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:23 pm
by Vinny the Mackem
Socceroo wrote:Aye that's what I meant direct...directions its all the same to me.

:D He he! Fairy nuff!! It's all pish anyway!

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:50 am
by [The Joiner]

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:27 am
by pingu
[The Joiner] wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvHskQHHbQ0&feature=youtube_gdata



my ears will never forgive you for that ubertripe :cry:

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:24 pm
by BrigitDoon
I see Mr Coulson has been in court and Mr Sherridan has been asking questions. Did Mr Sherridan ask any awkward questions about editorial policy at the News of the World? Wouldn't it be ironic if someone was forced to commit perjury in order to defend their position. :twisted:

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:55 pm
by strange brew
I'm no legal expert, but isn't debating the guilt of someone who is currently on trial considered contempt of court?

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:55 am
by BrigitDoon
Indeed. Mr Coulson is not on trial. Yet.

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:05 am
by north glasgow dave
so if he gets a not guilty verdict.can and will he take legal action against the legal system which is trying him just now and if he does .and wins wont he be taking tax payers money....hmmm

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:33 am
by Dexter St. Clair
north glasgow dave wrote:so if he gets a not guilty verdict.can and will he take legal action against the legal system which is trying him just now and if he does .and wins wont he be taking tax payers money....hmmm



No.

Re: tommy sherridan

PostPosted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:22 pm
by strange brew
BrigitDoon wrote:Indeed. Mr Coulson is not on trial. Yet.


I was talking about the basic premise of the whole topic, not just your post - I think I'd be quite legally sound if I said that Andy Coulson and all at the NotW are hateful pricks who prey on those who are too vulnerable and/or stupid to fight against them.