Jury Service?

MrsE_2

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Although I think it is good that you can claim expenses,and hopefully loss of earnings, I personally would be prepared to do it for less money than I would normally have.

OK, I personally could make cuts to allow for a small drop for a short time.
But some people are stretched to the max & do not have any leway at all.

seven-day-weekend

I believe people who genuinely can't afford to lose the money can ask to be excused on the grounds of financial hardship.

full-time-mum

just out of interest, I'm a full-time-mum so don't actually earn anything. However, if I was called to jury duty (and for the record, I'm more than happy to attend), it would cause me untold problems with childcare, getting the children to after school clubs etc.
How does that work? Do I get nowt but travel and food expenses?

foreign_correspondent

I am sick of hering people grumble abut this - unless you have a good reason, you must do it, and that is th end of the matter.

If you are unsure whether you are able to apply for deferral or exemption, you are better to ask the Jury officials, rather than us, as we can only speculate! I do believe they have some discretions, however, other factors may come into play, ie. whether they are low on numbers or not, so do get in contact with them ASAP before everyne else does!

I did it, I lost out a bit financially, as I missed some work which pays me quite well. My OH is a student, so we rely on my income. I have a chronic illness which I could have perhaps used to 'get out of it' - however, I know I would have had to exaggerate to do this, so I didnt. Anyway, I feel it is my duty as a citizen, and that if I were ever in need of a jury I would like reasonable people to do the same for me.

Mrs E - I think I read somewhere else that you have deffered before, twice or even three times?? If this is the case I think you now have to get to grips with the fact that you have had exceptionaly good fortune to be allowed to defer more than once, and now you must bite the bullet and get on with it. As has been established, as you work for a LA it will not be detremental to you financially. Not everyone who serves is in that fortunate position, so consider yourself lucky and get over it!

felicity1

I think people have good reason to 'grumble', jury service can be a real imposition.

In my experience, juries are all too often full of folk who don't want to be there, don't pay attention to court proceedings and most worryingly don't even understand what's going on or the evidence presented.

The jury system as it stands needs to be overhauled, it is a myth that a jury comprises '12 good men and women'.

foreign_correspondent

felicity1 wrote: »

I think people have good reason to 'grumble', jury service can be a real imposition.

of course it can. It is for almost everyone there - what I am tired of is people pleading they are a special case because it isnt really that convenient for them - do they assume it is for all the others who do go along to do their bit?

MrsE_2

foreign_correspondent wrote: »

Mrs E - I think I read somewhere else that you have deffered before, twice or even three times?? If this is the case I think you now have to get to grips with the fact that you have had exceptionaly good fortune to be allowed to defer more than once, and now you must bite the bullet and get on with it. As has been established, as you work for a LA it will not be detremental to you financially. Not everyone who serves is in that fortunate position, so consider yourself lucky and get over it!

The first time I was heavily pregnant, it was near the end of my pregnancy. I was also not having a good or easy pregnancy.

The second time my daughter was young (in nursery about 3) I worked evenings for minimal wages. I did not have a childminder during the day. I could not drop her off & return within the court hours for nursery. I was a single parent (then) & I could only ask the court if they would pay for childcare for me. They declined.

Are those reasons "good enough" for you?
They were for the court.

MrsE_2

foreign_correspondent wrote: »

of course it can. It is for almost everyone there - what I am tired of is people pleading they are a special case because it isnt really that convenient for them - do they assume it is for all the others who do go along to do their bit?

It would have been very inconvenient for the court had I turned up 8 months pregnant needing the loo every hour & to get up & stretch my legs every half hour because of swelling ankles.

Three years later it wouldn't have been great to turn up with a 3 year old. This was long before the days of helping working parents or single parents. I got no tax credits. I think I got about £15 towards my another £15 (ish) from FIS (or something like that). I earned £105 & paid tax on it. I had full poll tax to pay (in Lambeth, the most expensive in the country) & evening child minding costs.

Luvly.cuppa.T

MrsE wrote: »

The difference between the median and the mean is illustrated in this simple example:
Suppose 19 paupers and 1 billionaire are in a room. Everyone removes all the money from their pockets and puts it on a table. Each pauper puts $5 on the table; the billionaire puts $1 billion (i.e. $109) there. The total is then $1,000,000,095. If that money is divided equally among the 20 people, each gets $50,000,004.75. That amount is the mean amount of money that the 20 people brought into the room. But the median amount is $5, since one may divide the group into two groups of 10 people each, and say that everyone in the first group brought in no more than $5, and each person in the second group brought in no less than $5. In a sense, the median is the amount that the typical person brought in. By contrast, the mean is not at all typical, since nobody in the room brought in an amount approximating $50,000,004.75.

I have to point out that this is a terrible example. And this is from a government site? Tishhh, just shows you how bad they are with numbers. This is more apt as the 'mode' = the numbers that occur most often.
Median is the middle number that occurs, which yes, $5 would be, but see how misleading this is and the government use it as an example? It would be better used in a series of numbers like this, 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, where the median would be 8.

They really are showing their true colours....

MrsE_2

Luvly.cuppa.T wrote: »

I have to point out that this is a terrible example. And this is from a government site? Tishhh, just shows you how bad they are with numbers. This is more apt as the 'mode' = the numbers that occur most often.
Median is the middle number that occurs, which yes, $5 would be, but see how misleading this is and the government use it as an example? It would be better used in a series of numbers like this, 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, where the median would be 8.

They really are showing their true colours....

The explaination wasn't on the gov site.
I added that, for anyone that wasn't a maths bod:D

Yes its not a great gov figure from them, but it was all I could find when I was busy.

Leave it with me I will look harder, a true average shouldn't be too hard to find.