Russell Brand to host the Brit awards

I just checked - either they deleted it all or the deluge of myspace comment spam has pushed it all down the list.

I still want to know how come no-one involved in making The Verdict seems to have noticed that Jeffrey Archer isn't actually eligible for jury service 'cos he's been in nick within the last 10 years....

that's ilx in a nutshell

So they couldn't find anyone else that middle aged folks had heard of who is eligible for jury service?

(I know it wasn't real, obv.* - but surely the object of the exercise was to make it as real as poss., using a jury who were a reasonable cross-section of the population who by some extraordinary coincidence just happened to be celebrities and to therefore appeal to as large a proportion of the population as possible?)

* - I'm wasn't 100% sure that all of the jurors realised this 'though

Is it just 10 yrs? I thought it was: criminal conviction = ineligible for life.

Apparently not.

"Isn't that for "being an MP"..?" I don't know abouit that, but I'm not sure the Conservatives have even allowed him to rejoin the Party.

He is a Lord 'though, isn;t he? Doesn't that make him not only ineligible to be an MP (didn't Anthony Wedgwood Benn have to disavow his own title in order to become / remain an MP?) but also again make him ineligible for jury service?

It would be a bit of a joke if, as a Peer, he is member of the ultimate Court Of Appeal whilst simultaneously being ineligibe for jury service - but then Lord Archer's entire life seems to have been filled with such incongruities.