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
― Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Saturday, 17 February 2007 08:19 (seventeen years ago) link
Is it just 10 yrs? I thought it was: criminal conviction = ineligible for life.
― Affectian (Affectian), Saturday, 17 February 2007 21:10 (seventeen years ago) link
― M Grout (Mark Grout), Monday, 19 February 2007 08:24 (seventeen years ago) link
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.
― Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Monday, 19 February 2007 20:28 (seventeen years ago) link
― It's Expected I'm Maud Gonne (Modal Fugue), Monday, 19 February 2007 21:06 (seventeen years ago) link
― da mystery of sandboxin' (fandango), Monday, 19 February 2007 21:10 (seventeen years ago) link
― It's Expected I'm Maud Gonne (Modal Fugue), Monday, 19 February 2007 21:10 (seventeen years ago) link