You should print that, and next time you have need for the police, hand copies of it to those who come to your aid. Except of course you won't.

Personally, whilst there are crooks in any walk of life you care to name, I find most people including coppers are actually on the face of it decent folk just trying to get through life as best they can just like me, and I start by giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. Well obviously not Wakefield fans, but you understand the general point.

.....Believe that all you like, I have personal experience of something which blows your vision of our lovely, hard working police out of the water.

To be fair to the jury, the defence used, that she did commit the crime but was coerced by a control freak husband, would be very difficult to prove, as would be the argument by the prosecution that she willingly comitted the crime. At the end of the day Pryce and Huhne are the only ones who know the truth. I know the defence came up with that she was "forced" to have an abortion, but if I was prosecuting I would have argued that she sought the abortion as it would have adversely affected her career at the time.

Huhne must be kicking himself for pleading guilty considering he could have been put in front of such an inept jury.

Personally I would have found Pryce not guilty for no other reason other than to rub Huhne's nose in it a bit more.

Oh, bravo!

Phrase of the day won, and at such an early hour.

I have had some good experience with the police and I've also had my fair share of run-ins with some of the bastads who have managed to infiltrate the ranks. I've also got a couple of mates who are in the force.

By and large I don't have a problem with the police in general, what I do have a problem with is when there is any doubt over the activity or procedure and how any incident is then investigated. The IPCC is not fit for purpose: it is beyond bafflement that with the numbers of people who have died in police custody, not one single officer has ever been found guilty of any offence. The fact that police officers are allowed to confer before writing up their notebooks invites collusion - a privilage that is not offered to any members of the public who may find themselves accused of any offence.

Re

Think you've hit the nail on the head with that breakdown. As I said earlier - in my experience of jury service one jury did not function properly because it had a few over-anxious women on it who were frightened of making a decision. Perhaps, the answer is male only jurors so the ladies don't need to worry their pretty little heads over matters other than shopping?

I sat on jury duty myself last year and agree entirely with the comments made about some jurors. Without going into detail we had one juror who rather than deciding on the guilt on the accused based on the evidence wanted to decide what the charges should have been and decided that the court should have pursued a different charge and insisted on sending a note to the judge to this effect. the not suprising reply that came back was simply for the jury to decide if the accused was guilty of the charges heard and not to try and make the law. we then spent a day whilst she insisted she knew more about the law and what the accused should have bee n charged with than the judge CPS and police. she was nearly thrown out of the jury room window

We now come someway to understanding the female mental fragility within the Dally household.

Wasn't a friend, just a paying customer