| Justice? 19:45 - Jan 28 with 3553 views | Johnw102 |
Baby dies with 60!! broken bones. The man and woman who did this received 8.5 and 7 years, respectively. Should have broken one of their bones, with a rope! |  |
| Never knew getting old would happen so quick! |
| |  |
| Justice? on 21:10 - Jan 28 with 2651 views | Flashberryjack |
Good old British justice, stinks. |  |
| |
| Justice? on 21:35 - Jan 28 with 2638 views | controversial_jack |
i'm against the death penalty, but should be life |  | | |
| Justice? on 09:03 - Jan 29 with 2562 views | SgorioFruit |
should be strung up, end of |  |
| |
| Justice? on 09:13 - Jan 29 with 2551 views | onehunglow |
Their barrister did well though.
How did that feel ? | |
| |
| Justice? on 10:16 - Jan 29 with 2540 views | angryjack |
| Justice? on 09:13 - Jan 29 by onehunglow |
Their barrister did well though.
How did that feel ? |
Barristers who defend scum like that should be strung up themselves | | | |
| Justice? on 10:24 - Jan 29 with 2535 views | onehunglow |
| Justice? on 10:16 - Jan 29 by angryjack |
Barristers who defend scum like that should be strung up themselves |
jonalot will be along when he sees this.
We might all need a barrister on day to stand up for us and get the lightest sentence possible no matter what we have done.
Jon seems a fine chap but I have and do question his profession as it really does mean creating obfuscation and doubt in minds of juries as much as finding the truth.
It has been said legal advocates are the biggest hypcrites of all in spouting verbiage they do not believe for a second so long as they win the case.
Not a job for me as I would have no problem prosecuting but would find it impossible to defend lethal career criminals.
That said, we are all hypocrites as ,when in shite,all that matters is getting off as lightly as possible. Anyone saying otherwise is a liar. | |
| |
| Justice? on 11:21 - Jan 29 with 2525 views | Catullus |
The sentence is not up to any Barrister, it's up to the judge and whatever the guidelines are.
We have a presumption of innocence and have to prove guilt so everybody gets a defence. Or maybe we should presume guilt and nobody gets a defence lawyer/Barrister and good luck your first time in court.
These people were found guilty and the judge passed sentence, they deserved far longer and I reckon most people would agree. Personally I agree with the death sentence in certain cases but even if we had it, would the judge have given it?
Blame the judge, blame the guidelines but how can you blame the Barrister? | |
| |
| Justice? on 11:40 - Jan 29 with 2517 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Justice? on 21:35 - Jan 28 by controversial_jack |
i'm against the death penalty, but should be life |
If they had done that to an adult they’d have got longer.
How can an attack on a defenceless child mean such a short time in jail? Should at least be life yes. |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Justice? on 13:23 - Jan 29 with 2495 views | onehunglow |
| Justice? on 11:21 - Jan 29 by Catullus |
The sentence is not up to any Barrister, it's up to the judge and whatever the guidelines are.
We have a presumption of innocence and have to prove guilt so everybody gets a defence. Or maybe we should presume guilt and nobody gets a defence lawyer/Barrister and good luck your first time in court.
These people were found guilty and the judge passed sentence, they deserved far longer and I reckon most people would agree. Personally I agree with the death sentence in certain cases but even if we had it, would the judge have given it?
Blame the judge, blame the guidelines but how can you blame the Barrister? |
It’s not so much blame but the fact he is the mouthpiece that articulates and appreciates the nuances of the arcane Court system .
Laws are passed by politians who are often legally trained, eg, Blair,Thatcher even Attlee so laws tend to be detailed as they are to be interpreted in Court…by Lawyers . | |
| |
| Justice? on 15:18 - Jan 29 with 2473 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Justice? on 10:24 - Jan 29 by onehunglow |
jonalot will be along when he sees this.
We might all need a barrister on day to stand up for us and get the lightest sentence possible no matter what we have done.
Jon seems a fine chap but I have and do question his profession as it really does mean creating obfuscation and doubt in minds of juries as much as finding the truth.
It has been said legal advocates are the biggest hypcrites of all in spouting verbiage they do not believe for a second so long as they win the case.
Not a job for me as I would have no problem prosecuting but would find it impossible to defend lethal career criminals.
That said, we are all hypocrites as ,when in shite,all that matters is getting off as lightly as possible. Anyone saying otherwise is a liar. |
I’ve said before. The jury are there to find the facts. Prosecution and defence are there to present both sides of the story, to prevent defendants cross examine complaints, to advise to plead guilty. If needed. Also not everyone charged is guilty. There are corrupt police who do plant evidence or lie. I’ve seen it. Complainants who lie. People who are wrongly convicted. You cannot say only nice people should be represented.
Barristers absolutely do not make up defences, lie to the court or try to fool the jury. The judge and opposing barrister are also there.
You keep having a go at defence barristers but never suggest an alternative. The funny thing with police who criticise defence barristers are never shy about coming to us when they’re in trouble
Don’t know much about the present case but as far as I’m aware there was no proof as to what killed the baby or which one caused the injuries, hence why no murder charge. |  | | |
| Justice? on 15:38 - Jan 29 with 2456 views | Catullus |
| Justice? on 13:23 - Jan 29 by onehunglow |
It’s not so much blame but the fact he is the mouthpiece that articulates and appreciates the nuances of the arcane Court system .
Laws are passed by politians who are often legally trained, eg, Blair,Thatcher even Attlee so laws tend to be detailed as they are to be interpreted in Court…by Lawyers . |
So you're not complaining about the legally trained people who construct the law and it's punishments, who designed the system, but you are complaining about the people who have to work in that system?
Maybe sirjohnalot could advise me, if a defendant could not get a defence lawyer/barrister etc, when would/could (in the current system obviously) the case come to court? | |
| |
| Justice? on 15:42 - Jan 29 with 2450 views | onehunglow |
| Justice? on 15:18 - Jan 29 by Sirjohnalot |
I’ve said before. The jury are there to find the facts. Prosecution and defence are there to present both sides of the story, to prevent defendants cross examine complaints, to advise to plead guilty. If needed. Also not everyone charged is guilty. There are corrupt police who do plant evidence or lie. I’ve seen it. Complainants who lie. People who are wrongly convicted. You cannot say only nice people should be represented.
Barristers absolutely do not make up defences, lie to the court or try to fool the jury. The judge and opposing barrister are also there.
You keep having a go at defence barristers but never suggest an alternative. The funny thing with police who criticise defence barristers are never shy about coming to us when they’re in trouble
Don’t know much about the present case but as far as I’m aware there was no proof as to what killed the baby or which one caused the injuries, hence why no murder charge. |
I am not having that at all.
You will not convince me otherwise.
Ive heard and seen too much.
You must be unique | |
| |
| Justice? on 15:46 - Jan 29 with 2443 views | Superjan |
| Justice? on 15:42 - Jan 29 by onehunglow |
I am not having that at all.
You will not convince me otherwise.
Ive heard and seen too much.
You must be unique |
He’s not unique at all . | | | |
| Justice? on 15:49 - Jan 29 with 2436 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Justice? on 15:38 - Jan 29 by Catullus |
So you're not complaining about the legally trained people who construct the law and it's punishments, who designed the system, but you are complaining about the people who have to work in that system?
Maybe sirjohnalot could advise me, if a defendant could not get a defence lawyer/barrister etc, when would/could (in the current system obviously) the case come to court? |
They’d have to represent themselves, sometimes people can’t afford it as in the Crown Court even with legal aid, you have to pay 90 % of your disposable income as a contribution.
If you’re unrepresented and there’s vulnerable witnesses, eg in a domestic violence case, the court appoints a barrister to cross examine them. You are obliged to do this as you are instructed by the court.
As to when it’ll come to court, I’m representing a defendant in a fraud case a week Monday from 6 years ago, keeps getting taken out for lack of court time | | | |
| Justice? on 15:50 - Jan 29 with 2432 views | onehunglow |
| Justice? on 15:46 - Jan 29 by Superjan |
He’s not unique at all . |
You ever been a prosecution witness.? | |
| |
| Justice? on 15:57 - Jan 29 with 2432 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Justice? on 15:42 - Jan 29 by onehunglow |
I am not having that at all.
You will not convince me otherwise.
Ive heard and seen too much.
You must be unique |
Which part aren’t you having ? The fact that we don’t lie or make up defences ? Why would a self employed barrister with no ties to the client or solicitors who gets paid the same win or lose risk their careers and freedom to pervert the course of justice ?
You’re only coming from a police perspective with rumours and hearsay or chats in the pub. I do both sides and the people I know are honourable people who simply present the case and test the evidence.
I’m sure there are corrupt lawyers but they’d get found out dry quickly. It may have been different in days gone by but times change.
Pre PACE, there were many dodgy, bent police. You’d be insulted if I suggested that if you never fitted anyone up, you’d be unique.
We spend years qualifying, other than not being corrupt why would we do it for a defendant who would turn on you as soon as things went wrong ?
How would you change the system ? Refuse to allow people to be represented and simply believe the police ? | | | |
| Justice? on 15:58 - Jan 29 with 2428 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Justice? on 15:50 - Jan 29 by onehunglow |
You ever been a prosecution witness.? |
You ever been a defence witness ? | | | |
| Justice? on 16:01 - Jan 29 with 2420 views | Superjan |
| Justice? on 15:50 - Jan 29 by onehunglow |
You ever been a prosecution witness.? |
I have . | | | |
| Justice? on 16:04 - Jan 29 with 2418 views | Catullus |
sirjohnalot, if a police officer had colluded with prosecution witnesses to "get the right result"over 30 years ago, could those involved still be prosecuted? | |
| |
| Justice? on 16:07 - Jan 29 with 2415 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Justice? on 16:04 - Jan 29 by Catullus |
sirjohnalot, if a police officer had colluded with prosecution witnesses to "get the right result"over 30 years ago, could those involved still be prosecuted? |
Theoretically yes, there’s no time bar on Pervrrt course of justice but obviously very difficult to prove so long ago | | | |
| Justice? on 16:11 - Jan 29 with 2411 views | Superjan |
| Justice? on 15:57 - Jan 29 by Sirjohnalot |
Which part aren’t you having ? The fact that we don’t lie or make up defences ? Why would a self employed barrister with no ties to the client or solicitors who gets paid the same win or lose risk their careers and freedom to pervert the course of justice ?
You’re only coming from a police perspective with rumours and hearsay or chats in the pub. I do both sides and the people I know are honourable people who simply present the case and test the evidence.
I’m sure there are corrupt lawyers but they’d get found out dry quickly. It may have been different in days gone by but times change.
Pre PACE, there were many dodgy, bent police. You’d be insulted if I suggested that if you never fitted anyone up, you’d be unique.
We spend years qualifying, other than not being corrupt why would we do it for a defendant who would turn on you as soon as things went wrong ?
How would you change the system ? Refuse to allow people to be represented and simply believe the police ? |
Spot on . I appear and have done for almost the last thirty years in the same few Courts . My credibility is everything. The Crown Court that I now appear in almost everyday has the same four judges sitting regularly. I couldn’t do my job if I didn’t have credibility with these people, they know they can accept what I say as being realistic even though it is based on sometimes unrealistic instructions. They also know that I am utterly professional. | | | |
| Justice? on 16:20 - Jan 29 with 2400 views | Catullus |
| Justice? on 16:07 - Jan 29 by Sirjohnalot |
Theoretically yes, there’s no time bar on Pervrrt course of justice but obviously very difficult to prove so long ago |
Lets just say then, I have no knowledge of bent lawyers/barristers but I do know of a bent copper who colluded with witnesses to ensure the "right result". The officer in question is dead now, it was over 30 years back and he was close to retirement then.
Apparently the defendant didn't do what he was accused of but he was a known drug dealer the police wanted off the streets. | |
| |
| Justice? on 16:20 - Jan 29 with 2400 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Justice? on 16:11 - Jan 29 by Superjan |
Spot on . I appear and have done for almost the last thirty years in the same few Courts . My credibility is everything. The Crown Court that I now appear in almost everyday has the same four judges sitting regularly. I couldn’t do my job if I didn’t have credibility with these people, they know they can accept what I say as being realistic even though it is based on sometimes unrealistic instructions. They also know that I am utterly professional. |
Exactly. It’s not just the judges but your fellow counsel and solicitors. Great deal of my work is prosecuting, if there was a sniff of corruption, all that would go. Even if I was that way, financially it’d make no sense.
I’m 20 years into my career next year, I’ve a good, honest reputation, want to retire in around 10 years. My reputation as an honest barrister is more important than my skill in court. Every barrister I know thinks likewise.
I’ve never heard a police officer criticise a prosecuting barrister for being too hard on a defendant. | | | |
| Justice? on 16:54 - Jan 29 with 2386 views | Superjan |
| Justice? on 16:20 - Jan 29 by Sirjohnalot |
Exactly. It’s not just the judges but your fellow counsel and solicitors. Great deal of my work is prosecuting, if there was a sniff of corruption, all that would go. Even if I was that way, financially it’d make no sense.
I’m 20 years into my career next year, I’ve a good, honest reputation, want to retire in around 10 years. My reputation as an honest barrister is more important than my skill in court. Every barrister I know thinks likewise.
I’ve never heard a police officer criticise a prosecuting barrister for being too hard on a defendant. |
I’m thirty years qualified as a Solicitor this year and I’ve been a HCA since 2012 . I completely agree about retaining credibility with your peers too . I’ve never prosecuted but I also agree that the CPS only instruct honest capable independent Counsel to represent the Crown . | | | |
| Justice? on 16:58 - Jan 29 with 2383 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Justice? on 16:54 - Jan 29 by Superjan |
I’m thirty years qualified as a Solicitor this year and I’ve been a HCA since 2012 . I completely agree about retaining credibility with your peers too . I’ve never prosecuted but I also agree that the CPS only instruct honest capable independent Counsel to represent the Crown . |
I was in private practice as a defence Sol before transferring to the Bar, before I did I went off on my own for three years (.Manchester area) did a lot of agency prosecuting then. Had there been a sniff of being dodgy I’d have got nowhere | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
