| Dalian atkinson 22:27 - Jun 23 with 5561 views | angryjack |
Hope the bully in uniform gets the maximum,,another abusing their powers,this one got caught..throw the book at him...
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |  |
| Dalian atkinson on 19:53 - Jun 27 with 988 views | Catullus |
| Dalian atkinson on 19:07 - Jun 27 by onehunglow |
If I am to debate anything with you in future,I will do so after taking legal advice.
You know exactly what your job is about and the component parts thereof standing in a wooden box,often terrified or intimidated by a scowling piece of shyte whilst you and your learned friends try in turn to turn the heads of a jury who are simply lamb to the laughter on your arcane altar of Justice.
You KNOW, truth is nothing to do with your brief.It is about producing your best show for your client no matter how evil,warped and dangerous. If he walks ,you win,get paid handsomely and increase your reputation for another brief.
You might kid many but not those who know what the game is about
With respect |
Isn't it one of the principles of our legal system that even the rottenest, low life piece of scum is entitled to the best defence possible? If they are a murderer, rapist or paediphile, they get the best defence they can manage.
Isn't the idea being that guilt is proved beyond any reasonable doubt?
My issue isn't with the lawyers, those that defend the scumbags, my issue is usually with the sentencing. When you read in the news of a person with a record going back years and is well up past 20/30 offences and they get suspended sentences or community service, that boils my piss.
When you see car thieves in court, driving with no tax, insurance and often already banned and then they get another ban, what is going on? If a scumbag will ignore a ban, keep stealing cars and driving dangerously, shouldn't they be locked up? What we often see is they feign being sorry, the apologise and then they grin like cheshire cats on the way out of court. Look at those gypsy boys who murdered Andrew Harper, tell me they didn't deserve a far greater punishment, they behaved like they were film stars,
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.c
If I'd seen the police who arrested them giving them a good kicking I'd have turned a blind eye. | |
| |
| Dalian atkinson on 19:58 - Jun 27 with 973 views | onehunglow |
| Dalian atkinson on 19:53 - Jun 27 by Catullus |
Isn't it one of the principles of our legal system that even the rottenest, low life piece of scum is entitled to the best defence possible? If they are a murderer, rapist or paediphile, they get the best defence they can manage.
Isn't the idea being that guilt is proved beyond any reasonable doubt?
My issue isn't with the lawyers, those that defend the scumbags, my issue is usually with the sentencing. When you read in the news of a person with a record going back years and is well up past 20/30 offences and they get suspended sentences or community service, that boils my piss.
When you see car thieves in court, driving with no tax, insurance and often already banned and then they get another ban, what is going on? If a scumbag will ignore a ban, keep stealing cars and driving dangerously, shouldn't they be locked up? What we often see is they feign being sorry, the apologise and then they grin like cheshire cats on the way out of court. Look at those gypsy boys who murdered Andrew Harper, tell me they didn't deserve a far greater punishment, they behaved like they were film stars,
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.c
If I'd seen the police who arrested them giving them a good kicking I'd have turned a blind eye. |
Yes it is but no way should anyone believe the truth is uppermost in the minds of Barristers.
Barristers who lose will not get work.
It is my point that it takes a special individual to put aside any negative feelings for a professional criminal especially of the most violent kind and do what they can to see him walk free to carry on his filthy trade.
Prosecute one week,defend the next. It is a strange profession for very adroit people.
Everyone has a right to see Justice and that is frequently not the case at Courts | |
| |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:02 - Jun 27 with 968 views | Gwyn737 |
| Dalian atkinson on 19:53 - Jun 27 by Catullus |
Isn't it one of the principles of our legal system that even the rottenest, low life piece of scum is entitled to the best defence possible? If they are a murderer, rapist or paediphile, they get the best defence they can manage.
Isn't the idea being that guilt is proved beyond any reasonable doubt?
My issue isn't with the lawyers, those that defend the scumbags, my issue is usually with the sentencing. When you read in the news of a person with a record going back years and is well up past 20/30 offences and they get suspended sentences or community service, that boils my piss.
When you see car thieves in court, driving with no tax, insurance and often already banned and then they get another ban, what is going on? If a scumbag will ignore a ban, keep stealing cars and driving dangerously, shouldn't they be locked up? What we often see is they feign being sorry, the apologise and then they grin like cheshire cats on the way out of court. Look at those gypsy boys who murdered Andrew Harper, tell me they didn't deserve a far greater punishment, they behaved like they were film stars,
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.c
If I'd seen the police who arrested them giving them a good kicking I'd have turned a blind eye. |
We’re agreeing a lot today, Catt!
So often the tariff of sentences is blamed on the barristers or the judges , when in many cases it’s the sentences guidelines.
Then you get Pritti Patel coming out saying that we must be tougher on crime!
And who’s in charge of the law and able to make these changes.... | | | |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:09 - Jun 27 with 963 views | onehunglow |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:02 - Jun 27 by Gwyn737 |
We’re agreeing a lot today, Catt!
So often the tariff of sentences is blamed on the barristers or the judges , when in many cases it’s the sentences guidelines.
Then you get Pritti Patel coming out saying that we must be tougher on crime!
And who’s in charge of the law and able to make these changes.... |
Patel ,like most Tory Home Secs are liars and BShtters.They talk tough and make out they are pro Police .They are not. Problem is so many Labour are anti Police.
We have needed a hard line Home Sec for 60 years ever since capital punishment was ended by conning MPs into believing Life sentence really meant all your life.
Her weakness a regards border controls are stupifying | |
| |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:22 - Jun 27 with 948 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Dalian atkinson on 19:07 - Jun 27 by onehunglow |
If I am to debate anything with you in future,I will do so after taking legal advice.
You know exactly what your job is about and the component parts thereof standing in a wooden box,often terrified or intimidated by a scowling piece of shyte whilst you and your learned friends try in turn to turn the heads of a jury who are simply lamb to the laughter on your arcane altar of Justice.
You KNOW, truth is nothing to do with your brief.It is about producing your best show for your client no matter how evil,warped and dangerous. If he walks ,you win,get paid handsomely and increase your reputation for another brief.
You might kid many but not those who know what the game is about
With respect |
You are right in part.
Whenever I prosecute or defend, my job is to put that side of the case to the court. I don’t investigate, I don’t presuppose whether or not someone is guilty or not, that is the role of the jury. I have to follow my clients instructions without fear or favour.
If I was defending you and you told me you were not guilty, what would you want me to do ? Refuse to represent you ? Course not, I’d Rep you to the best of my ability.
If a def tells me they’re guilty but wants me to cross examine witnesses essentially saying they’re lying, I cannot do that.
Re the fee, that’s the same, win or lose.
Funny thing no one has ever asked me how I can prosecute people i think are innocent |  | | |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:25 - Jun 27 with 941 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Dalian atkinson on 19:53 - Jun 27 by Catullus |
Isn't it one of the principles of our legal system that even the rottenest, low life piece of scum is entitled to the best defence possible? If they are a murderer, rapist or paediphile, they get the best defence they can manage.
Isn't the idea being that guilt is proved beyond any reasonable doubt?
My issue isn't with the lawyers, those that defend the scumbags, my issue is usually with the sentencing. When you read in the news of a person with a record going back years and is well up past 20/30 offences and they get suspended sentences or community service, that boils my piss.
When you see car thieves in court, driving with no tax, insurance and often already banned and then they get another ban, what is going on? If a scumbag will ignore a ban, keep stealing cars and driving dangerously, shouldn't they be locked up? What we often see is they feign being sorry, the apologise and then they grin like cheshire cats on the way out of court. Look at those gypsy boys who murdered Andrew Harper, tell me they didn't deserve a far greater punishment, they behaved like they were film stars,
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.c
If I'd seen the police who arrested them giving them a good kicking I'd have turned a blind eye. |
You’re right, but sentencing guidelines are down to Parliament. Judge in that case was spot on with his sentence. (According to the guidelines) | | | |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:32 - Jun 27 with 924 views | trampie |
Court cases are a game, people that are found guilty may not actually be guilty, people that are found innocent may not actually be innocent. [Post edited 27 Jun 2021 20:39]
|  |
| |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:44 - Jun 27 with 912 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:32 - Jun 27 by trampie |
Court cases are a game, people that are found guilty may not actually be guilty, people that are found innocent may not actually be innocent. [Post edited 27 Jun 2021 20:39]
|
Yes, but it’s the least worse system out there | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Dalian atkinson on 20:46 - Jun 27 with 902 views | Gwyn737 |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:32 - Jun 27 by trampie |
Court cases are a game, people that are found guilty may not actually be guilty, people that are found innocent may not actually be innocent. [Post edited 27 Jun 2021 20:39]
|
Your solution is? | | | |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:54 - Jun 27 with 897 views | onehunglow |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:44 - Jun 27 by Sirjohnalot |
Yes, but it’s the least worse system out there |
Maybe Sir,if we could enlighten the public into realising that being found not guilty does not mean the defendant is innocent.
The converse is also true.
It really is a game of chance where the players have centre stage and priority. . | |
| |
| Dalian atkinson on 21:00 - Jun 27 with 895 views | trampie |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:44 - Jun 27 by Sirjohnalot |
Yes, but it’s the least worse system out there |
I would not argue, I find cases easy to read, I can tell when they get high profile cases wrong that are extensively covered by the media, every time I think something is wrong it's overturned or a retrial with a different outcome, the concern with the English justice system is when the state influences proceedings.
Many examples over the years, look at the Birmingham six that went to the very very top and they all knew they were innocent up to the very very top and still sent them down. | |
| |
| Dalian atkinson on 22:56 - Jun 27 with 852 views | controversial_jack |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:54 - Jun 27 by onehunglow |
Maybe Sir,if we could enlighten the public into realising that being found not guilty does not mean the defendant is innocent.
The converse is also true.
It really is a game of chance where the players have centre stage and priority. . |
A defendant is found not guilty, so how do you then determine if he is innocent or not? Who is going to make that determination? Surely, anything else is just the opinion of the prosecution or police, which counts for nothing. | | | |
| Dalian atkinson on 23:12 - Jun 27 with 849 views | trampie |
| Dalian atkinson on 22:56 - Jun 27 by controversial_jack |
A defendant is found not guilty, so how do you then determine if he is innocent or not? Who is going to make that determination? Surely, anything else is just the opinion of the prosecution or police, which counts for nothing. |
It might not be possible to determine if somebody found not guilty is actually innocent in some cases, you could be found not guilty in one court but guilty of basically the same charge in another court, different thresholds of proof, it just underlines it's a game, lots of people think that everyone found guilty is actually guilty in reality and lots of people think that people that are found not guilty are actually innocent, it's not always the case. | |
| |
| Dalian atkinson on 08:53 - Jun 28 with 791 views | onehunglow |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:22 - Jun 27 by Sirjohnalot |
You are right in part.
Whenever I prosecute or defend, my job is to put that side of the case to the court. I don’t investigate, I don’t presuppose whether or not someone is guilty or not, that is the role of the jury. I have to follow my clients instructions without fear or favour.
If I was defending you and you told me you were not guilty, what would you want me to do ? Refuse to represent you ? Course not, I’d Rep you to the best of my ability.
If a def tells me they’re guilty but wants me to cross examine witnesses essentially saying they’re lying, I cannot do that.
Re the fee, that’s the same, win or lose.
Funny thing no one has ever asked me how I can prosecute people i think are innocent |
Thanks. An exchange of views is always welcome.
Your fees.
You are self employed and need work to come in.
I know how Chambers business is conducted.
Allow me to clarify. I mean no offence to you as an individual. I simply question the mentality of Barrister in what they do. Most people would recoil if asked to defend a paedophile predator or a vicious drug dealer but you are tasked with doing so and in doing so put into practice your extensive detailed training | |
| |
| Dalian atkinson on 10:16 - Jun 28 with 770 views | YrAlarch |
| Dalian atkinson on 08:53 - Jun 28 by onehunglow |
Thanks. An exchange of views is always welcome.
Your fees.
You are self employed and need work to come in.
I know how Chambers business is conducted.
Allow me to clarify. I mean no offence to you as an individual. I simply question the mentality of Barrister in what they do. Most people would recoil if asked to defend a paedophile predator or a vicious drug dealer but you are tasked with doing so and in doing so put into practice your extensive detailed training |
OHL. Firstly a question as to how you, as a Police Officer, knows 'how Chambers business is conducted'.
Secondly, you seem to imply, in asserting that 'Most people would recoil if asked to defend a paedophile predator or a vicious drug dealer', that the defendant is guilty merely because he has been charged. Surely that is why we have trials to determine guilt if they have pled 'not guilty'. That leads to the point that everyone is entitled to legal representation whatever they have been accused of. Are you denying that right to certain categories of alleged offender? | | | |
| Dalian atkinson on 11:26 - Jun 28 with 754 views | KeithHaynes |
| Dalian atkinson on 10:16 - Jun 28 by YrAlarch |
OHL. Firstly a question as to how you, as a Police Officer, knows 'how Chambers business is conducted'.
Secondly, you seem to imply, in asserting that 'Most people would recoil if asked to defend a paedophile predator or a vicious drug dealer', that the defendant is guilty merely because he has been charged. Surely that is why we have trials to determine guilt if they have pled 'not guilty'. That leads to the point that everyone is entitled to legal representation whatever they have been accused of. Are you denying that right to certain categories of alleged offender? |
Short explanation - Numerous police officers at the hub of serious and complex investigations are pivotal to the discussions in chambers, be that included or in meetings prior to the defence and prosecutors meeting.
I’m unsure of OHL’s level of experience here, but it isn’t an untrue statement. |  |
| |
| Dalian atkinson on 11:33 - Jun 28 with 750 views | KeithHaynes |
| Dalian atkinson on 21:00 - Jun 27 by trampie |
I would not argue, I find cases easy to read, I can tell when they get high profile cases wrong that are extensively covered by the media, every time I think something is wrong it's overturned or a retrial with a different outcome, the concern with the English justice system is when the state influences proceedings.
Many examples over the years, look at the Birmingham six that went to the very very top and they all knew they were innocent up to the very very top and still sent them down. |
The Guildford and Birmingham cases throw up all sorts of individual opinion, the tests at the time were nowhere near that of today. Back then Judges Rules were the guidance for police. Some of the practices would be frowned upon today. The introduction of PACE certainly did shake up the methodology of the police and how they investigate, record, store and present evidence. It’s not watertight by any means, but along with CPIA ( disclosure of material ) which was introduced in 1996, and like PACE continues to be updated it’s a far more favourable option. | |
| |
| Dalian atkinson on 11:45 - Jun 28 with 747 views | Catullus |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:25 - Jun 27 by Sirjohnalot |
You’re right, but sentencing guidelines are down to Parliament. Judge in that case was spot on with his sentence. (According to the guidelines) |
I do agree that it's mostly Parliament to blame for soft guidelines BUT there are times when a convicted criminal with a long record could get prison time but doesn't. There again, I have often noticed that women seem to get away with lighter sentences than men in quite a few cases.
I read a report just this week, a drug dealer estimated to have made over 40k from his dealing was ordered to pay back to the courts.....£1. Is that justice? He claimed he was broke, that he spent it all which may be true or he may have a stash bag buried somewhere with htousands waiting for him. | |
| |
| Dalian atkinson on 12:32 - Jun 28 with 742 views | onehunglow |
| Dalian atkinson on 11:26 - Jun 28 by KeithHaynes |
Short explanation - Numerous police officers at the hub of serious and complex investigations are pivotal to the discussions in chambers, be that included or in meetings prior to the defence and prosecutors meeting.
I’m unsure of OHL’s level of experience here, but it isn’t an untrue statement. |
It is a deadly true statement and one which most would agree.
I’m uncertain of anyone and certainly do nit feel obliged to anyone in here I
And that included you alarch. You seem rather obsessed with me and it’s got me thinking about exactly who you are.
I stand by every word.
Our barrister correspondent appended respectful text so try it your self.
Think Jonny and I have straightened matters between us.
So many on here have never smelt blood or death or the stench of real fear. | |
| |
| Dalian atkinson on 12:42 - Jun 28 with 740 views | controversial_jack |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:25 - Jun 27 by Sirjohnalot |
You’re right, but sentencing guidelines are down to Parliament. Judge in that case was spot on with his sentence. (According to the guidelines) |
Am I correct in thinking that guidelines are just that, "guidelines," and not cast in stone, therefore a judge can overrule them if they see fit? | | | |
| Dalian atkinson on 13:05 - Jun 28 with 732 views | onehunglow |
| Dalian atkinson on 11:33 - Jun 28 by KeithHaynes |
The Guildford and Birmingham cases throw up all sorts of individual opinion, the tests at the time were nowhere near that of today. Back then Judges Rules were the guidance for police. Some of the practices would be frowned upon today. The introduction of PACE certainly did shake up the methodology of the police and how they investigate, record, store and present evidence. It’s not watertight by any means, but along with CPIA ( disclosure of material ) which was introduced in 1996, and like PACE continues to be updated it’s a far more favourable option. |
Judges Rules and Archbolds.
Ah where have the years flown.
It s like the days when Police Officers were respected .Now everybody slags them off but offers no alternative. | |
| |
| Dalian atkinson on 14:03 - Jun 28 with 702 views | YrAlarch |
| Dalian atkinson on 11:26 - Jun 28 by KeithHaynes |
Short explanation - Numerous police officers at the hub of serious and complex investigations are pivotal to the discussions in chambers, be that included or in meetings prior to the defence and prosecutors meeting.
I’m unsure of OHL’s level of experience here, but it isn’t an untrue statement. |
Sorry, I did not interpret OHL's comment in the same way you have. But I certainly take your point and, if I have misunderstood his point, I apologise to him. I meant no disrespect to him but I was intrigued as to how he knew what went on in Barristers' Chambers. | | | |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:03 - Jun 28 with 664 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Dalian atkinson on 11:45 - Jun 28 by Catullus |
I do agree that it's mostly Parliament to blame for soft guidelines BUT there are times when a convicted criminal with a long record could get prison time but doesn't. There again, I have often noticed that women seem to get away with lighter sentences than men in quite a few cases.
I read a report just this week, a drug dealer estimated to have made over 40k from his dealing was ordered to pay back to the courts.....£1. Is that justice? He claimed he was broke, that he spent it all which may be true or he may have a stash bag buried somewhere with htousands waiting for him. |
That comes down to proceeds of Crimes. They just don’t take his word for it, an investigation is made into known assets, bank accounts, cars, houses etc. A lot of these dealers either ‘make’ the money but actually it’s immediately passed to those higher up the chain, similar to prostitutes and pimps. Any realisable assets go to pay of the proceeds of crime. Papers don’t want to explain that though. | | | |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:06 - Jun 28 with 662 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Dalian atkinson on 12:42 - Jun 28 by controversial_jack |
Am I correct in thinking that guidelines are just that, "guidelines," and not cast in stone, therefore a judge can overrule them if they see fit? |
He can go outside the guidelines, up or down, but there has to be very sound reasoning for doing so, else he’ll just be appealed. Reason being is that a person in Cardiff is sentenced in the same way as someone in London.
Appeal court will only overturn though if it’s ‘manifestly excessive’, so 4 years when it should be 2 eg. | | | |
| Dalian atkinson on 20:10 - Jun 28 with 658 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Dalian atkinson on 12:32 - Jun 28 by onehunglow |
It is a deadly true statement and one which most would agree.
I’m uncertain of anyone and certainly do nit feel obliged to anyone in here I
And that included you alarch. You seem rather obsessed with me and it’s got me thinking about exactly who you are.
I stand by every word.
Our barrister correspondent appended respectful text so try it your self.
Think Jonny and I have straightened matters between us.
So many on here have never smelt blood or death or the stench of real fear. |
My friend, I never had a problem. Wouldn’t get far working in my job if I got precious about someone disagreeing with me. Context is always difficult online. Had many a heated discussion with my copper mates over a beer after a race (lot of them in my running club). Be a pleasure to buy you a beer if you’re ever up to watch a game in the North West. Nothing you never said to me ever caused me offence or warranted you getting banned.
My wife says far worse things everyday | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.