It's not like me to moan about the Police but...

[DWM]

Another (possibly less emotive) example: there are thousands of lawyers and accountants currently employed whose sole function is to use every bit of their ingenuity to help huge corporations to minimise their tax bills. 100% legal of course. But is it a morally good way to live or earn a living? Could you sleep easy doing it? I suppose it depends partly on your politics, partly on how you see the relation between state and taxpayer. But I could certainly understand someone who was happy to do it. And equally I could understand someone who couldn't live with it.

[S60D5-185]

Originally Posted by Michaeleff

Unfortunately, you are missing a critical and necessary point here.

This is judging - after the event - lawyers who defend people.

You have the benefit of two realities:

1. The Verdict: &,

2. The evidence given in Court.

Lacking that evidence (And the subsequent verdict), then you wouldn't have the ability to reach any value judgement whatsoever.

It must be remembered that under English law an accused is deemed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond normal and reasonable doubt.

Any trial cannot take place without some defence and some prosecution.

Or perhaps, instead, you would prefer lawyers to adjudge a potential client guilty at their first meeting?

Then they could take the guy out and hang him?

As yet another option, we could institute trial by media?

Personally, I would prefer the admittedly imperfect legal system we have now, rather than take my own chances with such as Rupert Murdoch, thank you very much!

In principle what you say is correct but it is inherently a conveniently simplistic view aimed at protecting the dubious integrity of some of those within the legal profession.
Surely you are not trying to tell me that a barrister or solicitor , when first made aware of the circumstances surrounding their clients arrest never says " You my friend are as gulity as sin?

On the contrary it must on occasions be, " You my son are as guilty as sin but seeing as you have not hurt me or my family and i am being handsomely paid i will try my level best to discredit all those have wronged you by complaining or being the unfortunate victim..

My point is that even when there is overwhelming evidence ( way before any trial or media involvement ) ie at the initial stage of an investigation when there are 20 witnesses and CCTV footage of someone stabbing another in the street then we still have the Barrister all too ready to defend when they KNOW that their client is guilty and lying.

If you would feel comfortable doing that for enough money ( all in the name of justice of course ) so be it but it does not sit comfortably with me .

Lastly, we all know that O.J. Simson was innocent because the court decided so

We agree to disagree.

[DWM]

Originally Posted by andy north face

I asked this question in another thread and no-one replied,can a solicitor refuse to defend the likes of the above?

Barristers officially have what gets called the 'cab-rank' rule according to which if they are offered a case that is within their area of competence then they are supposedly obliged to take it. It's meant to ensure fairness. In practice though (again as I understand it) it is not normally difficult for any barrister to avoid a particular case if he doesn't fancy it. You just tell your friendly clerk that you don't fancy it (or that you're too busy, or you're conflicted, or that you have a wedding to attend, or whatever) and it gets passed on. Solicitors are generally entitled to refuse instructions without any particular reason. But as has been said there is always money to be made so someone will pick it up, whatever it is.

[marct1980]

this is a great thread soldiers getting called out, lesbos gettin dissed (personally i think they are responsible for some of the best films on my hard drive), a deep search into the whole legal system pros and cons, police brutality.......anything about volvos comin soon??!!

[S60D5-185]

[QUOTE=marct1980;908940]this is a great thread soldiers getting called out, lesbos gettin dissed (personally i think they are responsible for some of the best films on my hard drive), a deep search into the whole legal system pros and cons, police brutality.......anything about volvos comin soon??!![/QUOTE]



Don't think so but your hard drive sounds good!


Darryl

[Michaeleff]

What rather amuses me about this thread and the direction it's taken is one salient fact.

Some years back, British jurisprudence made an about turn: the basic tenet of being innocent until proven guilty beyond doubt, was turned onto its head by increasingly arbitrary treatment of motorists.

Drink Driving: guilty unless the motorist accused was, by some strange fact able to prove his innocence.

Parking Offences: guilty unless etc.

Speeding: same scenario.

I have watched this regression, as sadly, I'm old enough to have started driving, regularly, before such black box wonders as radar detectors, breathalyzers etc were introduced.

What is absorbing are certain realities: the first Lion Intoxometers (The machine used by police officers in station to actually definitively determine absolute limits of blood alcohol), were horribly inaccurate.

Same with the original Marconi PETA (Portable Electronic Traffic Analyser): more on this in a bit.

Recently, we have seen local authorities, in their paranoid persecution of parked cars, repeatedly taken to task since they are so incompetent, they couldn't even ensure clear road signage accorded to the acts of their yellow banded kerb crawlers.

Problem with any Black Box is it is only actually accurate, provided strictures pertain: firstly, if it is regularly calibrated and certified by a competent authority (Same with any scientific measuring equipment) and perhaps, most critically of all, operated by a properly trained and skilled person.

Sadly, the whole apparat of the anti-motorist system, politicians, lawyers, the CPS, idiot magistrates have accepted this Rubber Stamp "Justice" and become exercised if and when a motorist dares challenge inequity.

On speeding: perhaps the most flawed system was the patrol car-portable speed calculator, VASCAR.

Quote:

"Vascar/Police Pilot

The Vascar and Police Pilot are in-car speed detection devices used by police officers. They are manually controlled, usually fitted in a patrol car and the machine can either be used to measure time taken over a pre-determined distance or while following you along the road. Both devices operate like stop watches, however speeds are incorrectly measured when the user miscalculates the distance over which the vehicle travelled or the time in which it took a vehicle to travel between the switching points. There are known inaccuracies attributable to the manner in which operators use these devices, so it is the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and not the Home Office that have approved the Vascar and Police Pilot to measure speeds."

The biggest anomaly of any time/distance calculator relying on a motorist passing two set points is Parallax Error: the pursuing car's observer presses the tit when he believes the target has passed reference point one. Can be way off.

Yet any defence would mainly fail, unless the accused motorist employs the services of one of these dreadful venal lawyers most seem so exercised about, who is truly capable.

Thus I find the earlier perspective in this thread rather disingenuous.

On PETA (original Radar Detector).

My elder brother, an electronics whiz, used to work for Marconi, in Essex. One of his colleagues was the guy who designed and developed PETA. It was originally designed to count freight railway cars in sidings.

Now rail cars tend to be flat, run at a pre-set distance and angle from the detector. Cars tend to be all different curvy shapes and can veer all over the place. Marconi, having no interest from rail companies, hit on a bright idea: and sold the Black Box to police forces up and down the country.

Loads of people were nicked: no defence "Our Black Box cannot lie!"

Until one day the guy who designed it, Dr X was nicked for speeding and elected to plead Not Guilty and defend himself.

A farce ensued!

Magistrate: "You have pleaded not guilty: on what grounds?"

Doc: "The machine is wholly inaccurate!"

Mag:"That's a highly arrogant statement, Dr. X: how are you able to prove this contentious statement?"

Doc: "I designed it!"

After detailing all the areas of potential inaccuracy he was found not guilty.

However this did not subsequently prevent the police authorities who had bought the thing using it and charging skads of people with speeding.

Food for thought?

[marct1980]

Doc: "I designed it!"

After detailing all the areas of potential inaccuracy he was found not guilty.

wonder if that defence would stand up for anyone else ?
i got off with a speeding ticket once because the machine had been calibrated in sweden or somewhere and the clock was set at the wrong time, luckily my works car park has cameras and could prove that my car was parked up at the time they were claiming i was speeding, they did however suggest that my works cameras were not suitable as evidence etc etc the good old solicitor sorted it out from there though!

[Michaeleff]

Originally Posted by marct1980

wonder if that defence would stand up for anyone else ?

Only if the accused could present a significant body of expert evidence which showed there was serious doubt about a device's core accuracy: or the manner in which it had been used.

Useful references here:

[Bigman1207]

Its good to see a wealth of experience shared and assistance offered.

BM

[rogerthechorister]

I'm all for equal treatment of LGBT people. But as to the accuracy of the word "dyke" I did leave out the gleeful search process - and several of my LGBT friends have been known to rant about the antics of diesel dykes.

It is professionally improper for any lawyer, barrister or solicitor, knowingly to assist his client to advance an untruth, and becoming aware of an untruth is grounds for counsel to withdraw from a case. But being aware of one is not the same as being suspicious of one.

Incidentally, most solicitors have got out of legal aid work because it is impossible to make it profitable. This applies both to crime and to civil work. IMHO the reduction in rates is a government ploy to ensure that the poor cannot obtain their legal rights. Many (it might even be "most") sole practitioner solicitors make profits of under £15,000 per year.