Shotgun certificate and speeding.
Discussion
I don't do crime, but the ethics course said that if your client fesses up to you then you should withdraw from the case and tell the client to get another lawyer. If you can't (eg you are half way through the case and withdrawing might send a signal to the Court), you can only put the prosecution to proof and not assert a positive defence, IIRC.
In civil law, I sometimes think that my client is lying, but unless I know he is lying I have to put forward his case. I must not put forward a case I know to be false.
In civil law, I sometimes think that my client is lying, but unless I know he is lying I have to put forward his case. I must not put forward a case I know to be false.
Dr Johnson (who was not a lawyer) wrote the manual on this:-
Boswell: "But what do you think of supporting a cause which you know to be bad?"
Johnson: "Sir, you do not know it to be good or bad until the judge determines it. I have said that you are to state facts fairly; so that your thinking, or what you call knowing, a cause to be bad, must be from reasoning, must be from your supposing your arguments to be weak and inconclusive. But, Sir, that is not enough. An argument which does not convince yourself, may convince the Judge to which you urge it; and if it does convince him, why, then, Sir, you are wrong and he is right. It is his business to judge; and you are not to be confident in your own opinion that a cause is bad, but to say all you can for your client, and then hear the Judge's opinion."
Boswell: "But, Sir, does not affecting a warmth when you have no warmth, and appearing to be clearly of one opinion, when you are in reality of another opinion, does not such dissimulation impair one's honesty? Is there not some danger that a lawyer may put on the same mask in common life, in the intercourse with friends?"
Johnson: "Why no, Sir. Everybody knows you are paid for affecting warmth for your client; and it is, therefore, properly no dissimulation: the moment you come from the bar you resume your usual behaviour. Sir, a man will no more carry the artifice of the bar into the common intercourse of society, than a man who is paid for tumbling upon his hands will continue to tumble on his hands when he should walk on his feet."
On another occasion:-
Johnson: "Sir, a lawyer has no business with the justice or injustice of the cause which he undertakes, unless his client asks his opinion, and then he is bound to give it honestly. The justice or injustice of the cause is to be decided by the judge. Consider, sir; what is the purpose of the courts of justice? It is, that every man may have his cause fairly tried, by men appointed to try causes. A lawyer is not to tell what he knows to be a false deed; but he is not to usurp the province of the jury and of the judge, and determine what shall be the effect of evidence -- what shall be the result of legal argument. As it rarely happens that is fit to plead his own cause, lawyers are a class of the community, who, by study and experience, have acquired the art and power of arranging evidence, and of applying to the points of issue what the law has settled. A lawyer is to do for his client all that his client might fairly do for himself, if he could. If, by a superiority of attention, of knowledge, of skill, and a better method of communication, he has the advantage of his adversary, it is an advantage to which he is entitled. There must always be some advantage, on one side or the other; and it is better that advantage should be had by talents, than by chance. If lawyers were to undertake no causes till they were sure they were just, a man might be precluded altogether from a trial of his claim, though, were it judicially examined, it might be a very just claim."
Boswell: "But what do you think of supporting a cause which you know to be bad?"
Johnson: "Sir, you do not know it to be good or bad until the judge determines it. I have said that you are to state facts fairly; so that your thinking, or what you call knowing, a cause to be bad, must be from reasoning, must be from your supposing your arguments to be weak and inconclusive. But, Sir, that is not enough. An argument which does not convince yourself, may convince the Judge to which you urge it; and if it does convince him, why, then, Sir, you are wrong and he is right. It is his business to judge; and you are not to be confident in your own opinion that a cause is bad, but to say all you can for your client, and then hear the Judge's opinion."
Boswell: "But, Sir, does not affecting a warmth when you have no warmth, and appearing to be clearly of one opinion, when you are in reality of another opinion, does not such dissimulation impair one's honesty? Is there not some danger that a lawyer may put on the same mask in common life, in the intercourse with friends?"
Johnson: "Why no, Sir. Everybody knows you are paid for affecting warmth for your client; and it is, therefore, properly no dissimulation: the moment you come from the bar you resume your usual behaviour. Sir, a man will no more carry the artifice of the bar into the common intercourse of society, than a man who is paid for tumbling upon his hands will continue to tumble on his hands when he should walk on his feet."
On another occasion:-
Johnson: "Sir, a lawyer has no business with the justice or injustice of the cause which he undertakes, unless his client asks his opinion, and then he is bound to give it honestly. The justice or injustice of the cause is to be decided by the judge. Consider, sir; what is the purpose of the courts of justice? It is, that every man may have his cause fairly tried, by men appointed to try causes. A lawyer is not to tell what he knows to be a false deed; but he is not to usurp the province of the jury and of the judge, and determine what shall be the effect of evidence -- what shall be the result of legal argument. As it rarely happens that is fit to plead his own cause, lawyers are a class of the community, who, by study and experience, have acquired the art and power of arranging evidence, and of applying to the points of issue what the law has settled. A lawyer is to do for his client all that his client might fairly do for himself, if he could. If, by a superiority of attention, of knowledge, of skill, and a better method of communication, he has the advantage of his adversary, it is an advantage to which he is entitled. There must always be some advantage, on one side or the other; and it is better that advantage should be had by talents, than by chance. If lawyers were to undertake no causes till they were sure they were just, a man might be precluded altogether from a trial of his claim, though, were it judicially examined, it might be a very just claim."
tenpenceshort said:
With respect, I think you may have missed the point being raised. The OP and the later post refer to an attitude towards risk (note I say risk and not illegality) that speeding displays. They were told that this attitude may affect their suitability to hold a firearms certificate.
I think the point Jas and others make, is that the Police officers themselves, and particularly armed Police, may themselves share similar attitudes toward risk, in that they speed, professionally, and more than likely in their own time, too. The existence of the Police exemption from speeding laws is therefore irrelevant, as it's not the illegality that is the risk, but the attitude toward going fast. I would imagine armed response drivers enjoy response driving, in part because it raises the adrenaline and is exciting, i.e. they share the same or similar attitudes toward fast driving as the person they are criticising.
how much experience do you have with driving marked emergency vehicles ? I think the point Jas and others make, is that the Police officers themselves, and particularly armed Police, may themselves share similar attitudes toward risk, in that they speed, professionally, and more than likely in their own time, too. The existence of the Police exemption from speeding laws is therefore irrelevant, as it's not the illegality that is the risk, but the attitude toward going fast. I would imagine armed response drivers enjoy response driving, in part because it raises the adrenaline and is exciting, i.e. they share the same or similar attitudes toward fast driving as the person they are criticising.
driving marked vehicles even under normal road conditions is stressful
the vast majority of emergency drivers treat exemptions as a tool to do their job , you only need look at the attitudes of the ambulance service to over triaged cat As and the fact that the crew(s) involved have had to put themselves and the public at large at risk to respond to this 'emergency' especially where there is either
a. ' computer says cat A' becasue certain magic words have been mentioned ( in the early days NHS(re)Direct anyone with a cardiac Hx who rang up was going to get a 999 ambulance becasue of the way the decision support was configured
b. outright abuse of the system by people who know to answer the questions in a certain way.
OpulentBob said:
I can understand why they did it but you only have to speak to the guy to know his "depression" is actually just frustration at his age and his situation, and he's about as risky as a feather covered in bubble wrap.
Feel free to remind him that with men tending to die a little younger than ladies he's got a better chance of getting some action now than the last time he was single 
mph1977 said:
tenpenceshort said:
With respect, I think you may have missed the point being raised. The OP and the later post refer to an attitude towards risk (note I say risk and not illegality) that speeding displays. They were told that this attitude may affect their suitability to hold a firearms certificate.
I think the point Jas and others make, is that the Police officers themselves, and particularly armed Police, may themselves share similar attitudes toward risk, in that they speed, professionally, and more than likely in their own time, too. The existence of the Police exemption from speeding laws is therefore irrelevant, as it's not the illegality that is the risk, but the attitude toward going fast. I would imagine armed response drivers enjoy response driving, in part because it raises the adrenaline and is exciting, i.e. they share the same or similar attitudes toward fast driving as the person they are criticising.
how much experience do you have with driving marked emergency vehicles ? I think the point Jas and others make, is that the Police officers themselves, and particularly armed Police, may themselves share similar attitudes toward risk, in that they speed, professionally, and more than likely in their own time, too. The existence of the Police exemption from speeding laws is therefore irrelevant, as it's not the illegality that is the risk, but the attitude toward going fast. I would imagine armed response drivers enjoy response driving, in part because it raises the adrenaline and is exciting, i.e. they share the same or similar attitudes toward fast driving as the person they are criticising.
driving marked vehicles even under normal road conditions is stressful
the vast majority of emergency drivers treat exemptions as a tool to do their job , you only need look at the attitudes of the ambulance service to over triaged cat As and the fact that the crew(s) involved have had to put themselves and the public at large at risk to respond to this 'emergency' especially where there is either
a. ' computer says cat A' becasue certain magic words have been mentioned ( in the early days NHS(re)Direct anyone with a cardiac Hx who rang up was going to get a 999 ambulance becasue of the way the decision support was configured
b. outright abuse of the system by people who know to answer the questions in a certain way.
It was a simple point and needs no experience of pursuit to make and understand.
Breadvan72 said:
Dr Johnson (who was not a lawyer) wrote the manual on this:-
BV, what is it that you are reading at the minute? I've seen you quote similar a few times in the last couple of days and the quotes have whetted my appitite for something a little more highbrow than my usual Haymarket magazines and beachbum books.
Breadvan72 said:
Legal professional privilege still exists. Lawyers are subject to money laundering rules. These are an extrapolation of the long standing rule that if your client gives you information about a criminal venture then the information is not subject to privilege. Privilege is based on confidentiality, and the old maxim is that there is no confidence in iniquity.
which is very much the positon Health Professionals find themselves in when a patient reveals information that gives a reasonable suspicion that they are likely to harm themselves or others or have been involved in serious crime.there is also the whole damned if you do , damned if you don't aspect - Health Professionals are encouraged to discuss concerns with a more senior professional if they are unsure - which , for iexample, if you have a patient in the A+E dept who makes a disclosure of this nature to a Staff Nurse or Junior Doctor, they are encouraged to discuss this with the Nurse -In-Charge and the senior doctor on duty before taking further action
tenpenceshort said:
The OP and the later post refer to an attitude towards risk (note I say risk and not illegality) that speeding displays.
That was not how I read it, however I normally consider the main risk in speeding is the legal one. As far as depression goes, the risk of losing something you enjoy if you try to get help must really brighten a depressed person up. It might just make them wait so long that they really should give up their guns.
tenpenceshort said:
With respect, I think you may have missed the point being raised. The OP and the later post refer to an attitude towards risk (note I say risk and not illegality) that speeding displays. They were told that this attitude may affect their suitability to hold a firearms certificate.
I think the point Jas and others make, is that the Police officers themselves, and particularly armed Police, may themselves share similar attitudes toward risk, in that they speed, professionally, and more than likely in their own time, too. The existence of the Police exemption from speeding laws is therefore irrelevant, as it's not the illegality that is the risk, but the attitude toward going fast. I would imagine armed response drivers enjoy response driving, in part because it raises the adrenaline and is exciting, i.e. they share the same or similar attitudes toward fast driving as the person they are criticising.
Response driving honestly isn't stimulating. Once you've done it for long enough, it's just getting from a to b with a bit more noise. I think the point Jas and others make, is that the Police officers themselves, and particularly armed Police, may themselves share similar attitudes toward risk, in that they speed, professionally, and more than likely in their own time, too. The existence of the Police exemption from speeding laws is therefore irrelevant, as it's not the illegality that is the risk, but the attitude toward going fast. I would imagine armed response drivers enjoy response driving, in part because it raises the adrenaline and is exciting, i.e. they share the same or similar attitudes toward fast driving as the person they are criticising.
A key point of firearms training is getting the right attitude so you get to a job in a suitable mental state to make appropriate decisions.
Breadvan72 said:
I don't do crime, but the ethics course said that if your client fesses up to you then you should withdraw from the case and tell the client to get another lawyer. If you can't (eg you are half way through the case and withdrawing might send a signal to the Court), you can only put the prosecution to proof and not assert a positive defence, IIRC.
In civil law, I sometimes think that my client is lying, but unless I know he is lying I have to put forward his case. I must not put forward a case I know to be false.
Thanks guys In civil law, I sometimes think that my client is lying, but unless I know he is lying I have to put forward his case. I must not put forward a case I know to be false.
Rude-boy said:
Breadvan72 said:
Dr Johnson (who was not a lawyer) wrote the manual on this:-
BV, what is it that you are reading at the minute? I've seen you quote similar a few times in the last couple of days and the quotes have whetted my appitite for something a little more highbrow than my usual Haymarket magazines and beachbum books.
(1) Evening in the Palace of Reason - J S Bach meets Frederick the Great of Prussia.
(2) Volume one of G M Treveylan's three volume England Under Queen Anne series (last read as an undergraduate over thirty years ago).
(3) Anthony Beevor's book about D Day.
(4) Catch 22 (another re read - last read in the late 80s).
I've also been dipping into Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's letters in an online edition. Witty early C18 traveller and feminist.
A book that I warmly recommend to all lawyers (and everyone): The Eustace Diamonds, by Anthony Trollope. Set in the 1860s, it contains wonderful portrayals of an eminent barrister and his instructing solicitor, recognisable as types that you can still meet today.
LordHaveMurci said:
Renewed mine at the end of last year, seems they have tightened up on a few things.
The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now obligated to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
Actually its the other way round. Police used to write to us asking for a statement of agreement that the person was fit to hold a shotgun. Now I just get letters from the police saying we have renewed this persons shotgun certificate, unless you have any worries just ignore the letter.The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now obligated to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
Never get anything through for FAC.
julian64 said:
LordHaveMurci said:
Renewed mine at the end of last year, seems they have tightened up on a few things.
The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now obligated to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
Actually its the other way round. Police used to write to us asking for a statement of agreement that the person was fit to hold a shotgun. Now I just get letters from the police saying we have renewed this persons shotgun certificate, unless you have any worries just ignore the letter.The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now obligated to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
Never get anything through for FAC.
Breadvan72 said:
I usually have more than one book on the go. I am currently reading:-
(1) Evening in the Palace of Reason - J S Bach meets Frederick the Great of Prussia.
(2) Volume one of G M Treveylan's three volume England Under Queen Anne series (last read as an undergraduate over thirty years ago).
(3) Anthony Beevor's book about D Day.
(4) Catch 22 (another re read - last read in the late 80s).
I've also been dipping into Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's letters in an online edition. Witty early C18 traveller and feminist.
A book that I warmly recommend to all lawyers (and everyone): The Eustace Diamonds, by Anthony Trollope. Set in the 1860s, it contains wonderful portrayals of an eminent barrister and his instructing solicitor, recognisable as types that you can still meet today.
Great, (1) Evening in the Palace of Reason - J S Bach meets Frederick the Great of Prussia.
(2) Volume one of G M Treveylan's three volume England Under Queen Anne series (last read as an undergraduate over thirty years ago).
(3) Anthony Beevor's book about D Day.
(4) Catch 22 (another re read - last read in the late 80s).
I've also been dipping into Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's letters in an online edition. Witty early C18 traveller and feminist.
A book that I warmly recommend to all lawyers (and everyone): The Eustace Diamonds, by Anthony Trollope. Set in the 1860s, it contains wonderful portrayals of an eminent barrister and his instructing solicitor, recognisable as types that you can still meet today.
I shall try the Trollope and look out for 'Evening in the Palace of Reason.' I've been a little stuck on where to go next as tired of the usual fare and after something to think on a little more than correcting the Autosport.
Catch 22 though, my sympathies, a hateful waste of paper and ink that I have finally given up on after countless attempts to penetrate. Up there on my list of first on the bonfire, swiftly followed by most of the works of DH Lawrence.
Edit/
As an aside these days I tend to have a book and a few magazines on the go at anyone time but when I first started out looking at the law one of the immediate pieces of advice I received from the SP of a firm I spoke to was to always read more than one book at a time and try to do the Times crossword once per week at least. It was only after much frustration and ill temper that I found out he meant the Times 2 crossword!
Edited by Rude-boy on Friday 15th August 17:01
I can't stand DH Lawrence, the man or his books. I enjoyed "Catch 22" when I was in my twenties, but I'm not getting into it second time around. I may biff it.
If you haven't tried Trollope before, maybe start with "The Way We Live Now". Even better, try Thackeray's "Vanity Fair".
A more modern author well worth trying that I only discovered a year or two ago - James Salter. Try his semi autobiigraphical Korean war novel "The Hunters". The film of the book isn't very good!
If you haven't tried Trollope before, maybe start with "The Way We Live Now". Even better, try Thackeray's "Vanity Fair".
A more modern author well worth trying that I only discovered a year or two ago - James Salter. Try his semi autobiigraphical Korean war novel "The Hunters". The film of the book isn't very good!
Sneak preview, Rude Boy: Mr Dove's Opinion, and Mr Dove in his chambers.
http://www.fudanbook.info/B0007/x/html/t/Trollope,...
http://www.fudanbook.info/B0007/x/html/t/Trollope,...
http://www.fudanbook.info/B0007/x/html/t/Trollope,...
http://www.fudanbook.info/B0007/x/html/t/Trollope,...
LordHaveMurci said:
Renewed mine at the end of last year, seems they have tightened up on a few things.
The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now OBLIGED (obligated) to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
OBLIGEDThe woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now OBLIGED (obligated) to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
OBLIGED
OBLIGED
Eleven said:
LordHaveMurci said:
Renewed mine at the end of last year, seems they have tightened up on a few things.
The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now obligated to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
It seems that all and sundry now have access to one's medical records and doctors aren't necessarily careful how they word things on file. So a benign comment can be misconstrued accidentally or otherwise by an interested party. I took life insurance about 4 years ago and had a world of inconvenience because of a badly worded comment by a GP relating to medicine.The woman who did my inspection told me they now write to your GP to see if you have any history or depression etc, something they rarely did before. Your GP is now obligated to inform them if anything changes, they weren't before so in theory you could be granted a shotgun cert. for five years then go loopy & nobody would know until it came up for renewal
It somewhat flies in the face of the advice "if you're feeling depressed talk to your doctor".
mph1977 said:
very few people outside of NHS funded health have direct access to your heatlh records, the vast majority of Access to patient identifiable Health Records is via a request to the relevant responsibile clinician for disclosure with the full informed consent of the patient ...
Yes, but what is on your record is then seemingly make or break in some situations. If you've not been diagnosed with an illness you can correctly state that you haven't. If you are either diagnosed or its noted that you have presented with certain symptoms which are suspected to be associated with a specific condition you have to disclose it. Carnage said:
Response driving honestly isn't stimulating. Once you've done it for long enough, it's just getting from a to b with a bit more noise.
A key point of firearms training is getting the right attitude so you get to a job in a suitable mental state to make appropriate decisions.
I was going to say, that I used to dislike response driving and found it a PITA. Some of the more immature officers used to get very uptight about who got to drive what car, but I preferred to walk or get the bus. After all the pay rate was the same. Never cycled much either after an unfortunate incident involving a police bicycle which suffered a snapped chain going round a roundabout and I had to wheel bloody the thing miles back to the nick.A key point of firearms training is getting the right attitude so you get to a job in a suitable mental state to make appropriate decisions.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff