Merseyside policeman struck and killed by stolen vehicle.
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I agree with himhowever, there is a line between doing the best you can for your client and willfully lying on your client's behalf, putting words in his mouth/coaching/etc.
Way I see it, the job of a barrister/solicitor is to represent their client in an honest fashion, if their client does not have the right language then by all means use 'better' language so as to get their 'story' out in the best possible light to the court etc.
The line is when they concoct a pack of lies, coach their client this concocted story etc. etc.
Scuffers said:
I agree with him
however, there is a line between doing the best you can for your client and willfully lying on your client's behalf, putting words in his mouth/coaching/etc.
Way I see it, the job of a barrister/solicitor is to represent their client in an honest fashion, if their client does not have the right language then by all means use 'better' language so as to get their 'story' out in the best possible light to the court etc.
The line is when they concoct a pack of lies, coach their client this concocted story etc. etc.
you have jumped way over two serious lineshowever, there is a line between doing the best you can for your client and willfully lying on your client's behalf, putting words in his mouth/coaching/etc.
Way I see it, the job of a barrister/solicitor is to represent their client in an honest fashion, if their client does not have the right language then by all means use 'better' language so as to get their 'story' out in the best possible light to the court etc.
The line is when they concoct a pack of lies, coach their client this concocted story etc. etc.
maybe you should read up on Defamation and Contempt
Scuffers said:
johnfm said:
Banging on about the solicitor isn't really relevant. You can't prosecute the scrote without giving him a defence. Even without legal advice, he is unlikely to say he intended to harm or kill the policeman.
where have I even suggested he should not be represented properly?PH is getting really frustrating these days, people seem unable to read more than 1 post ahead...
You need to brush up on your comprehension old chum.
I said "Banging on about the solicitor isn't really relevant." Here I am referring to what YOU said about the lawyer - banging on about him lying.
I then start a new sentence where I say "You can't prosecute the scrote without giving him a defence"
Nowhere do I say you are banging on about not giving him a good defence.
I could see how this could be misinterpreted - especially when you're consumed with the red mist.
Carry on.
La Liga said:
hey are both the same data (CSEW lines), the one I replaced with with showed it over a greater period of time. You can actually see that if you compare them, since they are after all, graphs.
If it's not the case we had a peak of crime in the mid-1990s and it has declined ever since, show it to be the case. You surely can't be the only astute observer to dismiss data you don't understand, surely someone else has uncovered the truth i.e. dismiss it because it doesn't show what you want.
not the thread for this type of argument, but my understanding is recorded assaults do not tally with hospital a+e admissions as a result of assault. there may be genuine reasons for this i am not aware of.If it's not the case we had a peak of crime in the mid-1990s and it has declined ever since, show it to be the case. You surely can't be the only astute observer to dismiss data you don't understand, surely someone else has uncovered the truth i.e. dismiss it because it doesn't show what you want.
agt is technically correct in saying people are not jailed for the offense of speeding ,but there are cases where the sole criminal action was to speed ,and the high speed was then deemed to be dangerous, hence dangerous driving,when the only offense was high speed. this relates to scotland.
The legal rep looks like he is doing his job. They look like they are looking to plea a manslaughter / death by dangerous. That isn't a surprise.
I made no mention of dangerous driving / excess speed etc.
wc98 said:
not the thread for this type of argument, but my understanding is recorded assaults do not tally with hospital a+e admissions as a result of assault. there may be genuine reasons for this i am not aware of.
agt is technically correct in saying people are not jailed for the offense of speeding ,but there are cases where the sole criminal action was to speed ,and the high speed was then deemed to be dangerous, hence dangerous driving,when the only offense was high speed. this relates to scotland.
I wouldn't call it an argument. People have to report the assault to the police for it to be recorded so there will be a discrepancy between police and A&E data, but they could still be relatively consistent i.e. when police data goes down so does A&E. The CSEW is an independent survey that has a methodology to iron-out statistical issues as best it can. agt is technically correct in saying people are not jailed for the offense of speeding ,but there are cases where the sole criminal action was to speed ,and the high speed was then deemed to be dangerous, hence dangerous driving,when the only offense was high speed. this relates to scotland.
I made no mention of dangerous driving / excess speed etc.
Bigends said:
We were discussing crime figures at work today - my force is currently recording around 2/3 of what we were recording 9 years ago thats despite recording everything that moves at the moment and forces were fiddling figures like hell all those years ago. We are currently over 20% up over last years figures but still well down on figures in the past. The makeup of crimes being recorded has changed - we are recording more fraud, harassment, communications (Internet, phone based crime) and sexual offences than ever before. Those figures arent as wrong as you may think not that this has any bearing on the subject of this post
I suspect people are not reporting crimes as much now. I gave up after I was a victim of fraud and the police told me it was a civil matter.Edited by Bigends on Thursday 8th October 19:54
We've had a couple of shed break in's and a car was keyed since then, and we've not reported it. We will only bother reporting a crime if we need to go through insurance, or its a very serious crime.The chances of someone being caught are tiny, and if they do get caught the punishments are laughable.
This isn't a rant, its just how a lot of normal everyday honest people feel about the justice system.
Edited by 98elise on Saturday 10th October 10:13
La Liga said:
The legal rep looks like he is doing his job. They look like they are looking to plea a manslaughter / death by dangerous. That isn't a surprise.
I made no mention of dangerous driving / excess speed etc.
Most driving offences are not recorded as notifiable crimes so wouldnt be on Police crime figures. wc98 said:
not the thread for this type of argument, but my understanding is recorded assaults do not tally with hospital a+e admissions as a result of assault. there may be genuine reasons for this i am not aware of.
agt is technically correct in saying people are not jailed for the offense of speeding ,but there are cases where the sole criminal action was to speed ,and the high speed was then deemed to be dangerous, hence dangerous driving,when the only offense was high speed. this relates to scotland.
I wouldn't call it an argument. People have to report the assault to the police for it to be recorded so there will be a discrepancy between police and A&E data, but they could still be relatively consistent i.e. when police data goes down so does A&E. The CSEW is an independent survey that has a methodology to iron-out statistical issues as best it can. agt is technically correct in saying people are not jailed for the offense of speeding ,but there are cases where the sole criminal action was to speed ,and the high speed was then deemed to be dangerous, hence dangerous driving,when the only offense was high speed. this relates to scotland.
I made no mention of dangerous driving / excess speed etc.
wc98 said:
La Liga said:
hey are both the same data (CSEW lines), the one I replaced with with showed it over a greater period of time. You can actually see that if you compare them, since they are after all, graphs.
If it's not the case we had a peak of crime in the mid-1990s and it has declined ever since, show it to be the case. You surely can't be the only astute observer to dismiss data you don't understand, surely someone else has uncovered the truth i.e. dismiss it because it doesn't show what you want.
not the thread for this type of argument, but my understanding is recorded assaults do not tally with hospital a+e admissions as a result of assault. there may be genuine reasons for this i am not aware of.If it's not the case we had a peak of crime in the mid-1990s and it has declined ever since, show it to be the case. You surely can't be the only astute observer to dismiss data you don't understand, surely someone else has uncovered the truth i.e. dismiss it because it doesn't show what you want.
agt is technically correct in saying people are not jailed for the offense of speeding ,but there are cases where the sole criminal action was to speed ,and the high speed was then deemed to be dangerous, hence dangerous driving,when the only offense was high speed. this relates to scotland.
The Surveyor said:
bencollins said:
When people say "it wouldnt work" what they are expressing is "i cant think of a way to make it work". Not the same thing.
No, what people are saying is that 'it won't work'. Getting a majority vote on every policy would never work, just like getting a majority vote on general elections doesn't always work either.Regardless and back on topic, I have some sympathy with Scuffers view, in that we don't seam to have any policy for dealing with these repeat offenders, they are processed by the system over and over again, arrested, convicted, released, arrested, convicted, released, arrested.... it doesn't matter to these people who they rob, who they hurt, or very sadly in this case who they kill.
For these lost-causes, there needs to be a more robust sentencing in place to take them away from society until they have grown up.
But how?
Do you know who makes these decisions on sentencing and what that is based on? Who took that decision?
In a democracy, the population should decide things, crime and punishment being very relevant because unlike lawyers and judges who make these decisions, most people have to live amongst criminality.
Or we can get angry and.....
blame the police > no they are catching people
blame the CPS > nope, they are prosecuting people
blame the defence lawyer > no again, we need a fair robust trial mechanism which exists
blame sentencing protocol > defined by the home office and politically steered by you the voter in the worlds oldest democracy! We are so lucky. Look how well that is working.
So does your vote every five years steer sentencing protocol? Or are you voting for more/less immigration, more/less education, more/less defence spending, more/less artifical football pitches, more/less dog-s
t-on-pavement-prosecutions. Feck it, what am I voting for again?Tragic if you think your vote steers anything remotely specific.
Tragic if you think as a citizen you dont deserve the right to influence or vote on things. Im just a lowly serf m'lud.
Equally tragic is the nothing "can ever work" mentality. Give non landowners the vote! "it'll never work".
A two minute online multiple choice bullet point survey would give the population the right to define the following:
Repeat offender sentencing
Amount of money spent per day on prisoner food
Area of of prisoner accommodation
Death penalty
Education
Prisoner benefit / pocket money
Conditions for which kind of offender
Terms of release
Taxation life surcharge for ex prisoners.
Cost per day of imprisoning.
Amount of free legal representation per lifetime of a citizen.
Almost everything can be determined by the populus if presented in the right fashion.
You add up the votes, just like X-factor. In a fully engaged society. Easy peasy.
Or we can just carry on thinking we live in a democracy, but a very strange democracy indeed, a democracy where the populus decides nothing except who are the kings and earls for five years. Oh but hang on a minute, that is our democracy where not everyone's vote will count, its only just a few floating voters in a few borderline constituencies that decides.
Everyone reading this will die in forty years never having influenced anything in how society is run, working at least one extra day per week to pay tax to fund this unending charade. Just ranting and raving in forums because you have no meaningful executive outlet for your view. In the thirties there were about 10,000 people in prison. Imagine that!
We the people run the country hahahaha - the bigger the lie the easier it is to fool the proletariat.
Keep working serfs and keep paying that tax, as your life flies by.
/rant over
Edited by bencollins on Saturday 10th October 15:45
La Liga said:
So the public votes everyone should stay in prison forever. I wonder if they'll be so keen to vote for the tax rises that accompany that as we end up imprisoning what will turn into millions of people over time.
Once the costs start rising, they would vote for an increase in the use of the death penalty.Martin4x4 said:
La Liga said:
So the public votes everyone should stay in prison forever. I wonder if they'll be so keen to vote for the tax rises that accompany that as we end up imprisoning what will turn into millions of people over time.
Once the costs start rising, they would vote for an increase in the use of the death penalty.No more Police time to investigate/chase/catch them any more, no more insurance claims for their crimes, no more welfare payments to keep them housed/feed/etc., no chance of them breeding more feral scum (at our expense no doubt), etc etc.
I reckon it would save a packet.
Martin4x4 said:
La Liga said:
So the public votes everyone should stay in prison forever. I wonder if they'll be so keen to vote for the tax rises that accompany that as we end up imprisoning what will turn into millions of people over time.
Once the costs start rising, they would vote for an increase in the use of the death penalty.The nobody who mowed down this person would still be in prison. The prison conditions would not be pool games and conjugal visits to breed more criminals because people dont like doing s
t boring jobs all their lives to pay for this waste and circus.Anybody facing a ten year prison or death sentence would not be smirking.
And as Scuffers says, keeping them locked up would cost peanuts compared to endless solicitors, appeals.
People would determine how much we spend per week on a criminal in prison.
It comes down to whether you trust "people in the know" to decide everything or you believe in direct democracy where we the people decide and steer things. I believe in direct democracy and people to decide things because:
1) I believe in people.
2) "Those in the know" have failed / never trust the eggspurts.
Bigends said:
Police can now record third party reports of assaults and other crimes from those acting in a professional capacity - doctors, nurses, social workers and teachers
If a tree falls in a forrest and no one is there to see it, did a tree fall? If a man is punched in the face and no one wants to complain about it - is it any business of the police to record this? It's just another made up statistic which serves no purpose. It's a joke. What possible reason would you have to waste time and money "reporting" offences when there is no complaint...
It reminds me on the "statistics" which demonstrate that only 0.00000001% of rapes are reported and then only 0.00000001% lead to a conviction that some groups like to throw around. Made up numbers which are only used by those with an agenda .
Anyway it's sad news that some kids will grow up without their father, and that a widow will have to raise her kids without her husband because he went to work. I have no idea if it was murder or death by dangerous driving etc... But do hope that it leads to less people being put at risk, and some people to realise that the police are doing their job, and are actually people behind the uniform.
This thread is breathtaking in the complete and utter braindead aspie mongs that have posted on it, even by SP&L standards.
My thoughts go out to his family, two very young daughters I believe, very sad.
Edited because I called various posters mongs, but spelt it wrong, quite ironic really.
My thoughts go out to his family, two very young daughters I believe, very sad.
Edited because I called various posters mongs, but spelt it wrong, quite ironic really.
Edited by StuntmanMike on Sunday 11th October 20:07
photosnob said:
If a tree falls in a forrest and no one is there to see it, did a tree fall? If a man is punched in the face and no one wants to complain about it - is it any business of the police to record this?
It's just another made up statistic which serves no purpose. It's a joke. What possible reason would you have to waste time and money "reporting" offences when there is no complaint...
It serves a solid purpose for data analysis and feeds into strategy and resource deployments. It's just another made up statistic which serves no purpose. It's a joke. What possible reason would you have to waste time and money "reporting" offences when there is no complaint...
For example, if you start recording large numbers of assaults around a certain public house / area then you can start to take action to reduce those, and ultimately reduce the risk of serious assaults and ones which lead to death.
It is essential to record DV crimes where there are no reports to reduce the risk to mainly women.
Not everything is simple and superficial.
Martin4x4 said:
La Liga said:
So the public votes everyone should stay in prison forever. I wonder if they'll be so keen to vote for the tax rises that accompany that as we end up imprisoning what will turn into millions of people over time.
Once the costs start rising, they would vote for an increase in the use of the death penalty.bencollins said:
The public should get what they want, that is how a democracy should function, we dont need people deciding what is best for us.
In world are the majority of the public, who'll default to populist policies, going to have the requisite interest and expertise to make balanced and rational judgements?Let's let the public vote for tax rises or tax decreases. I wonder which will win, regardless of which is the most appropriate for the circumstances.
La Liga said:
n world are the majority of the public, who'll default to populist policies, going to have the requisite interest and expertise to make balanced and rational judgements?
Let's let the public vote for tax rises or tax decreases. I wonder which will win, regardless of which is the most appropriate for the circumstances.
Labour, a higher tax administration has been voted in twice in the last twenty years, so your comment that that could never happen makes no sense.Let's let the public vote for tax rises or tax decreases. I wonder which will win, regardless of which is the most appropriate for the circumstances.
But ask a stupid question, you will get a stupid answer and vice versa, a well framed question gives useful answers.
From your comment I see you dont trust the public to make the right call.
I dont trust eggspurts.
Eggspurt "we will test the Diesel cars in a laboratory"
Public would have chosen "drive them on a road circuit and measure how much fuel & by products they use"
Eggspurt "he has served a few weeks for theft and dangerous driving"..................
Regarding the death penalty "never coming back" - why? who says? who decided this for us?
The whole system is rotten from the inside with vested interests and the we-know-best-bourgeoisie deciding everything behind closed doors to suit themselves and their backers.
The public decides nothing. This is not democracy.
Democracy means "the public decide"
The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people"
bencollins said:
Labour, a higher tax administration has been voted in twice in the last twenty years, so your comment that that could never happen makes no sense.
But ask a stupid question, you will get a stupid answer and vice versa, a well framed question gives useful answers.
Any party is voted in on a raft of policies and statements of what they will do and where they want to take the country. That's rather different from a specific question asking people about tax on its own. But ask a stupid question, you will get a stupid answer and vice versa, a well framed question gives useful answers.
bencollins said:
From your comment I see you dont trust the public to make the right call.
It's not about making the right call, it's about having the knowledge and experience to reasonably and correctly assess whatever is under discussion. bencollins said:
Regarding the death penalty "never coming back" - why? who says? who decided this for us?
It came in along with the other policies when Labour were voted in. bencollins said:
The whole system is rotten from the inside with vested interests and the we-know-best-bourgeoisie deciding everything behind closed doors to suit themselves and their backers.
The public decides nothing. This is not democracy.
Democracy means "the public decide"
The term originates from the Greek d?µ???at?a (demokratía) "rule of the people"
So what do we have? Every single thing, no matter how specialist, voted in by the general public. There's a esoteric piece of legislation in the form of the 'Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2015'. Do we have the public look and vote on every aspect of that before it received Royal Assent? The public decides nothing. This is not democracy.
Democracy means "the public decide"
The term originates from the Greek d?µ???at?a (demokratía) "rule of the people"
If not, why not? Do you not trust the public to make the right call? Isn't that 'rule of the people', too?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff