Stop or slow down?
Discussion
A London lawyer runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a Glasgow copper
He thinks that he is smarter than the cop because he is a lawyer from London and is certain that he has a better education then any Jock cop.
He decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the Glasgow cop's expense!
Cop:' License and registration, please.'
Lawyer: 'What for?'
Cop: 'You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign.'
Lawyer: 'I slowed down, and no one was coming.'
Cop: 'You still didn't come to a complete stop. License and registration, please.'
Lawyer: 'What's the difference?'
Cop: 'The difference is, you have to come to complete stop, that's the law. License and registration, please!'
Lawyer: 'If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration; and you give me the ticket. If not, you let me go and don't give me the ticket.'
Cop: 'Sounds fair. Step out of your vehicle, sir.'
The lawyer gets out.
The Glasgow cop takes out his baton and starts beating the sh1t out of the lawyer and says, ...
'Do you want me to stop, or just slow down?'
[No apologies!]
Streaky
He thinks that he is smarter than the cop because he is a lawyer from London and is certain that he has a better education then any Jock cop.
He decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the Glasgow cop's expense!
Cop:' License and registration, please.'
Lawyer: 'What for?'
Cop: 'You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign.'
Lawyer: 'I slowed down, and no one was coming.'
Cop: 'You still didn't come to a complete stop. License and registration, please.'
Lawyer: 'What's the difference?'
Cop: 'The difference is, you have to come to complete stop, that's the law. License and registration, please!'
Lawyer: 'If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I'll give you my license and registration; and you give me the ticket. If not, you let me go and don't give me the ticket.'
Cop: 'Sounds fair. Step out of your vehicle, sir.'
The lawyer gets out.
The Glasgow cop takes out his baton and starts beating the sh1t out of the lawyer and says, ...
'Do you want me to stop, or just slow down?'
[No apologies!]
Streaky
andmole said:
Wouldn't we all like to do that to lawyers sometimes
hope there's no lawyers reading this
What do you guys have against lawyers. They are the force that drives justice. They will always be ready to help and will give each case their full attention. They are comitted to winning if you murder someone or trip on a cobble they will further your best interests with their expertise and all for a modest fee.
bi9_jk said:
andmole said:
Wouldn't we all like to do that to lawyers sometimes
hope there's no lawyers reading this
What do you guys have against lawyers. They are the force that denies justice. They will always be ready to have a liquid lunch and will give each case their full attention when they've finished playing golf. They are committed to screwing as much money as possible if you appear in court for anything and are happy to sue anyone over the drop of a hat, they will further their own best interests with their expertise and all for a huge fee.
andmole said:
bi9_jk said:
andmole said:
Wouldn't we all like to do that to lawyers sometimes
hope there's no lawyers reading this
What do you guys have against lawyers. They are the force that denies justice. They will always be ready to have a liquid lunch and will give each case their full attention when they've finished playing golf. They are committed to screwing as much money as possible if you appear in court for anything and are happy to sue anyone over the drop of a hat, they will further their own best interests with their expertise and all for a huge fee.
Edited by bi9_jk on Tuesday 23 October 01:04
bi9_jk said:
andmole said:
Wouldn't we all like to do that to lawyers sometimes
hope there's no lawyers reading this
What do you guys have against lawyers. They are the force that drives justice. They will always be ready to help and will give each case their full attention. They are comitted to winning if you murder someone or trip on a cobble they will further your best interests with their expertise and all for a modest fee.
but you ARE joking aren't you?! tigger1 said:
bi9_jk said:
andmole said:
Wouldn't we all like to do that to lawyers sometimes
hope there's no lawyers reading this
What do you guys have against lawyers. They are the force that drives justice. They will always be ready to help and will give each case their full attention. They are comitted to winning if you murder someone or trip on a cobble they will further your best interests with their expertise and all for a modest fee.
but you ARE joking aren't you?! 
Rob_the_Sparky said:
bi9_jk said:
What do you guys have against lawyers. They are the force that drives justice.
There is a difference between justice and helping people weedle their way out of an offence via loop holes in the law...bluepolarbear said:
Rob_the_Sparky said:
bi9_jk said:
What do you guys have against lawyers. They are the force that drives justice.
There is a difference between justice and helping people weedle their way out of an offence via loop holes in the law...bi9_jk said:
No No No. Remember theres the truth (shanking head and looking glum) and theres the TRUTH!! (smiling, thumb up and nodding head)
Yes you are definetly confused. A court of law isn't about the truth it is about the law hence why they are called courts of law and not courts of truth.As stated no such thing as a loophole - but happy for you to point out one if you think they exist.
What is normally described as a "loophole" is the "prosecution", normally the police or CPS, falling to follow the law and because they fail to follow the law there isn't any evidence to convict someone of breaking the law.
It suits the CPS/Police to call it a "loophole" as it allows the real travisity - incompentence in our police/cps to continue without challenge or learning.
No-one walks on a technicality they walk because of incompetence
bluepolarbear said:
What is normally described as a "loophole" is the "prosecution", normally the police or CPS, falling to follow the law and because they fail to follow the law there isn't any evidence to convict someone of breaking the law.
Loopholes are due to poorly worded legislation. I've lost cases where I've followed the law to the letter yet courts decide that some other interpretation is prefered. I've lost a case where I followed one stated case only to have my case appealed and it got turned over. Farcical.The poorly worded breathtest legislation was a minefield where cases got turned over week on week. Then, low and behold, an appeal court decided that they were all wrong and such silly details as whether an officer wore a hat or not at the time of the demand did not really matter. Yet hundreds of drunken drivers had been let off to reoffend.
I've followed the law. I'm not incompetant. I've lost cases because of poorly worded legislation. I've never lost a case due to 'failing to follow the law'.
I had to write a report on my force's response to a new Criminal Justice Act. I went to see the resident judge who told me that it would be turned over within six months because it was so badly worded. And he was right. You should have heard what he felt about Blunkett's legislation.
I had a professor from the Home Office come to my ID unit when they were intending to update the Codes of Practice. My unit had been metnioned in a Home Office Circular as an example of good practice so that's why he picked us. My unit was the first and only unit he visited. Yet he rewrote the entire CoP as they related to identification. The legislators have absolutely no idea of what is required.
And on the subject of lawyers, I reviewed a 14-year-old lad, in the presence of his mother, in my role as custody inspector. This lad had been nicked four or five times in the last month and my shift came down to get a look at him as he had the makings of a frequent offender and they wanted to be able to recognise him. I told this lad he had an important decision to make. My crew would remember him and note what he was wearing each time and if a brief description of clothing of an offender was put out over the air, they would know if it was him. i did not expect to make a difference but, as he was only 14, you have to give it a go. He said, "I've got no worries. David [his solicitor] has told me that whenever I'm nicked to shut up and he'll get me off."
Corruption of a minor, pure and simple. The brief was encouraging a young person to offend.
Derek Smith said:
bluepolarbear][ ... said:
The poorly worded breathtest legislation was a minefield where cases got turned over week on week. Then, low and behold, an appeal court decided that they were all wrong and such silly details as whether an officer wore a hat or not at the time of the demand did not really matter. Yet hundreds of drunken drivers had been let off to reoffend.
[ ... ]
And in cases where, on appeal, the law or its application has been found to be inadequate to support a conviction, thousands of non-offenders (in the case of motoriists) have been neither pardoned nor compensated - Streaky[ ... ]
bi9_jk said:
(shanking head and looking glum)
shanking headIst that because of the weight of the wig which need the curlers? Or something between lawyers which ist equivalent to a "funny handshake" ?
But lawyers - depend how they present case in court. I think "shanking"
would depend on the judge's own predisposition per the tabloid press. 
Judge John Deed's antics with his leading ladies pale when compared to some of the StUN's offerings in past three months Derek Smith said:
bluepolarbear said:
What is normally described as a "loophole" is the "prosecution", normally the police or CPS, falling to follow the law and because they fail to follow the law there isn't any evidence to convict someone of breaking the law.
Loopholes are due to poorly worded legislation. I've lost cases where I've followed the law to the letter yet courts decide that some other interpretation is prefered. I've lost a case where I followed one stated case only to have my case appealed and it got turned over. Farcical.The poorly worded breathtest legislation was a minefield where cases got turned over week on week. Then, low and behold, an appeal court decided that they were all wrong and such silly details as whether an officer wore a hat or not at the time of the demand did not really matter. Yet hundreds of drunken drivers had been let off to reoffend.
I've followed the law. I'm not incompetant. I've lost cases because of poorly worded legislation. I've never lost a case due to 'failing to follow the law'.
I had to write a report on my force's response to a new Criminal Justice Act. I went to see the resident judge who told me that it would be turned over within six months because it was so badly worded. And he was right. You should have heard what he felt about Blunkett's legislation.
I had a professor from the Home Office come to my ID unit when they were intending to update the Codes of Practice. My unit had been metnioned in a Home Office Circular as an example of good practice so that's why he picked us. My unit was the first and only unit he visited. Yet he rewrote the entire CoP as they related to identification. The legislators have absolutely no idea of what is required.
And on the subject of lawyers, I reviewed a 14-year-old lad, in the presence of his mother, in my role as custody inspector. This lad had been nicked four or five times in the last month and my shift came down to get a look at him as he had the makings of a frequent offender and they wanted to be able to recognise him. I told this lad he had an important decision to make. My crew would remember him and note what he was wearing each time and if a brief description of clothing of an offender was put out over the air, they would know if it was him. i did not expect to make a difference but, as he was only 14, you have to give it a go. He said, "I've got no worries. David [his solicitor] has told me that whenever I'm nicked to shut up and he'll get me off."
Corruption of a minor, pure and simple. The brief was encouraging a young person to offend.
Also, I susect that David's solicitor has been misquoted - he probably said "shut up until I get there" knowing full well that David shouldn't self-incriminate, and certainly shouldn't be doing so without legal assistance. As a minor, that shouldn't be a problem for you. Yes, the lad is a repeat offender, but it seems that you have a problme with him having access to representation. Do you just want to question him when a solicitor isn't there? If so, then even more the reason for the lad to want to have a solicitor!
Ergo, NOT corruption of a minor at all. And the "brief" (yawn) WASN'T encouraging David to offend.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff