Early Risers.

[Barry O]

Ey up!

 

Woken by the early morning Rhino air flight to Dublin this morning.. 737 Max are very noisy!

 

Watched a bitnof Rugby League last night..  nail biting stuff but Leeds eventually won! Hurrah!

 

Having driven a UTE in Oz I found that one cramped  ( like a reverse tardis), cornering capability of a brick and very uncomfortable to drive. Must have been a truck chassis based one?

 

I have no official jobs to do bar one today. The job is.. fit new roller blind.. the one which isn't wide enough. This will involve drilling through a tile.. never the easiest thing to do.

 

Time to.. drink my tea then gerronwithit.

 

Baz

[polybear]

7 hours ago, iL Dottore said:

As I understand it, defendants have a privileged and non-monitored communications and face to face discussions with their defence lawyer. During this process, the defendant will inform the lawyer about everything. the defendant is supposed to have done so that the lawyer can build a case for the defence. It is not unknown for a defendant to inform his or her counsel for the defence that he or she actually did do the crime, and then the counsel proceeds to try and get the defendant acquitted

A friend ( a defence lawyer) of my Boss was most upset at losing a murder trial.  My Boss said “but it was blatantly obvious he did it!!” - to which his friend replied “ I know, but it looks bad on my record because I lost….”

 

7 hours ago, iL Dottore said:

Now now, temper temper!

And such inelegant and inappropriate language as well. I thought that you were a Better Quality Bear than that.

 

But rather than going off in a huff, consider this: as minister responsible for prisons, you would have the opportunity to try out your culinary theories on – quite literally – a captive audience.

You could well go down in history as the minister that caused a 95% drop in recidivism!

  
Hmm, how about Tripe for every meal?

 

7 hours ago, Winslow Boy said:

I don't think there's enough baked beans, pizza and curly fries to cause that. Some of the f£&4£#g scrotes might like it.

 

If you think I’m wasting the most excellent food on scrotes…..

[Grizz]

3 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said:

Not quite. The fluorescent strip operates at 50 Hz - the cutter at 100 Hz, but the same stroboscopic effect would happen with the first harmonic of the power frequency.

😁 I genuinely didn’t know that, thank you for explaining it. And I am not being sarcastic, as I have said before, that’s part of what I love about ERers, every day is a school day. 
 

It is like a league of Gentlefolk here, we are brimming with knowledge, skills and experiences from lives lived. 
 

The outcome of that incident was that they banned the used of fluorescent tubes above such machines. 

[iL Dottore]

6 hours ago, Flanged Wheel said:

As the resident bewigged villainous member of the Bar, there’s a couple of common misconceptions that might be worth noting,

 

It is entirely possible (and I have done it many times) to introduce the previous convictions or other bad behaviour of the defendant into a trial. It does require a bad character application (under the Criminal Justice Act 2003). There are seven gateways to admission and, even if admitted, the judge will give directions to the jury (or Board if a court martial) on how they should approach the evidence. If they do have previous convictions, even if they are not introduced into the trial, then their entitlement to a “good character” direction in the judge’s summing up will be affected. It’s not unusual for the defence to adduce previous convictions (especially if they are unrelated to the current charge) so that a modified good character direction can be obtained.

 

Secondly, if you are defending and your client confesses to you in private, then you are very likely to be “professionally embarrassed” and will have to withdraw from the case*. Your duty of confidentiality continues so that you cannot reveal the reason (although everyone will have a good idea as to what has happened). Barrister ethics include a professional duty to the court and that means not misleading the court. You cannot advance a positive defence that you know, by instructions from your client, to be untrue. If your client tells you that they didn’t do it, then however fanciful their defence may be (and some of them are very fanciful), it’s your duty to advance the defence as robustly as you can. It can seem deeply unpleasant but I’ve pondered alternative ways of approaching the issue for years and never managed to come up with a better alternative. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, just that it is not obvious.

 

*I should add that this is relatively rare. Many accused will be sufficiently familiar with the system to understand this and many lawyers will explain this to their clients at the very outset. 

I thank m’learnéd friend for this clear and illuminating explanation which robustly dispels the myths that I (and probably others) have imbued from newspapers, novels, television and film.

 

You wrote “If your client tells you that they didn’t do it, then however fanciful their defence may be (and some of them are very fanciful), it’s your duty to advance the defence as robustly as you can” but how can that be done when there is overwhelming clear, objective and irrefutable evidence offered by the prosecution that the individual in question DID do the crime?
 

To make a fanciful (hypothetical) example: a man with distinctive green and purple facial tattoos is accused of “flashing” a member of the Royal Family. This was witnessed by various police officers at the venue, the Royal Family member’s personal protection detail, a few hundred members of the public (who have already uploaded their photos to instagram) and the whole mess captured on CCTV. How can a defence be mounted against such overwhelming evidence of culpability? Would you try? Or would you tell them plead guilty and try for mitigation in the form of diminished responsibility?

 

I am curious to know.

[monkeysarefun]

20 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Having driven a UTE in Oz I found that one cramped  ( like a reverse tardis), cornering capability of a brick and very uncomfortable to drive. Must have been a truck chassis based one?

 

Probably, they come in all sizes, if not shapes!  That is a little like saying "Having driven a car once..." 

 

A VF Redline lapped the Nurburgring in 8:19, faster than most bricks . And you can stop at the tip to drop off the rubbish on the way there. 

 

And this was just the "Standard"  performance ute, one model later than mine, I assume the Maloo with its supercharged 6.2 would be in another league again.

[iL Dottore]

2 hours ago, pH said:

How will it be verified that the defendant made this confession to his or her defence lawyer during a privileged and non-monitored face-to-face discussion?

Good point, but moot now (see @Flanged Wheel excellent clarification). But to address your question, I think that this would be one of those “professional ethics” situations where verification doesn’t take place as the assumption is that the professional in question adheres to their code of conduct, but if anything ever comes out that shows that the professional in question did not adhere to their ethical code, then the law lands on them like a ton of bricks.

[iL Dottore]

34 minutes ago, polybear said:

Hmm, how about Tripe for every meal?

You are Kim Jong Bear and I claim my “spot the next leader of North Korea” prize!

[Grizz]

2 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

I thank m’learnéd friend for this clear and illuminating explanation which robustly dispels the myths that I (and probably others) have imbued from newspapers, novels, television and film.

 

You wrote “If your client tells you that they didn’t do it, then however fanciful their defence may be (and some of them are very fanciful), it’s your duty to advance the defence as robustly as you can” but how can that be done when there is overwhelming clear, objective and irrefutable evidence offered by the prosecution that the individual in question DID do the crime?
 

To make a fanciful (hypothetical) example: a man with distinctive green and purple facial tattoos is accused of “flashing” a member of the Royal Family. This was witnessed by various police officers at the venue, the Royal Family member’s personal protection detail, a few hundred members of the public (who have already uploaded their photos to instagram) and the whole mess captured on CCTV. How can a defence be mounted against such overwhelming evidence of culpability? Would you try? Or would you tell them plead guilty and try for mitigation in the form of diminished responsibility?

 

I am curious to know.

Defence lawyer. “My client has no recollection of the event, as at the time he was, and I quote ‘Tripping bals on a cocktail of alcohol, meth, coke, PCP, curly fries and Love Hearts, as well as him forgetting to take his medication to counter previously diagnosed drug psychosis and resultant multiple personality disorders’, in short Mlud, and with respect (respek for those in sarff Lundin), the defence submits that unless the prosecution can identify exactly which one of his personalities he was at the time, then it is a case of mistaken identity for the other 53. And further more the fact that all 54 people involved in the alleged incident do all in fact have distinctive green and purple facial tattoos, this is mere coincidence. And one last thing Mlud, my client would also like to add that if in fact he was the personality at the time, it is not his fault as he was fed too much L.D.C. as a child and has flash backs… and everything….. er….the defence rests”……

 

…..stunned silence…..

[Grizz]

57 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Ey up!

 

Woken by the early morning Rhino air flight to Dublin this morning.. 737 Max are very noisy!

 

 

May I suggest that you go and check your back garden for anything vaguely resembling aircraft parts, that wasn’t there yesterday ….just in case they didn’t quite put enough Duck Tape on that particular one. 

Edited March 9 by Grizz

[TheQ]

What this shows is that lawyers are liars, that probably explains why so many lawyers are in parliament.

 

Mooring Awl, 

2.5 hours sleep, short awake,  5 hours sleep... Needed that.

 

Ben the I'd like out Collie, took me on patrol which didn't last long as two shots rang out when we only reached halfway down the garden. Ben then wanted back to the house. Ben is still unsure as he's lying close by me and not back in his pit.

100% blue welkin, breeze much reduced over yesterday , ground still drying, but on moving the land rover yesterday to go to the MRC it left a 6 inch deep trench in the grass. I'll be moving the landrover again this morning then more grass levelling will be needed.

The ground is getting stiffer, but is still much softer than normal.

 

Also needed to day, make some bracketry to support a beam holding the boat cover, this is needed because the new mast step will poke a hole through the cover. The beam itself is an old aluminum mast.

Then I must do at least the gate light.

 

But first

Time to cheer Ben up with a bit of my BLT for breakfast.

 

[monkeysarefun]

38 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

To make a fanciful (hypothetical) example: a man with distinctive green and purple facial tattoos

 

 

That is almost exactly what happened at the oil company that I worked at. We had the 32nd  and 33rd floor or something of a tower in the city . The fancy stuff like legal and  accounts and the directors etc were on the 33rd where reception was, we technical types like IT and geosciences were on 32 which just had various doors with swipe access.

 

One lunch time a bloke turned up in the central lift area of 32 and waited until someone arrived and asked if they'd let him in to "check the skirting boards". They did and the guy  wandered through the offices ( it was lunchtime -  most people went out for lunch) and stole  a couple of laptops etc. The police were called but couldn't;'t really do much except get a description and statements. Despite it being a bit criminal we generally decided that he was pretty ballsy to do it.

 

The next day however that changed when he arrived on the 33rd floor at lunch time and asked the receptionist if he could check the skirting boards. She pointed him down a corridor then surreptitiously got another staff member to follow him while she phoned security.  What gave him away apart from trying the exact same modus operandi, was  the massive face tattoo....

Edited March 9 by monkeysarefun

[monkeysarefun]

1 hour ago, iL Dottore said:

I thank m’learnéd friend for this clear and illuminating explanation which robustly dispels the myths that I (and probably others) have imbued from newspapers, novels, television and film.

 

You wrote “If your client tells you that they didn’t do it, then however fanciful their defence may be (and some of them are very fanciful), it’s your duty to advance the defence as robustly as you can” but how can that be done when there is overwhelming clear, objective and irrefutable evidence offered by the prosecution that the individual in question DID do the crime?
 

To make a fanciful (hypothetical) example: a man with distinctive green and purple facial tattoos is accused of “flashing” a member of the Royal Family. This was witnessed by various police officers at the venue, the Royal Family member’s personal protection detail, a few hundred members of the public (who have already uploaded their photos to instagram) and the whole mess captured on CCTV. How can a defence be mounted against such overwhelming evidence of culpability? Would you try? Or would you tell them plead guilty and try for mitigation in the form of diminished responsibility?

 

I am curious to know.

 

 

The first  five minutes of episode one of "Better Call Saul" covers this scenario

 

 

[jjb1970]

I think the legal system needs to do only one thing to retain the confidence and trust of society - to deliver justice fairly and effectively. Part of that is holding criminals to account and seeing reasonable penalties administered (I.e. neither soft nor vindictively excessive) but part of it is ensuring people get a fair trial and (hopefully) preventing miscarriages of justice. 

 

Really it's two sides of the same coin.

[Grizz]

I wasn’t going to post this…however….I would like to get it out there as an example of the kind of thing we have been talking about. 

 

Many decades ago my youngest brother was attacked in the early hours of the morning in Gotham City, whilst walking with his girlfriend. The completely unprovoked attack was by two herberts that used a Newcastle brown bottle to smash him over the head, from behind, cutting his head badly. He fell to the ground and received a reasonable booting. Mostly to the head. They also punched his girlfriend in the face a few times for good measure. This was witnessed by 30 or so people at relatively close range. 
 

His girlfriend managed to summon help from some very kind people in the street and they used a nearby house holders phone to ring 999. 

 

A hour or so later a couple of bobbies on the beat two streets away, spotted two herberts fitting the descriptions, gave chase and nicked them. 
 

The remains of the bottle used in the attack was actually gathered and used as evidence. 

After hospital treatment with stitches to his head etc etc, my brother, his girlfriend and a dozen or so people gave statements to Gotham’s finest and due process started. 

 

Three months later the herberts were up in court and were found not guilty. But were charged with possession of illegal substances, one with intent to supply. They claimed that they were high and had no recollection of any such event and ran away from the cops only because they were carrying drugs. 
 

They were found guilty of the drugs charges, after which their previous convictions were read out. Both had previously been convicted multiple times of violence, using weapons and a string of other associated violent type crimes. 
 

So to be clear, these two got off based on what they were advised to do. To get them off. 
 

This assault had a huge psychological and physical affect on my brother. And may or may not have contributed to him taking his own life just two years later. 
 

I have little if any trust or faith in our justice system. 
 

One of the poor coppers told my dad in confidence after the trial, we know it was them and we know that they did I it. But they are in the last chance saloon and ‘money’ has been thrown at this to keep them out of prison. 
 

He was so apologetic, I could see in his face the frustration and anger he genuinely felt. 

The best example I can think of, of abuse of the system is the Guinness trial, that of Ernest Saunders. The only person to have fully recovered from full blown Alzheimer’s disease. 

 

[jjb1970]

Back in London, very pleasant cool and sunny morning. Excellent flight, I am convinced Air China has perfected human cloning, their flight attendants all look like they just walked off the same cat walk.

[monkeysarefun]

4 minutes ago, Grizz said:

I wasn’t going to post this…however….I would like to get it out there as an example of the kind of thing we have been talking about. 

 

Many decades ago my youngest brother was attacked in the early hours of the morning in Gotham City, whilst walking with his girlfriend. The completely unprovoked attack was by two herberts that used a Newcastle brown bottle to smash him over the head, from behind, cutting his head badly. He fell to the ground and received a reasonable booting. Mostly to the head. They also punched his girlfriend in the face a few times for good measure. This was witnessed by 30 or so people at relatively close range. 
 

His girlfriend managed to summon help from some very kind people in the street and they used a nearby house holders phone to ring 999. 

 

A hour or so later a couple of bobbies on the beat two streets away, spotted two herberts fitting the descriptions, gave chase and nicked them. 
 

The remains of the bottle used in the attack was actually gathered and used as evidence. 

After hospital treatment with stitches to his head etc etc, my brother, his girlfriend and a dozen or so people gave statements to Gotham’s finest and due process started. 

 

Three months later the herberts were up in court and were found not guilty. But were charged with possession of illegal substances, one with intent to supply. They claimed that they were high and had no recollection of any such event and ran away from the cops only because they were carrying drugs. 
 

They were found guilty of the drugs charges, after which their previous convictions were read out. Both had previously been convicted multiple times of violence, using weapons and a string of other associated violent type crimes. 
 

So to be clear, these two got off based on what they were advised to do. To get them off. 
 

This assault had a huge psychological and physical affect on my brother. And may or may not have contributed to him taking his own life just two years later. 
 

I have little if any trust or faith in our justice system. 
 

One of the poor coppers told my dad in confidence after the trial, we know it was them and we know that they did I it. But they are in the last chance saloon and ‘money’ has been thrown at this to keep them out of prison. 
 

He was so apologetic, I could see in his face the frustration and anger he genuinely felt. 

The best example I can think of, of abuse of the system is the Guinness trial, that of Ernest Saunders. The only person to have fully recovered from full blown Alzheimer’s disease. 

 

 

 

Mate thats awful.  

[jjb1970]

I have always thought the US justice system deals with white collar crime much more effectively than ours. I don't think the US is any more or less corrupt than Britain but when high fliers get caught they face severe consequences in a way which they very rarely do in Britain.

[Grizz]

8 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

Back in London, very pleasant cool and sunny morning. Excellent flight, I am convinced Air China has perfected human cloning, their flight attendants all look like they just walked off the same cat walk.

How was the in flight catering? If you don’t mind me asking, what was you meal of choice? 

[Grizz]

Oooooo I nearly forgot. To lighten the mood with regard to the law, legal and judicial system in the uk, I am sure that some will already know this, but for those who don’t please please check out the radio comedy series, and later tv series, Chambers. 

 

The wiki link below gives the details. 
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambers_(series)

 

The brilliant John Bird as John Fuller-Carp and James Fleet as Hilary Tripping, but my personal favourite is Jonathan Kydd as Vince Griffiths the barrister’s clerk. 
 

I have all of the radio series downloaded. They are periodically played on BBC Radio 4 extra, plus also they are on YouTube at various times. 
 

“Our British justice system is adversarial, it is not about the truth, it is about a version of the truth”……

 

😂

 

 

[Grizz]

24 minutes ago, Grizz said:

“Our British justice system is adversarial, it is not about the truth, it is about a version of the truth”……

 

😂

 

 

Perhaps that should have been….

 

”Our British justice system is adversarial, it is not about the truth, it is about ‘aversion’ of the truth”…..🤪

[Flanged Wheel]

I’m very reluctant to linger on the law in the rarified atmosphere of ER. It feels rather like driving a motorway through a delightful and bucolic English village… I’m acutely aware that the capacity of lawyers to make the law dull, as well as expensive, is almost limitless. As we’ve seen, there are also many people who have had terrible experiences with the justice system and I’m reluctant to stir up past traumas in a part of the forum that I (and I suspect others) value as an escape from the stresses of the world.

 

Having said that, and because I have been specifically asked, I’ll provide a brief(ish) response.

 

Firstly, I think everyone acknowledges that the justice system is imperfect. My own view is that this is an inevitable consequence of what the system is trying to achieve. The extent to which this is exacerbated by funding or the behaviour of particular professions is a political pothole that I intend to steer clear of. But anyone who has worked in a court knows that many, perhaps most, cases end with people feeling failed. As a prosecutor, the absolute worst part of the job was speaking to complainants following an acquittal, especially in serious sexual assault cases. Understandably, they feel completely let down by the system, even if it has functioned exactly as it has supposed to.

 

In response to @iL Dottore’s prettily posed problem, there is a clearer answer. Regardless of the strength of the evidence, it is not a defence lawyer’s role to decide whether or not it is overwhelming and that a conviction is inevitable. The jury (or military Board) hold that sacred role. All you can do is advise your client on the strength of the evidence against them (sometimes in robust terms). All clients are advised on credit for a guilty plea (up to one-third) and the judge will check with counsel to ensure that this advice has been given. Ultimately if they persist in a ludicrous defence, your job is to present it. If you do anything else, you are usurping the function of the jury. Sometimes defences, which seem at first implausible, become much stronger as the prosecution case falls apart.

 

Sometimes though, people just stick their heads in the sand. I once prosecuted a fraud case where I had the defendant’s phone records. One of his messages to his wife said “if I get caught, then this is fraud and I’ll go to prison”. He persisted in a not guilty plea (his defence was that the message was a joke and it was all a mistake) but was convicted and his prophecy was duly fulfilled…  

[DaveF]

A very mundane post here.  I got up having noticed the room looked a bit dark, it turned out that yet again there is a layer of grey cloud moving rapidly from east to west.  In the last few minutes there have been a few glimpses of something bright and white through the clouds to the south east.

 

Shortly I will go for a walk, probably calling in at a shop on the way back.

 

Then I'll look at some of my old photos and enjoy the memories.  Later in the day not much will happen, I might work on the model or I may just read.

 

David

[Peter Kazmierczak]

2 minutes ago, DaveF said:

A very mundane post here.  I got up having noticed the room looked a bit dark, it turned out that yet again there is a layer of grey cloud moving rapidly from east to west.  In the last few minutes there have been a few glimpses of something bright and white through the clouds to the south east.

 

Shortly I will go for a walk, probably calling in at a shop on the way back.

 

Then I'll look at some of my old photos and enjoy the memories.  Later in the day not much will happen, I might work on the model or I may just read.

 

David

 Do you have photos of your mod-- rai---- in another thread, David? Be interesting to see.

Had a headache last night; still got it. Don't usually get 'em. Maybe shouldn't have watched Big Brother...

[jjb1970]

1 hour ago, Grizz said:

How was the in flight catering? If you don’t mind me asking, what was you meal of choice? 

Excellent,  I attach the menu for the Singapore - Shanghai flight. I see a lot of reviews by YT influences slamming Air China, complaining about flight staff etc but I have honestly always found them very good and business class in their A350-900 fleet is superb. The flight attendants have all been friendly and professional in my experience. 

 

 

[jjb1970]

I had the chicken with nasi kunning, good solid Indonesian dish, and having been loaded in Singapore it was good (if Singaporean catering providers can't do SE Asian food well they may as well give up).