An apologist for rationality.
When 'are' we going to get tough on crime?
- Thread starter diy_fun_uk
- Start date
Yes, it's completely rational to support a general reduction in sentencing even for those committing more serious crimes.
Wait a sec, are you one of those 'solicitors' that offers their services to literally anyone and drives about in a Range Rover with gold rims and blacked out windows?
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,800
- Reaction score
- 5,345
- Country
Otherwise known as duty solicitors, who are among the lowest paid in the industry.
Not what I'm referring to.
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 13,528
- Reaction score
- 7,812
- Country
OMG that is me, although obviously not a solicitor but I did once work as a kissagram.
There's one in my local. Really decent bloke, but has to be out at all hours day or night dealing with scuzzers at police stations. In his late 50s, and unfotunately typical of many in the profession - alcoholic. Somebody's got to do it.
No one knows who you're referring to. Probably another myth based on nonsense Jenrick and other right wing idiots who think a fair legal process is a bad thing.
Knew one like him, from what I could gather he made a lot of money just from legal aid work, but liked a bevvy or two. Didn’t know him well but he was a character (I think now it’s called being a functioning alcoholic). His office was raided by the lawyers professional body and he was struck off for various “irregularities “.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 14,129
- Reaction score
- 4,122
- Country
It should be fair for criminal AND victim, but it APPEARS the fairness is weighted heavily on the side of criminals .
I get the idea the one I know works for a practice, so poss just salaried rather than coining it from legal aid. He has some very interesting tales to tell, especially when his tongue is slightly loosened with a few drinks. Sometimes he may give too many details.
You need to be more specific on that for me to agree or disagree.
Personally the way that the right has been attacking the rule of law over the last decade or so has me concerned.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 14,129
- Reaction score
- 4,122
- Country
One thing that needs addressing is the refusal of defendants to go to court for their sentencing
Really? The way I, and many others see it is the other way around.
Why? It doesn't matter much, slap on an extra contempt charge if you want but trying to force people to attend is a waste of time and money and is likely to backfire. That's why we don't do it. But it's a side show, it only applies to a tiny number of defendants and makes no difference to their sentence. If anything it saves time and money.
The sun headline calling judges traitors when they determined that, by law, parliament must approve Brexit.
The failure of the then government to protect the judges. The incessant attacks on lawyers for doing their job defending people.
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 14,129
- Reaction score
- 4,122
- Country
Spot the difference
www.standard.co.uk
www.bbc.co.uk
Tell us that 2 tier justice doesn't exist in Starmer's nasty world.
Trial of suspended Labour councillor Ricky Jones delayed until August
Ricky Jones was due to stand trial this week but the case is now delayed until August
www.standard.co.uk
Politician's wife Lucy Connolly jailed for race hate post
Lucy Connolly, wife of West Northamptonshire councillor Raymond Connolly, is jailed for 31 months.
www.bbc.co.uk
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 22,983
- Reaction score
- 3,069
- Country
You really think the PM tells judges what to do?
