BBC (again)

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

BBC (again)

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 188 of 261 < 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 >

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 20 Jul 23 3.51pm
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio i am all for 'live and let live', tolerant and all that. But it doesnt extend so far as an ancient sleazy fella. Chasing after an impecunious boy with a fistful of Sterling in one hand and his erect langer in the other. Seeking the type of images that would get you an interview under Caution from the Old Bill. Edited by PalazioVecchio (20 Jul 2023 1.09pm) You are believing what the Sun want you to believe, but that doesn't mean it's true. The truth is we don't actually know what happened, or why. We only know what the Sun has said, some of which the boy denied, which forced them to stop slanting their story. Jumping to conclusions through inferences is exactly how the Sun, and many of Murdoch's publications operate. You want sleaze? Look no further than Rupert Murdoch! For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 20 Jul 23 3.51pm

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

i am all for 'live and let live', tolerant and all that. But it doesnt extend so far as an ancient sleazy fella. Chasing after an impecunious boy with a fistful of Sterling in one hand and his erect langer in the other. Seeking the type of images that would get you an interview under Caution from the Old Bill.

Edited by PalazioVecchio (20 Jul 2023 1.09pm)

You are believing what the Sun want you to believe, but that doesn't mean it's true. The truth is we don't actually know what happened, or why. We only know what the Sun has said, some of which the boy denied, which forced them to stop slanting their story. Jumping to conclusions through inferences is exactly how the Sun, and many of Murdoch's publications operate. You want sleaze? Look no further than Rupert Murdoch!

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 20 Jul 23 3.57pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I was imagining that both might have been inpatients. It's not unusual for drug abusers to need physiatric help and we know Edwards has too. I'll take your word on Grindr. You obviously know a lot more than I do, which is nothing at all. Red and Blue Army!

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 20 Jul 23 3.57pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I was imagining that both might have been inpatients. It's not unusual for drug abusers to need physiatric help and we know Edwards has too.

I'll take your word on Grindr. You obviously know a lot more than I do, which is nothing at all.

Red and Blue Army!

Teddy Eagle 20 Jul 23 5.10pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I am no more blaming the victims than the BBC! I am trying to explain what really happened in the circumstances of the prevailing culture of the time. Yes, what they did was illegal but so too was what a high percentage of teenagers did in the 60s and 70s and no doubt still do today. Most of them without any sense of wrongdoing. Only a sense of fear, either of getting pregnant or of getting caught. Again, don't misunderstand. I am not equating teenage behaviour with what Savile did. Only that many of his victims may well not have seen themselves as victims. And would you extend this same level of tolerance to a member of the EDF, or whatever the current equivalent is, who'd done the same?

Teddy Eagle

20 Jul 23 5.10pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am no more blaming the victims than the BBC! I am trying to explain what really happened in the circumstances of the prevailing culture of the time.

Yes, what they did was illegal but so too was what a high percentage of teenagers did in the 60s and 70s and no doubt still do today. Most of them without any sense of wrongdoing. Only a sense of fear, either of getting pregnant or of getting caught.

Again, don't misunderstand. I am not equating teenage behaviour with what Savile did. Only that many of his victims may well not have seen themselves as victims.

And would you extend this same level of tolerance to a member of the EDF, or whatever the current equivalent is, who'd done the same?

Part Time James 20 Jul 23 5.17pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I was imagining that both might have been inpatients. It's not unusual for drug abusers to need physiatric help and we know Edwards has too. I'll take your word on Grindr. You obviously know a lot more than I do, which is nothing at all. For the layman, Grindr is like Holmesdale.net but with less football chat and less unsolicited touching.

Part Time James

20 Jul 23 5.17pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I was imagining that both might have been inpatients. It's not unusual for drug abusers to need physiatric help and we know Edwards has too.

I'll take your word on Grindr. You obviously know a lot more than I do, which is nothing at all.

For the layman, Grindr is like Holmesdale.net but with less football chat and less unsolicited touching.

Badger11 Beckenham 20 Jul 23 5.38pm
Originally posted by Part Time James For the layman, Grindr is like Holmesdale.net but with less football chat and less unsolicited touching. Don't you mean North Stand Chat? One more point

Badger11

Beckenham 20 Jul 23 5.38pm

Originally posted by Part Time James

For the layman, Grindr is like Holmesdale.net but with less football chat and less unsolicited touching.

Don't you mean North Stand Chat?

One more point

PalazioVecchio south pole 20 Jul 23 7.43pm
Originally posted by Badger11 Don't you mean North Stand Chat? Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

PalazioVecchio

south pole 20 Jul 23 7.43pm

Originally posted by Badger11

Don't you mean North Stand Chat?

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

cryrst The garden of England 20 Jul 23 8.25pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I was imagining that both might have been inpatients. It's not unusual for drug abusers to need physiatric help and we know Edwards has too. I'll take your word on Grindr. You obviously know a lot more than I do, which is nothing at all. Bet you’ve googled it by now though

cryrst

The garden of England 20 Jul 23 8.25pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I was imagining that both might have been inpatients. It's not unusual for drug abusers to need physiatric help and we know Edwards has too.

I'll take your word on Grindr. You obviously know a lot more than I do, which is nothing at all.

Bet you’ve googled it by now though

HKOwen Hong Kong 21 Jul 23 12.18am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle As that seems to confirm, rather than deny, what I suggested, it appears you are being deliberately pedantic. Which isn't unusual. That would be a no, never change Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

HKOwen

Hong Kong 21 Jul 23 12.18am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

As that seems to confirm, rather than deny, what I suggested, it appears you are being deliberately pedantic. Which isn't unusual.

That would be a no, never change

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

HKOwen Hong Kong 21 Jul 23 12.23am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I have had much more experience with the legal system in the UK than ever I wanted to. In fact I had a meeting with a solicitor this morning. I was the MD of a business, and owned two of my own. It's impossible to avoid having to aquire some legal knowledge in those circumstances. So yes, I do and of course I am being serious. No solicitor, let alone a barrister, would risk telling an untruth. They will ensure they know the truth by asking detailed questions of the client and then decide how best to present it. That will involve what to emphasise and what to ignore, so that the overall picture is seen in the most postive way for their client. In this case there was a simple, straightforward denial. That must be true. Putting aside all your waffle , you seem to think that no solicitor would ever issue a statement that was untrue. Let's just look at that for fits and giggles. So when a solicitor issues a statement such as " my client denies all allegations " and subsequently the client is convicted you would class that as the solicitor lying. Never change Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

HKOwen

Hong Kong 21 Jul 23 12.23am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I have had much more experience with the legal system in the UK than ever I wanted to. In fact I had a meeting with a solicitor
this morning. I was the MD of a business, and owned two of my own. It's impossible to avoid having to aquire some legal knowledge in those circumstances. So yes, I do and of course I am being serious. No solicitor, let alone a barrister, would risk telling an untruth. They will ensure they know the truth by asking detailed questions of the client and then decide how best to present it. That will involve what to emphasise and what to ignore, so that the overall picture is seen in the most postive way for their client.

In this case there was a simple, straightforward denial. That must be true.

Putting aside all your waffle , you seem to think that no solicitor would ever issue a statement that was untrue.

Let's just look at that for fits and giggles.

So when a solicitor issues a statement such as " my client denies all allegations " and subsequently the client is convicted you would class that as the solicitor lying.

Never change

Part Time James 21 Jul 23 6.37am
Originally posted by Badger11 Don't you mean North Stand Chat? I wouldn't know. I've rinsed Grindr but North Stand Chat is too outrageous for me.

Part Time James

21 Jul 23 6.37am

Originally posted by Badger11

Don't you mean North Stand Chat?

I wouldn't know. I've rinsed Grindr but North Stand Chat is too outrageous for me.

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 23 6.20pm
Originally posted by HKOwen Putting aside all your waffle , you seem to think that no solicitor would ever issue a statement that was untrue. Let's just look at that for fits and giggles. So when a solicitor issues a statement such as " my client denies all allegations " and subsequently the client is convicted you would class that as the solicitor lying. Never change Are you for real? When a solicitor makes any statement on behalf of their client they aren't making any statement on behalf of themselves. They are stating what their client has said as positively as they can. They would never say anything knowing it to be untrue. They might have very grave doubts but that's not the same thing. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 23 6.20pm

Originally posted by HKOwen

Putting aside all your waffle , you seem to think that no solicitor would ever issue a statement that was untrue.

Let's just look at that for fits and giggles.

So when a solicitor issues a statement such as " my client denies all allegations " and subsequently the client is convicted you would class that as the solicitor lying.

Never change

Are you for real?

When a solicitor makes any statement on behalf of their client they aren't making any statement on behalf of themselves. They are stating what their client has said as positively as they can.

They would never say anything knowing it to be untrue. They might have very grave doubts but that's not the same thing.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Teddy Eagle 21 Jul 23 7.34pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Are you for real? When a solicitor makes any statement on behalf of their client they aren't making any statement on behalf of themselves. They are stating what their client has said as positively as they can. They would never say anything knowing it to be untrue. They might have very grave doubts but that's not the same thing. Unless their client adheres to the old adage, "Never lie to your brief". Many defenders go into court knowing they are defending a guilty person.

Teddy Eagle

21 Jul 23 7.34pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Are you for real?

When a solicitor makes any statement on behalf of their client they aren't making any statement on behalf of themselves. They are stating what their client has said as positively as they can.

They would never say anything knowing it to be untrue. They might have very grave doubts but that's not the same thing.

Unless their client adheres to the old adage, "Never lie to your brief". Many defenders go into court knowing they are defending a guilty person.

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 23 11.14pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Unless their client adheres to the old adage, "Never lie to your brief". Many defenders go into court knowing they are defending a guilty person. I once asked a solicitor how they slept at night knowing that their client was guilty. What I was told surprised me. I was told that every accused has the right to be represented as effectively as possible and be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. They therefore suspend any misgivings and do their best, but if they know for sure something is untrue they withdraw from the case. They also try to anticipate outcomes and try to encourage a guilty plea if the evidence is overwhelming and the defence weak. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 23 11.14pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Unless their client adheres to the old adage, "Never lie to your brief". Many defenders go into court knowing they are defending a guilty person.

I once asked a solicitor how they slept at night knowing that their client was guilty.

What I was told surprised me. I was told that every accused has the right to be represented as effectively as possible and be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. They therefore suspend any misgivings and do their best, but if they know for sure something is untrue they withdraw from the case. They also try to anticipate outcomes and try to encourage a guilty plea if the evidence is overwhelming and the defence weak.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

HKOwen Hong Kong 21 Jul 23 11.17pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Are you for real? When a solicitor makes any statement on behalf of their client they aren't making any statement on behalf of themselves. They are stating what their client has said as positively as they can. They would never say anything knowing it to be untrue. They might have very grave doubts but that's not the same thing. "No solicitor, let alone a barrister, would risk telling an untruth. They will ensure they know the truth by asking detailed questions of the client and then decide how best to present it." So when you wrote the above, you stated no solicitor would risk saying anything unless they had checked the veracity of what they said ? You seem confused about the different roles a solicitor from for example issuing a media denial to public allegations to, say, preparing the basis of an evidential defence for a barrister. How about the solicitors who assist in asylum cases knowing full well their " clients " do not have a valid claim but are still happy to take the public's money Edited by HKOwen (21 Jul 2023 11.18pm) Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

HKOwen

Hong Kong 21 Jul 23 11.17pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Are you for real?

When a solicitor makes any statement on behalf of their client they aren't making any statement on behalf of themselves. They are stating what their client has said as positively as they can.

They would never say anything knowing it to be untrue. They might have very grave doubts but that's not the same thing.

"No solicitor, let alone a barrister, would risk telling an untruth. They will ensure they know the truth by asking detailed questions of the client and then decide how best to present it."

So when you wrote the above, you stated no solicitor would risk saying anything unless they had checked the veracity of what they said ?

You seem confused about the different roles a solicitor from for example issuing a media denial to public allegations to, say, preparing the basis of an evidential defence for a barrister.

How about the solicitors who assist in asylum cases knowing full well their " clients " do not have a valid claim but are still happy to take the public's money

Edited by HKOwen (21 Jul 2023 11.18pm)

Teddy Eagle 21 Jul 23 11.44pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I once asked a solicitor how they slept at night knowing that their client was guilty. What I was told surprised me. I was told that every accused has the right to be represented as effectively as possible and be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. They therefore suspend any misgivings and do their best, but if they know for sure something is untrue they withdraw from the case. They also try to anticipate outcomes and try to encourage a guilty plea if the evidence is overwhelming and the defence weak. But they don't withdraw do they? However they justify it to themselves they often get paid to get guilty people off.

Teddy Eagle

21 Jul 23 11.44pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I once asked a solicitor how they slept at night knowing that their client was guilty.

But they don't withdraw do they? However they justify it to themselves they often get paid to get guilty people off.

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 23 11.52pm
Originally posted by HKOwen "No solicitor, let alone a barrister, would risk telling an untruth. They will ensure they know the truth by asking detailed questions of the client and then decide how best to present it." So when you wrote the above, you stated no solicitor would risk saying anything unless they had checked the veracity of what they said ? You seem confused about the different roles a solicitor from for example issuing a media denial to public allegations to, say, preparing the basis of an evidential defence for a barrister. How about the solicitors who assist in asylum cases knowing full well their " clients " do not have a valid claim but are still happy to take the public's money Edited by HKOwen (21 Jul 2023 11.18pm) I suggest you read the comment above yours. Any solicitor representing someone applying for asylum must possess the belief that a valid claim can be established or they couldn’t accept the brief. They might think it to be a very weak case and likely to fail. They might privately expect, or even hope, it will fail, but their job is to know the law and present their client’s position in the most positive way available. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 23 11.52pm

Originally posted by HKOwen

"No solicitor, let alone a barrister, would risk telling an untruth. They will ensure they know the truth by asking detailed questions of the client and then decide how best to present it."

So when you wrote the above, you stated no solicitor would risk saying anything unless they had checked the veracity of what they said ?

You seem confused about the different roles a solicitor from for example issuing a media denial to public allegations to, say, preparing the basis of an evidential defence for a barrister.

How about the solicitors who assist in asylum cases knowing full well their " clients " do not have a valid claim but are still happy to take the public's money

Edited by HKOwen (21 Jul 2023 11.18pm)

I suggest you read the comment above yours.

Any solicitor representing someone applying for asylum must possess the belief that a valid claim can be established or they couldn’t accept the brief. They might think it to be a very weak case and likely to fail. They might privately expect, or even hope, it will fail, but their job is to know the law and present their client’s position in the most positive way available.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Jul 23 12.05am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle But they don't withdraw do they? However they justify it to themselves they often get paid to get guilty people off. How do you know who withdraws or refuses? Solicitors often spend as much time counselling their clients over the plea they will enter as preparing the defence. Remember there has to be a full disclosure of evidence by the prosecution to the defence, so the solicitor can challenge their client with this. The bottom line though is that they don’t determine guilt. That’s the job of the court. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 22 Jul 23 12.05am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

But they don't withdraw do they? However they justify it to themselves they often get paid to get guilty people off.

How do you know who withdraws or refuses?

Solicitors often spend as much time counselling their clients over the plea they will enter as preparing the defence. Remember there has to be a full disclosure of evidence by the prosecution to the defence, so the solicitor can challenge their client with this. The bottom line though is that they don’t determine guilt. That’s the job of the court.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Teddy Eagle 22 Jul 23 12.14am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle How do you know who withdraws or refuses? Solicitors often spend as much time counselling their clients over the plea they will enter as preparing the defence. Remember there has to be a full disclosure of evidence by the prosecution to the defence, so the solicitor can challenge their client with this. The bottom line though is that they don’t determine guilt. That’s the job of the court. If they're in court they didn't withdraw. The jury decide if guilt has been proven to their satisfaction not whether or not the defendant is actually guilty.

Teddy Eagle

22 Jul 23 12.14am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

How do you know who withdraws or refuses?

If they're in court they didn't withdraw. The jury decide if guilt has been proven to their satisfaction not whether or not the defendant is actually guilty.

Stirlingsays 22 Jul 23 3.22am
I remember the OJ Simpson trial.....two butchered humans got no justice, thanks to lawyers and a probably racially biased jury. Lawyers are human like everybody else. When you combine rich financial rewards with the worst human traits allied to very bright people of course they will lie and manipulate....Hell, they would probably do it for free due to their mental make up. Language can be manipulated to support just about anything negative and presented as a positive if it's in someone's interests. In many ways it's the more tragic side of human existence. Some professions enable those people more than others. But just as there are people who improve lives and do well, there are people who wreck them and do well....and everything inbetween. If you call a spade a spade the fact that many lawyers (there will always be exceptions) deliberately lie when it suits them is no news to anyone. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jul 2023 9.33am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

22 Jul 23 3.22am

I remember the OJ Simpson trial.....two butchered humans got no justice, thanks to lawyers and a probably racially biased jury.

Lawyers are human like everybody else. When you combine rich financial rewards with the worst human traits allied to very bright people of course they will lie and manipulate....Hell, they would probably do it for free due to their mental make up.

Language can be manipulated to support just about anything negative and presented as a positive if it's in someone's interests.

In many ways it's the more tragic side of human existence.

Some professions enable those people more than others. But just as there are people who improve lives and do well, there are people who wreck them and do well....and everything inbetween.

If you call a spade a spade the fact that many lawyers (there will always be exceptions) deliberately lie when it suits them is no news to anyone.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jul 2023 9.33am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 22 Jul 23 4.53am
solicitors do what they are instructed to do by their client. However improbable. Loads of High profile cases to prove the point. Everything from War Crimes to Oscar Pistorius trial etc. Solicitors can 'guide', according to their expertise, but ultimately the client makes the judgement call. Edited by Forest Hillbilly (22 Jul 2023 4.54am) I disengage, I turn the page.

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 22 Jul 23 4.53am

solicitors do what they are instructed to do by their client. However improbable. Loads of High profile cases to prove the point. Everything from War Crimes to Oscar Pistorius trial etc.
Solicitors can 'guide', according to their expertise, but ultimately the client makes the judgement call.

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (22 Jul 2023 4.54am)

I disengage, I turn the page.

Page 188 of 261 < 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

BBC (again)

Site Map