Scrutable

discovolante wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:12 pm

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:55 pm

discovolante wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:19 pm

They're at it again!

https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status ... 46754?s=20

Going for the retweets today.

And getting plenty.

But dear Christ the comments about it. We really are a happy little fascist state now.

'Lefty human rights lawyers and other do-gooders'.

That's our Right Honourable Prime Minister there, proudly echoing the words of his Right Honourable Home Secretary.

discovolante wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:04 pm

Lawyers claim knife attack at law firm was inspired by Priti Patel’s rhetoric

And her reaction to it was to double down on the rhetoric.

Vertigowooyay wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:29 pm

discovolante wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:04 pm

Lawyers claim knife attack at law firm was inspired by Priti Patel’s rhetoric

And her reaction to it was to double down on the rhetoric.

Really worrying. I know a few immigration lawyers in London, one of them was a huge inspiration to me when I first started out studying and trying to get into it all (this was before she moved to London). So yeah, not nice.

It's also a worry for their clients, I am not sure how much face to face meeting is going on anyway what with You Know What but if people assume that every person who walks into a solicitor's office is a violent criminal then they may well be at risk, and at best these firms might have to take extra precautions and not be able to provide the same level of service as they would have done otherwise - I assume they have (fortunately) adapted anyway over the last few months but as you may or may not have experienced yourself, things like a three way phone conversation with an interpreter and someone who is a bit stressed out can be difficult to manage.

Sigh

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ssion=true

Well, the threats continue, although a different type of lawyer this time. The tweet's gone now (lots of people reported it so not sure if that's why) so I've scribbled out the identifying info:
Although apparently it's on facebook and instagram too so can send links if you want to report (because I'm sure this forum is swarming with would-be lawyer attackers ).

The case the tweet is referring to is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-55189658

So...not quite as portrayed.

Anyway when I was training I was tangentially involved in a case involving an attempted murder charge by someone who was psychotic, had the pleasure of reviewing the evidence etc, guess was it was horrible and nobody involved was doing it for the kicks of 'getting them off'. I'm sure a QC is more case hardened than me but still.

discovolante wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 8:46 am

The case the tweet is referring to is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-55189658

So...not quite as portrayed.

In particular, it ignores the fact that the prosecution had decided there was no realistic prospect of the murder charge succeeding and the judge had directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on that charge, so the defence role in "getting their client off" is a bit moot. I've been reading the Secret Barristers book "Fake Law" and have just got to the chapter on criminal law, which sets out some similar cases to this one.

snoozeofreason wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:50 pm

discovolante wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 06, 2020 8:46 am

The case the tweet is referring to is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... r-55189658

So...not quite as portrayed.

In particular, it ignores the fact that the prosecution had decided there was no realistic prospect of the murder charge succeeding and the judge had directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on that charge, so the defence role in "getting their client off" is a bit moot. I've been reading the Secret Barristers book "Fake Law" and have just got to the chapter on criminal law, which sets out some similar cases to this one.

I'm entirely speculating here but broadly speaking you have three outcomes in relation to this: murder, manslaughter due to diminished responsiblity, and insanity (insanity would result in acquittal). Obviously we won't know unless the defendant waives confidentiality but it's entirely possible that the barrister advised the defence that a plea of manslaughter would be more likely to succeed than a not guilty plea on the basis of insanity. If the prosecution had decided to pursue the murder charge and the defendant had just pleaded not guilty full stop it could potentially have led to a longer and more difficult trial, regardless of the outcome.

I'm definitely not suggesting thats what happened, just pointing out that advising a defendant to a criminal case involves more than just defending them in court at all costs, and assessing psychiatric evidence to decide which outcome is most likely isn't easy.

Good to see the home secretary condemning people whose words are inciting people to violence.

Oh, not her, Trump