|
Post by bormes on Dec 18, 2013 19:18:25 GMT -1
As far as I know, solicitors are NOT meant to have an opinion on their clients guilt.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Dec 18, 2013 19:21:14 GMT -1
Of course the lawyers "believe" their client. They have too or they couldnt take the brief. You sure about that? A good friend of mine, a well kent solicitor-advocate in the Scottish judiciary, when questioned by me on that very point a while back, repeated the mantra that everyone has the right to a defence in law. Stopped short of saying he's defended people he knows to be guilty, but only just... These guys argue points of law, not emotions or beliefs. Correct my dad was one and my Brother in law was Proculator Fiscal for part of Invernesshire for yonks. Its about law not emotions. Hence the inverted commas round brlieve
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Dec 18, 2013 19:23:52 GMT -1
As far as I know, solicitors are NOT meant to have an opinion on their clients guilt. Correct they must accept their client's evidence as presented to them. Hence the inverted commas round believe I did a bit of "technical expert" work in civil court over the years and the same thing applied. Never In Scotland though.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Dec 18, 2013 19:32:26 GMT -1
I have given evidence on firearms details as an "expert witness" mainly for the Procurator's dept and once for the defence. Never found it a problem. However the Gill Dando murder was another example of the Police making the evidence fit. I gave statement as did a friend of mine and we both realised our expert opinions did not tally with what the Police wanted so they brought out a totally absurd argument when they fitted up the man that they had to later release. I genuinely feel it is better to not catch a perpetrator than to fit some one up as the damage to trust of the Police or Government takes such a dent that it is not worth rushing something to allay public fears or political egos.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2013 19:38:56 GMT -1
I genuinely feel it is better to not catch a perpetrator than to fit some one up as the damage to trust of the Police or Government takes such a dent that it is not worth rushing something to allay public fears or political egos. WELL SAID! I'd add the damage done to the innocent person and their family and friends to that. I doubt any amount of financial compensation ever makes up for the loss of liberty and the sheer grief caused to so many. Interesting you mentioned the Jill Dando case, Bormes. It never sat right, somehow, even before Barry George was freed. Still one of the oddest cases I can remember.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Dec 18, 2013 21:21:55 GMT -1
what I am saying is until evidence is tested in a court of law to check the veracity it is only hearsay rumour and opinion. It cannot be regarded as "gospel". What you say may or may not be correct . We shall have to wait and see. As you know a lot of conspiracy theories and innuendoes are started deliberately to hurt. Im this case the UK. The plane was 90 minutes late in leaving LHR. If it had been ontime it would have been 600 miles further on Not said the Judiciary were part of the establishment. I thought yours , Scottish, was like ours answered to the "crown" and not parliament ie was independent. Under Scots Law, the people are sovereign, not parliament or the monarch. That has been tested in court and upheld.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2013 21:36:46 GMT -1
what I am saying is until evidence is tested in a court of law to check the veracity it is only hearsay rumour and opinion. It cannot be regarded as "gospel". What you say may or may not be correct . We shall have to wait and see. As you know a lot of conspiracy theories and innuendoes are started deliberately to hurt. Im this case the UK. The plane was 90 minutes late in leaving LHR. If it had been ontime it would have been 600 miles further on Not said the Judiciary were part of the establishment. I thought yours , Scottish, was like ours answered to the "crown" and not parliament ie was independent. Under Scots Law, the people are sovereign, not parliament or the monarch. That has been tested in court and upheld. And while we're on it, I'd say to you, Oz, that we're not daft. Conspiracy theories are usually SO out there that most reasonable people think twice. In the case of Lockerbie, there's REAL disquiet. I mean, why WOULD any of us diss the Scottish legal system, it's not in our interests. Fairness is, though.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Dec 18, 2013 21:43:35 GMT -1
what I am saying is until evidence is tested in a court of law to check the veracity it is only hearsay rumour and opinion. It cannot be regarded as "gospel". What you say may or may not be correct . We shall have to wait and see. As you know a lot of conspiracy theories and innuendoes are started deliberately to hurt. Im this case the UK. The plane was 90 minutes late in leaving LHR. If it had been ontime it would have been 600 miles further on Not said the Judiciary were part of the establishment. I thought yours , Scottish, was like ours answered to the "crown" and not parliament ie was independent. Under Scots Law, the people are sovereign, not parliament or the monarch. That has been tested in court and upheld. Just about sort of the same . here the "Crown" is the peoples' final safeguard against injustice whether by law parliament or what ever. The crown is represented by the Governor-General who is chosen by PM with advice from all and sundry. He/she has reserve powers that can only be used in exceptional circumstances. (last time was 1974) It is one of these things that cannot possibly work but in practice works very well. Parliament, Forces and judiciary are answerable individually & solely to the Crown. The Crown is responsible to the people.. That is one of the main reasons the Republic push failed
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Dec 18, 2013 21:50:10 GMT -1
And while we're on it, I'd say to you, Oz, that we're not daft. Conspiracy theories are usually SO out there that most reasonable people think twice. In the case of Lockerbie, there's REAL disquiet. I mean, why WOULD any of us diss the Scottish legal system, it's not in our interests. Fairness is, though. The Scots arent daft (well not completely) its the perception in other countries that is the problem. They want to believe the worst of the UK
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2013 22:23:52 GMT -1
And while we're on it, I'd say to you, Oz, that we're not daft. Conspiracy theories are usually SO out there that most reasonable people think twice. In the case of Lockerbie, there's REAL disquiet. I mean, why WOULD any of us diss the Scottish legal system, it's not in our interests. Fairness is, though. The Scots arent daft (well not completely) its the perception in other countries that is the problem. They want to believe the worst of the UK Well, if that's your perception from Abroad, fair enough. And I can understand why you say that. All I'd say, as Scot who's been lucky enough to travel about a bit, me and mine have never ever been anything other than warmly welcomed in any country. The UKE as a whole has good bits and very bad bits. I've been known to cringe on many occasions at the behaviour of 'some' when abroad. It seems that notions of Empire are still alive and well in a proportion of UKE residents. Hopefully that arrogance will die a natural death soon come.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Dec 18, 2013 22:57:48 GMT -1
The Scots arent daft (well not completely) its the perception in other countries that is the problem. They want to believe the worst of the UK Well, if that's your perception from Abroad, fair enough. And I can understand why you say that. All I'd say, as Scot who's been lucky enough to travel about a bit, me and mine have never ever been anything other than warmly welcomed in any country. The UKE as a whole has good bits and very bad bits. I've been known to cringe on many occasions at the behaviour of 'some' when abroad. It seems that notions of Empire are still alive and well in a proportion of UKE residents. Hopefully that arrogance will die a natural death soon come. Not mine I have lived there! nor indeed Oz . I am rthinking of the perception being given in 3rd wold countries that UK justice cannot be trusted and I think its done deliberately.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Dec 19, 2013 2:22:14 GMT -1
We ignore or mock the odd Brit who thinks the Empire still lives and that we look up to UK. By far far the majority of Brits fit in seemlessly whether tourists or migrants and are very welcome. (Same applies to anyone that wishes to fit in and not tell us how we should be living.). It never fails to amaze me at any sporting event the way the Brits and the Ozzies intermingle. Common to see Brit and Oz flags being waved side by side. we did notice in last test match the St Georges Cross seemed to being waved at half mast.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Dec 19, 2013 6:33:02 GMT -1
Under Scots Law, the people are sovereign, not parliament or the monarch. That has been tested in court and upheld. Just about sort of the same . here the "Crown" is the peoples' final safeguard against injustice whether by law parliament or what ever. The crown is represented by the Governor-General who is chosen by PM with advice from all and sundry. He/she has reserve powers that can only be used in exceptional circumstances. (last time was 1974) It is one of these things that cannot possibly work but in practice works very well. Parliament, Forces and judiciary are answerable individually & solely to the Crown. The Crown is responsible to the people.. That is one of the main reasons the Republic push failed In engerlandshire parliament is sovereign, not the people, the monarch is queen of england In Scotland the monarch is known as "queen of scots" In theory she holds that title by goodness of the people not by descent or birth, or grace of god. you guys and all the other former colonies who still have the monarchy base your relationship on the english model not the Scots one
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Dec 19, 2013 7:47:44 GMT -1
In engerlandshire parliament is sovereign, not the people, the monarch is queen of england In Scotland the monarch is known as "queen of scots" In theory she holds that title by goodness of the people not by descent or birth, or grace of god. you guys and all the other former colonies who still have the monarchy base your relationship on the english model not the Scots one Not quite right Nota. Ours Constituton is fairly unique. It spells out the powers of the Monarch which are NILl. She/He is titular head only and is officially Queen of Australia. It is not based on the Pommy model All the monarch' s powers have been vested in the Governor General along with additional powers. The GG is chosen by PM in consultation of umpteen people. The GG represents the people (The whole she-bang is referred to as the Crown). Most are Australian some were Brits. One of the most popular Brits was General Bill Slim . In theory it cant work, in practice it works very well George V was the last Brit King who tried to throw his weight around, unsuccessfully, in 1920s. As a matter of protocol our PM presents 3 names to the King/Queen for next GG. Our PM at that time submitted one name Isaac Isaacs a brilliant high court judge. King George didnt think he was suitable and asked for another name. Bruce the PM said tough your maj that who its gonna be!!! Kingy under constitution had no option but to agree. btw Isaacs was a Jew which prob upset kingy. Our GG has reserve powers which your are not available to your queen. They are all negative not positive, that is deliberate to stop abuse of power. The GG can stop certain acts by Parliament and many other etc all spelt out in Constitution The last time these powers were used were in 1974 when he sacked the Government for trying to govern illegally. Being Oz no riots, no tanks in street just a new election and a change in government Your monarch does not have these powers. NZ has copied us not sure how many other countries have, Fiji for sure. Liz is very popular here.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Dec 19, 2013 8:16:01 GMT -1
In engerlandshire parliament is sovereign, not the people, the monarch is queen of england In Scotland the monarch is known as "queen of scots" In theory she holds that title by goodness of the people not by descent or birth, or grace of god. you guys and all the other former colonies who still have the monarchy base your relationship on the english model not the Scots one Not quite right Nota. Ours Constituton is fairly unique. It spells out the powers of the Monarch which are NILl. She/He is titular head only and is officially Queen of Australia. It is not based on the Pommy model All the monarch' s powers have been vested in the Governor General along with additional powers. The GG is chosen by PM in consultation of umpteen people. The GG represents the people (The whole she-bang is referred to as the Crown). Most are Australian some were Brits. One of the most popular Brits was General Bill Slim . In theory it cant work, in practice it works very well George V was the last Brit King who tried to throw his weight around, unsuccessfully, in 1920s. As a matter of protocol our PM presents 3 names to the King/Queen for next GG. Our PM at that time submitted one name Isaac Isaacs a brilliant high court judge. King George didnt think he was suitable and asked for another name. Bruce the PM said tough your maj that who its gonna be!!! Kingy under constitution had no option but to agree. btw Isaacs was a Jew which prob upset kingy. Our GG has reserve powers which your are not available to your queen. They are all negative not positive, that is deliberate to stop abuse of power. The GG can stop certain acts by Parliament and many other etc all spelt out in Constitution The last time these powers were used were in 1974 when he sacked the Government for trying to govern illegally. Being Oz no riots, no tanks in street just a new election and a change in government Your monarch does not have these powers. NZ has copied us not sure how many other countries have, Fiji for sure. Liz is very popular here. I did say "based"...... You did mention one distinction between you guys and us Scots - the current queen is queen of Australia, she is not queen of Scotland - here she is queen of Scots, the peopel not teh country/land/nation Under westminster parliamentary sovereignity, the queen can disolve parliament and has to approve all laws blah blah blah The monarch has the power to: Choose the Prime Minister. Dismiss ministers and governments. Dissolve Parliament. Refuse to agree to legislation passed by Parliament. Dismiss the governments of other countries of which she is monarch. Pardon convicted criminals. Declare a state of emergency. Issue proclamations. Command the army and raise a personal militia. The right the monarch has to declare a state of emergency when there is civil disorder or she believes that the government is acting unconstitutionally is potentially a very powerful one. Through the un-elected privy council she could issue proclamations which would not be subject to parliamentary approval and which would be enforced by the police and magistrates. www.hipporeads.com/monarch-powers.htmlAs the UK doesn't have a written constitution, the monarchy can do basically anything it likes - the Freedom Of Information Act does not apply to them either
|
|