[Kosh]

Re: Huhne was lying : Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:22 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

I accept that BUT IT CAN and it does.

The fact that it can happen is a world away from it happening routinely.

Durham Giant wrote:

I am just not getting into a semantic arguement.

It's easy to dismiss things as 'semantics' when you don't have an argument to support your point.

And any discussion of the legal system that attempts to avoid semantics is pretty pointless.

Durham Giant wrote:

Legal advisors give advice to clients to ensure the truth does not come out. Whether that equates practically to encouraging to lie which will happen in some cases or developing strategies to prevent the truth coming out which happens in many more cases is irrelevant.

It really isn't irrelevant. For a start, one of those strategies is illegal.

And by definition, in every court case where a legal adviser is trying to prevent the truth from coming out there is another attempting the exact opposite.

Durham Giant wrote:

The net result is the same in that courts particularly in an adversarial system often do not lead to the truth coming out or justice being done either for plaintiffs or defendants.

This is just a long-winded way of saying that the legal system isn't perfect. Well done for stating the obvious.

Durham Giant wrote:

Personally i dont care

You've a funny way of showing it.

Re: Huhne was lying : Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:19 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Perhaps she's simply confusing marital coercion and marital coition?

He will be having a stint of 'coitus interuptus' very soon

Re: Huhne was lying : Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:30 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Absolute nonsense.

Aye ok it didn't happen if you say so. The barrister involved is based on Park Place in Leeds and was instructed by Switalskis. But of course, with you being a member of the legal profession, such things couldn't happen.

Re: Huhne was lying : Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:12 am  

Derwent wrote:

Aye ok it didn't happen if you say so. The barrister involved is based on Park Place in Leeds and was instructed by Switalskis. But of course, with you being a member of the legal profession, such things couldn't happen.

I did not say it didn't happen, nor could I, as you might be surprised to know that I am not an omnipresent god. But as you seem to be challenged in the comprehension department I said that the claims that "m'learned friends encourage defendants and witnesses to lie in court on a routine basis. " and that this "happens day in, day out in every court in the land" was absolute nonsense, which indeed it emphatically is.

If you are still having trouble, the POINT is that it would be lunacy to extrapolate such astonishing claims from ONE alleged incident. You must be pretty dense if you couldn't work that out, so if the above words are still too hard, let me know an I'll try shorter words and sentences.

As for the specific point, perhaps Switalskis will be interested to read of the allegation that a member of their staff (who would inevitably have been at the meeting with counsel) by necessary inference condoned and connived with bent counsel to pervert the course of justice. It doesn't show that firm in a good light.

Re: Huhne was lying : Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:13 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

... you might be surprised to know that I am not an omnipresent god...

Another dream shattered.

Re: Huhne was lying : Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:17 pm  

I would only get upset if he had typed omniprescient
then my dream would have been shattered

Re: Huhne was lying : Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:32 pm  

Hillbilly_Red wrote:

I would only get upset if he had typed omniprescient
then my dream would have been shattered

Sadly I'm not that either. As my bookmaker will attest.

Re: Huhne was lying : Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:36 pm  

In the Vicky Pryce trial, the judge in directing the jury that he will accept a majority verdict, has been answering lists of questions posed by jurors, some of which seem, well, a bit nutty. One reported question was:

" whether "a juror could reach a verdict based on a reason not presented in court that has no facts or evidence to support it".

Am I missing something?

Re: Huhne was lying : Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:30 pm  

They seem like idiots, trying to overcomplicate things. Surely they would have already been directed on half of the questions they're asking?

Edit: And now the jury have been discharged after not being able to agree on a verdict!

Re: Huhne was lying : Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:42 pm  

Why on earth would a very intelligent woman believe that she could shop her husband to the press without there being serious repercussions for herself?