Rincewind Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 My tribunal judgement was as a result of plea bargaining. Although it is now at the stage my solicitor has sent the company that were supposed to be taking me on, a warning letter about taking action to enforce the tribunal's ruling. We plea bargained until they said I could have a job working at the same place but they have been delaying, never reeived papers, needing letters, etc. Also they have not kept me or my solicitor up to date with progress. Personally if I was able to get a job I would not be bothered but for a while I was not full on with job searches because I expected to be taken on before now. Now if I was offered a 16 part time job I would prefer that to 48 hrs full time.
1964FOX Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 At the outset I shall declare my vested in interest in that in part, I earn my living from what you term " the legal aid bandwagon" The content of your post strikes me as being an uncharacteristically naive view from you '64. I think that a civilised society should provide access to justice and equality of arms in relation preventing serious miscarriages of justice. I apologise, I didn't clarify my point. I have no issue with the legal aid system, everyone should be entitled to legal representation no matter how much money they have it's the way some of the legal profession milk it at great profit to themselves that annoys me.
Rincewind Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Cost me £6 just for a signiture of a solicitor. 30 seconds work.
1964FOX Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Where do you stand on the increasing use of cautions and fixed penalty notices by the police, to deal with matters that ordinarily would have been charged? Not a fan of cautions as people don't realise it gives them a criminal record. Happy with fixed penalties as it does save a lot of time, is simple and instant. However much prefer cops to use the good old fashioned discresion and just give people a telling off when required if appropriate. Unfortunately this power is much underused nowadays.
skinnydipper Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 I apologise, I didn't clarify my point. I have no issue with the legal aid system, everyone should be entitled to legal representation no matter how much money they have it's the way some of the legal profession milk it at great profit to themselves that annoys me. No need to apologise. I just didn't agree with the sentiment of your post as it initially appeared to me. Of course there are some rotten apples who abuse the system. They're the ones that you'll read about in the press because it makes good copy. But there are many more legal aid lawyers who could earn more from private work but do an invaluable job representing the less fortunate in cases that can have life changing outcomes. This particularly applies when it's the apparatus of the state or big business against the individual. As in many areas of life the good work of many gets tarnished by greed or poor standards of the few.
Daggers Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 I apologise, I didn't clarify my point. I have no issue with the legal aid system, everyone should be entitled to legal representation no matter how much money they have it's the way some of the legal profession milk it at great profit to themselves that annoys me. Many of them could earn a much better wack from private clients but choose to take the legal aid cases out of a fvcked up sense of justice and fair play. The bastards.
1964FOX Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 No need to apologise. I just didn't agree with the sentiment of your post as it initially appeared to me. Of course there are some rotten apples who abuse the system. They're the ones that you'll read about in the press because it makes good copy. But there are many more legal aid lawyers who could earn more from private work but do an invaluable job representing the less fortunate in cases that can have life changing outcomes. This particularly applies when it's the apparatus of the state or big business against the individual. As in many areas of life the good work of many gets tarnished by greed or poor standards of the few. Unfortunately I have been tainted as I have met a lot of the 'money grabbing' legal reps who care not one bit about the people they represent and openly admitted it to me on numerous occasions.
skinnydipper Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Unfortunately I have been tainted as I have met a lot of the 'money grabbing' legal reps who care not one bit about the people they represent and openly admitted it to me on numerous occasions. Fair enough. I'm sure they're out there and we are bound to be informed by our own experiences. My own is, that with over 20 years of working in the system, the type you refer to are the exception and not the rule. If I do a case I want to do a good job - for my client, for my own professional pride, satisfaction and reputation, but also because I'm a competitive ba$tard that likes to win.
Rincewind Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 My rep was a trainee and I assume many who do legal aid are also. May be the only work they can get and it gives them experience and a step up the ladder. Mine has done OK. A more experienced solicitor may have had more knowledge. But I never helped with a couple of errors. She has at times taken advice from her seniors and before the latest move she consulted with them. My brother spoke to her so to understand my situation as I was not coming over clear to him. He explained to me in common language. The law is not there for the common man.
Guest Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Not a fan of cautions as people don't realise it gives them a criminal record. Happy with fixed penalties as it does save a lot of time, is simple and instant. However much prefer cops to use the good old fashioned discresion and just give people a telling off when required if appropriate. Unfortunately this power is much underused nowadays. Very much agree with your first sentence. My beef is twofold. Firstly, when cautions are issued instead of charging someone. Secondly, and most importantly, using these methods excessively can lead to people accepting them, when the reality is, they would never be found guilty. Seen it all too often where someone has almost been bullied into accepting a caution. Ultimately, it turns the police into judge and jury, which they are not.
Guest Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 My rep was a trainee and I assume many who do legal aid are also. May be the only work they can get and it gives them experience and a step up the ladder. Mine has done OK. A more experienced solicitor may have had more knowledge. But I never helped with a couple of errors. She has at times taken advice from her seniors and before the latest move she consulted with them. My brother spoke to her so to understand my situation as I was not coming over clear to him. He explained to me in common language. The law is not there for the common man. Many practitioners, with years of experience, pick up legal aid work. The quality of lawyer should not be compromised because s/he is funded by the State, and not the client.
Rincewind Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Very much agree with your first sentence. My beef is twofold. Firstly, when cautions are issued instead of charging someone. Secondly, and most importantly, using these methods excessively can lead to people accepting them, when the reality is, they would never be found guilty. Seen it all too often where someone has almost been bullied into accepting a caution. Ultimately, it turns the police into judge and jury, which they are not. I know someone who was arrested for stealing a bike on the evidence that the 'owner' saw him on it. He was questioned for hours told he could not call his workplace to explain his absense. Person brought in to sit with him advised him to accept a caution even though he insisted on his innocence and was told it would not go on record. He accepted to get away. Went back with photos from CCTV showing him on the bike before the date of said theft. Police on case still said he was lying and falsifying evidence. Don't know how it ended up. Because he was Muslim he said he felt shame more than anything. He could not even get to see a senior officer. Trouble was he is pretty gentle and soft and kept saying the PC was a nice man really. If it had been me even though I'm mild mannered I would have demanded to see a senior officer and say if not i'd get soliciters on to it and maybe the papers.
Ilkeston_Fox Posted 21 July 2012 Posted 21 July 2012 Very much agree with your first sentence. My beef is twofold. Firstly, when cautions are issued instead of charging someone. Secondly, and most importantly, using these methods excessively can lead to people accepting them, when the reality is, they would never be found guilty. Seen it all too often where someone has almost been bullied into accepting a caution. Ultimately, it turns the police into judge and jury, which they are not. Absolutely! I wish people realised this. Anyone who comes out with a statement like "the police look after their own" etc well how can they? The judge is not an officer, the jury aren't officers, it is these people who decide what the outcome of any trial is, not the police. All the police are, are evidence gatherers, end of.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 22 July 2012 Posted 22 July 2012 Tell that to the families of police officers, who have been killed in the line of duty. You Sir, are a complete idiot.
Ilkeston_Fox Posted 22 July 2012 Posted 22 July 2012 Tell that to the families of police officers, who have been killed in the line of duty. You Sir, are a complete idiot. Are you referring to me? If so, my opinion that police officers are evidence gatherers and nothing more was only in relation to the court/trial process - meaning they have no bearing on the outcome and can't look after their own etc, as has been suggested....
Steven Posted 23 July 2012 Posted 23 July 2012 Tell that to the families of police officers, who have been killed in the line of duty. You Sir, are a complete idiot. 1,433 people have died after contact with the police since 1990. Not a single officer has been convicted of manslaughter
Guest Bilo Posted 23 July 2012 Posted 23 July 2012 1,433 people have died after contact with the police since 1990. Not a single officer has been convicted of manslaughter You realise he'll find absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever. In the curious world of DT, the police are never wrong.
Rincewind Posted 23 July 2012 Posted 23 July 2012 65.1 per year just over one a week? Is there one reported every week? Or are we immune to the stories accepting them without question?
Captain... Posted 23 July 2012 Posted 23 July 2012 1,433 people have died after contact with the police since 1990. Not a single officer has been convicted of manslaughter Not saying I don't believe you, but that does seem a lot of people.
Guest Bilo Posted 23 July 2012 Posted 23 July 2012 Not saying I don't believe you, but that does seem a lot of people. Thinking about it, Steven might be getting mixed up with another documentary that said over 1000 people had died in police custody between 1969 and 1999, mostly young black men. Injustice was the name of the documentary and the police did all sorts to stop it being screened.
Steven Posted 23 July 2012 Posted 23 July 2012 Not saying I don't believe you, but that does seem a lot of people. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/19/deaths-police-custody-data
Guest Bilo Posted 23 July 2012 Posted 23 July 2012 http://www.guardian....ce-custody-data Apologies. 1,433 deaths since 1990 and not a single conviction? Nothing short of shaming.
Steven Posted 23 July 2012 Posted 23 July 2012 Apologies. 1,433 deaths since 1990 and not a single conviction? Nothing short of shaming. It is not you who should be apologising.
1964FOX Posted 23 July 2012 Posted 23 July 2012 There are an awful lot of suicides and other deaths in custody that go unreported in the press, one a week on average for the whole country would not surprise me. Do not assume the bit that says 'after contact with the police' means it's a consequence of a physical confrontation with an officer. The figures will include everything such as heart attacks for example, which are quite common due to the stress the person is under due tothe situation they are in. Most custody officers in cells are defib trained and the appropriate equipment present.
Captain... Posted 23 July 2012 Posted 23 July 2012 http://www.guardian....ce-custody-data Thanks, like I said it wasn't that I didn't believe you but anyone can post unsubstantiated statistics, interesting analysis, but it doesn't really prove much, one reason why no police men were convicted for manslaughter was possibly because all of those deaths were lawful. The majority of deaths were in custody, which will always happen, and can very rarely be blamed on the police, any culpability will be on the prison guards, or whichever corporate entity we have outsourced our prison service to now. What I do find interesting is the way deaths in pursuit rose quite suddenly around '97 and again 2000-2008, I wonder what caused that, and if it had anything to do with the rise in popularity of police camera action, and other such programmes sensationalising police chases. Or whether it became more acceptable to bring back a suspect dead. It does mention De Menezes and Mark Duggan, which do both seem like unlawful killings, whilst in the case De Menezes no individual police officer was convicted of manslaughter, they were only following orders, there was reform and change within the met on how it operates to prevent such things happening again, I can't remember if there were any criminal or civil cases brought successfully against the met.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.