Non-motoring > the loons get slapped down Miscellaneous
Thread Author: Zero Replies: 7
View Threaded 

New Sun 1 Aug 21 23:00 
 the loons get slapped down - Zero
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58027668
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Sun 1 Aug 21 23:10 
 the loons get slapped down - Netsur
Michael Mansfield QC is a anti establishment goon who takes any cause to make a name for himself however stupid it makes him look and oh boy does he look stupid!

But he's a Labour loving multi millionaire so he may be stupid but not that stupid, because his brand of stupidity makes poor people even poorer but him a lot richer.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Mon 2 Aug 21 09:42 
 the loons get slapped down - Bromptonaut
He's a distinguished lawyer specialising in Human Rights and in cases others won't take. The establishment was convinced that the Birmingham 6 etc were rightly convicted, that the Paras on Bloody Sunday acted in self defence and that the police at Orgreave were whiter than white.

Maybe we need more people who are anti establishment?

I doubt he agrees with the 'loons' here but is very much engaged with the fact that they have a right to be heard. That's fundamental to the purpose of the bar.

Can you evidence him making poor people poorer?

Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 2 Aug 21 at 11:46
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Mon 2 Aug 21 10:28 
 the loons get slapped down - Zero
>> Maybe we need more people who are anti establishment?
>>
>> I doubt he agrees with the 'loons' here but is very much engaged with the
>> fact that they have a right to be heard. That's fundamental to the purpose of
>> the bar.

The problem is of course it ties up legal process with vexatious frivolous cases with clearly nothing to answer, and puts back, or even stops cases like Bloody Sunday, Birmingham 6 (you forgot the Guildford 4). If Mr Mansfield QC felt so strongly about their right to be heard he would do it "pro bono" wouldn't he. You know Mr Mansfield QC the once censured by the Lord Chancellor for his excessive legal aid bill in cases? Mr Mansfield QC who its is said to have stripped 1.5 million out of Al Fayed to push the case that Prince Philip murdered Dianna & Dodi? Whats he called in the trade? Money Bags Mansfield?
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 2 Aug 21 at 11:47
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Mon 2 Aug 21 11:23 
 the loons get slapped down - Bromptonaut
You're not really advancing your case much.

He may well be 'money bags Mansfield but he's self made. State School and Keele Uni. You don't get QC and Bencher in your Inn without being damn good at your job.

The Action Against 5G case was kicked out at the permission stage. It's that far below the radar there's not even a report on Bailii. Not actually frivolous/vexatious but no prospect of success.

The trouble with pro-bono is that, whilst a good thing in itself it lets the government off the hook for properly funding legal aid (not that this case would have met a merits test).

Censure from the Lord Chancellor for being a legal aid 'fat cat' should be a badge of honour. If Fayed was daft enough to pay £1.5m then so what; a transfer of money from the obscenely rich to the merely rich.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 2 Aug 21 at 11:47
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Mon 2 Aug 21 12:48 
 the loons get slapped down - Duncan
The trouble is Brompy, that sometimes against my better judgement I agree, at least in part, with you. Though not about Orgreave, or Hillsborough, or Northern Ireland, of course.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Mon 2 Aug 21 13:02 
 the loons get slapped down - Bromptonaut
>> The trouble is Brompy, that sometimes against my better judgement I agree, at least in
>> part, with you. Though not about Orgreave, or Hillsborough, or Northern Ireland, of course.

I had to read that twice as at first I was thinking of Hillsborough in the NI context.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
New Mon 2 Aug 21 13:54 
 the loons get slapped down - Terry
Justice needs to be done swiftly - or at least within reasonable timescales.

Ni, Hillsborough, blood products etc all sit massively outside what is reasonable or justified. Evidence is often scanty or unverifiable.

It effectively becomes a witchhunt of the few who at the time may have held a position of responsibilty and actually survived until well past pensionable age.

It makes no difference to the outcome, no lessons learned that are still of any relevance. It serves only to provide closure (whatever that means) and someone to blame (however unjustified). Having several enquiries into the same event until you get the the answer you want stinks.

Judging events that happened decades ago by the standards applied to today is a nonsense. There should be a time limit in such cases - perhaps the lower of 10 years after the event, or 3 years after the issue became apparent.
Reply to this message | Report message
       
Latest Forum Posts