Today I saw a news on Daily Mail that EU judge told us that tenants can't be evicted even if they don't pay rent!
Few days back they said prisoners should be allowed to vote.
On top of that, squatters who enters in your house can't be evicted and owner will end up staying elsewhere!
Don't pay council tax/TV license and you go to jail.
Forge cheque and if your employer fog marches you in public you sue the victim!
Kill someone by dangerous driving and even if you are an illegal immigrant you can't be deported for human right!
But you refuse to pay speeding/parking fine and you may end up in jail.
What is happening in this country???
Will the authorities not do anything till there is Egypt/Libya style revolution in here as well?
PS: Do only the people with lowest IQ become judges nowdays? Do they lose jobs if public thinks they are idiots?
|
Not one of those are real issues in the uk.
If you disagree, list the number of people affected by each one.
|
>> If you disagree, list the number of people affected by each one.
I have not been affected by uninsured driving. So it is not an issue for me then ;-)
|
I expect there are elements of truth in each story although of course its never the whole story.
I think its a break down in common sense more than anything else. The scope of human rights has certainly widened to cover alot more than originally intended.
|
If they are European laws, not much point moving to Europe,
America perhaps? Hmm worst drunken driving and shooting statistics in the world.
New Zealand? hmm earthquakes
Australia? Hmm Fire and floods.
Might have to stay here, its not so bad after all.
|
You miss the point. I'm not saying I don't care about something that happens everyday - like uninsured drivers.
Those issues just don't even get entry to the list of problems we have in the uk. The problem for low quality news outlets is that our real problems are very boring in the cold light of day. It's pretty difficult to sex something up provoking unilateral outrage on an issue if half your readership are affected by it.
|
s/are affected by it/are the cause of it/
Missed the edit.
|
|
The best place for the Daily Wail is in the nearest bin. The most pointless, vindictive, nastiest little rag I've had the misfortune to read.
Last edited by: boolean on Thu 24 Feb 11 at 11:55
|
...The most pointless, vindictive, nastiest little rag I've had the misfortune to read...
Several million readers disagree with you.
|
>> Several million readers disagree with you.
twice as many do. Actually you cant blame the newspaper, blame the readership.
|
|
Sure, some of the comments on the DM online are mind-boggling, but it's the paper which pays its journalists, pundits, etc to dream up the tripe it publishes.
|
The DM is hard work to read.
Contrast it with a middle of the road news outlet, like the bbc news website. You can skim a BBC website article and come away with an appreciation of the subject reported.
If you read through a DM article, you come away with 40 million questions*.
*Unless of course if you were wondering if said subject matter was carcanogenic
|
|
It has probably added £30 + to the cost of your insurance prem.ium though.
|
|
Is this an ironic poke at the Daily Mail or do you you really mean it?
|
Hard to know where to start the rant!
What do we want the authorities to do? They probably think they are carrying the enforcement of the laws and regulations that apply to us, as now directed by the EU legal framework.
We have a system of schools that produces some students who are functionally innumerate and illiterate and a society that can't provide jobs for those who can read and write and do sums.
We have the oppressive and unnecessary collection of personal data and information, and legal interception and monitoring of all electronic communications
We live in a police state but without enough to enforce it properly. We think we are a World power but have no realistic means of a being one.
There is plenty more wrong but on the upside most of us have access to a health system, schools and public transport, a roof over our heads and food on the table. But plenty of people have fallen through the safety net and live in conditions that shame us as a developed nation.
|
>> We have a system of schools that produces some students who are functionally innumerate and
>> illiterate
It always has done. Literacy tests for soldiers in the first world war hiigh lighted the same problem. In the golden years of the fifities & sixties plenty of D streamers from the secondary moderns left school that way. Anybody who's worked with the public will have met people who really struggle with even simple forms.
Possibly, if we focussed concerted attention on the problem and listened to the professionals instead of following fashions like synthetic phonics, we might get somewhere. On the other hand it might just be that, for some of the population, the 3R's are that bit too difficult. You'll certainly never get everybody to the GCSE grade C which newspaper headlines seem to regard as representing 'literacy'.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 24 Feb 11 at 12:18
|
|
I understand that the situation now is that some military recruits have to be given up to 12 weeks further "schooling" before thay are considered capable of starting the academic aspects of their training. Not much of an outcome for 11 years in school really.
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Thu 24 Feb 11 at 12:35
|
|
My dad taught illiterate soldiers in the early 50's, when he was in the Education Corps for a while. Whether someone is literate depends a lot on their home background, I'd have thought. Teachers can only do so much. If the inmates see no reason to co-operate, and struggle perhaps with parents who actively dislike learning, not to mention books, they get left behind.
|
>> Today I saw a news on Daily Mail that EU judge told us that tenants
>> can't be evicted even if they don't pay rent!
The judgement was not that of 'an EU judge', but our own Supreme Court applying the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. As usual the judgement was far more rational and nuanced than the Mail report suggests.
The argument was about whether, in particular types of tenancy, the court could consider whether eviction and the terms on which a possession order was granted, was 'proportionate'.
The court said that the bar for such a challenge was a high one and that only a small number of tenants would be affected by it. I have not absorbed the detail of the specific case mentioned in the Mail but it seems to involve a large element of benefits snafu.
The press summary for the judgement is at:-
tinyurl.com/6eyrzv3 (pdf document on website of the UK Supreme Court)
In the vast majority of cases tenants who don't pay their rent will still be kicked out
.
|
Would take too long to argue all of these, but on the points about ending up in jail for non-payment (council tax, tv licence, parking tickets, speeding tickets), you actually end up in jail if you ignore the courts.
How could we possibly have a workable situation where somebody who kept ignoring the courts didn't eventually have to go to jail?
|
There we go again!
Judge rules that Wikileak founder will be deported to Sweden - yet terrorists/extremists can't be deported because of their human rights!!
|
>> Judge rules that Wikileak founder will be deported to Sweden - yet terrorists/extremists can't be
>> deported because of their human rights!!
Big difference - extradited vs. deported.
Edit - and this has not yet reached the Supreme Court, unlike the council tenant case.
Last edited by: John H on Thu 24 Feb 11 at 14:48
|
>> There we go again!
>>
>> Judge rules that Wikileak founder will be deported to Sweden - yet terrorists/extremists can't be
>> deported because of their human rights!!
>
He is not going to get killed or have parts of his anatomy removed in Sweden is he.
|
|
Well they have had a Prime Minister gunned down in public! Could happen to a whistle blowing, alleged sex offender?
|
|
Well if his female victims get hold of him, then Ikea meatballs might be on the menu.
|
>> if his female victims get hold of him,
Bit of a presumption of guilt there Zeddo. You might not want him at your dinner table, but you might not want the directors of the CIA or FBI there either. On the face of it, one wouldn't think Assange a particularly likely rapist; and his lawyers' claim that the 'victims' were nobbled by some nebulous US government agency doesn't seem wholly ludicrous.
I'm reserving judgement myself. May have to reserve it for some time of course.
|
|
Agree it all seems a bit cooked up, but from what I have seen and heard from him he deserves anything that comes his way.
|
>> On the face of it, one wouldn't think Assange a particularly likely rapist
Seems perfectly likely to me. I don't think that there is a particular physical or socio-economic profile for a rapist.
Unless, perhaps, you mean the balaclava wearing, knife wielding, stranger rapists, who are responsible for a vanishingly small proportion of rapes.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 24 Feb 11 at 16:31
|
>> Unless, perhaps, you mean the balaclava wearing, knife wielding, stranger rapists, who are responsible for a vanishingly small proportion of rapes.
No, I didn't mean one of those although they aren't all that rare. But although Assange may not be nice he is quite busy and serious on some level. The women apparently were casual acquaintances who didn't complain or allege rape until he had incurred the displeasure of the US government. So, not a very likely rapist although as you point out a possible one like everyone else.
On the prosecution side, Assange could be seen as a major risk-taker, and the risk-taking may extend into other areas of life than exposing people's low-grade state secrets. As it did for example in the case of John F. Kennedy or Jeremy Thorpe. So you could be right SS. But I'm not sure myself.
|
He's caused a lot of trouble for individuals in the former Soviet Union - show trials based on his disclosures are the order of the day - allegedly of course. He's a preening self centred and obsessed egotist.
|
Funny, I'd have thought all the soft-leftie Mail haters on here would think he was great.
There's hope for this place yet.
|
>> Funny, I'd have thought all the soft-leftie Mail haters on here would think he was
>> great.
Talking of which.
I took my first copy of "I" today.
I have to say I was quite impressed. A lot crammed into one page perhaps, but the brevity of the information is refreshing, little or no editorial guff, broad coverage of home & world news, Sport, Entertainment, Business. Nice to handle, few adds, nice size at the table in Costa.
At 20p a day I could shave 16 quid a month off my paper bill.
Tempted.
|
|
I've had two editions of "i" as well - a pleasant enough read - refreshingly written with few celebrities in sight.
|
Changed to I paper from Times 4 weeks back, although usually buy Times on Saturday. I paper provides just the right amount of info for me. Bought mine in petrol station yesterday and felt slightly odd proffering my 20p after guy in front had spent £102 pounds on fuel!
|
|
I'm with you there. It's spot on to read with a coffee.
|
>> I'd have thought all the soft-leftie Mail haters on here would think he was great.
You don't have to be a soft lefty, or indeed any sort of lefty, to take a snooty view of the Daily Mail iffy. The fact that it has millions of readers more than the better comics is to me a point not much in its favour. Vox pop, vox rather-not-think-about-it-except-in-bite-sized-pieces-all-covered-in-p
oisonous-carp-dreamed-up-by-nasty-small-minded-careerist-hacks,
surely?
And to be quite honest I'm not sure you would recognise a soft lefty even if he or she ran over you in their new red supercharged four-door Dodge Ram V10 with three rifles and a Mossberg 10-bore pump in the rack.
Yes, you do find them in the most surprising places, not just looking for a second-hand Guardian in some dire pub.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 24 Feb 11 at 18:14
|
...Yes, you do find them in the most surprising places...
Reds under the beds.
|
We have quite a number of Daily Mail critics on here.
I can't understand how they can criticise it if they don't read it....or do they?
Much like the Top Gear critics....watch it just to pull it to pieces.
Surely the grown up answer is not to read the Mail and to switch off Top Gear?
Or is that too grown up thinking:)
Pat
|
Pat, do you give a damn when people denounce this or that newspaper or loved/hated public figure? You can certainly take issue if they say something inaccurate or you don't like the tone of their criticism.
But why try to shut them up? They must have seen the thing at some point to have an opinion about it.
This is all just knockabout comedy. No one needs to take it to heart.
Good sally about reds under the bed by the way, Iffski. I suspect you're a Comintern sleeper waiting for the completion of Mr Putin's secret long-term agenda.
|
>>Pat, do you give a damn when people denounce this or that newspaper or loved/hated public figure? You can certainly take issue if they say something inaccurate or you don't like the tone of their criticism. <<
Just an observation AC, surely that's allowed?
I find it hard to understand why people read, watch or do things they don't like and then complain about it.
I find it easier on the blood pressure to avoid them.
Maybe it's because they haven't anything else to complain about?
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Thu 24 Feb 11 at 18:34
|
>> Maybe it's because they haven't anything else to complain about?
Or perhaps in some cases because it's a relief to let off steam about something unserious, it helps to distract you from the real stuff.
There may be a gender element here I think. Women can be brisker and more practical than chaps about this sort of thing. Certainly my lifelong experience is that they are busier more of the time with more different things than I find it easy to be. They have less time for synchronised barking in the pub and howling at the moon.
For goodness' sake don't say 'surely that's allowed?' to me as if I was some sort of self-appointed prefect or as if you felt you couldn't say what you liked here. I too was only conversing, not putting you down.
Of course the written word does lack a couple of dimensions when compared to real-life talk. They can't see the crazed grin or satirically po-faced expression on your face as you fumble with the keys. I am always addressing people here only to be surprised by them bursting into tears or exploding into a manic rage. Makes one feel like a bull in a china shop casting pearls before swine sometimes, if you see what I mean.
|
>>they are busier more of the time with more different things than I find it easy to be. They have less time for synchronised barking in the pub and howling at the moon<<
>>They can't see the crazed grin or satirically po-faced expression on your face as you fumble with the keys. I am always addressing people here only to be surprised by them bursting into tears or exploding into a manic rage. Makes one feel like a bull in a china shop casting pearls before swine sometimes<<
Lud ... you make me roll-up (and I'm not talking gunja!) I wish I had some of your edumacation :)
|
>>I find it hard to understand why people read, watch or do things they don't like and then complain about it.<<
Some people read the stuff they dont like so they can complain about it. Its cultural now to do so :-)
|
...I suspect you're a Comintern sleeper waiting for the completion of Mr Putin's secret long-term agenda...
Da comrade, for me the war is still cold.
|
Pat
The Mail seems to quite widely quoted from and linked to on this site and so some of us are exposed to the content without buying it. I find it to be an unpalatable combination of the "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" style of comment and some factual inaccuracies.
|
It all goes over my head PP, I read the Sun:)
I can do the crossword and I know what to take with a pinch of salt too!
Pat
|
...The Mail seems to quite widely quoted from and linked to on this site...
Including by your good self, Perky, in the crashed supercar thread.
The Mail is a good free source of talking points for the forum.
I don't see the point of concentrating on the messenger to the exclusion of the message.
A thread I started for Mail haters a week or to ago received few responses.
But then, it was looking for nailed-on examples of rank bad journalism, not just forum puff and bluster.
|
|
It may be a good source of talking points but it isn't that accurate, see speed discrepancies re Supercar crash.
|
... see speed discrepancies re Supercar crash...
The Mail report says he accelerated to the speed limit, 62mph, some blog - graffiti - says 199mph.
The Telegraph is in accordance with the Mail.
The only people who really know aren't saying, so both British papers have taken the best available information.
What's wrong with that?
|
Nothing! There are more than two sources of information (accurate or not) and people can make up their own minds. Auto blog, which I quoted claimed 199 mph - measured how one wonders!
uk.autoblog.com/2011/02/22/millionaire-tuner-survives-199mph-pagani-zonda-smash/
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Thu 24 Feb 11 at 20:01
|
Here's an example of rank bad journalism from today's mail:
Headline
"Boy, 16, who fired crossbow bolts into cow's face given slap on the wrist by judge."
As always with the Mail the headlines are designed to reinforce the prejudices of its readers. In this case the view that woolly minded judges let criminals off with minor punishments.
In the actual article it states
"The youth was sentenced yesterday to 180 hours of community service and an 18 month supervision order after being found guilty of animal cruelty despite denying the charges.
Judge Mr Chumley-Roberts said: 'The defendant went through the whole trial process without admitting guilt and therefore didn’t merit any discount on sentence.' "
In other words the judge did not give "a slap on the wrist, he imposed the maximum sentence the law allowed. The Mail know however that the headline "Judge imposes maximum penalty in cruelty case" won't reinforce its readers' prejudices. It also knows that they will remember the headlines and not the article
That is rank bad journalism.
|
...Judge Mr Chumley-Roberts said: 'The defendant went through the whole trial process without admitting guilt and therefore didn’t merit any discount on sentence.'...
Bit of doublespeak from the judge, he'd have locked the lad up if he wanted to.
The 'no discount' remark means no discount on the appropriate sentence for the offence, it does not mean the lad is getting the maximum sentence.
So your headline - 'maximum penalty' - would be inaccurate.
The lad's got nowhere near the maximum penalty, which I think is six months in prison.
Most people - not just Mail readers - see anything other than prison as a slap on the wrist.
The headline is fair.
|
|
Practically he gave the maximum sentence that sentencing guidelines allow.
|
...Practically he gave the maximum sentence that sentencing guidelines allow...
Not really.
Have a look at page 22 of this document:
www.peterjepson.com/law/Magistrates%20Court%20Sentencing%20Guidelines.pdf
The range is at least up to 12 weeks custody, arguably 26 weeks because a weapon was used.
All that has saved this lad from prison is his age.
Courts are very, very, reluctant to lock up young people.
|
'Courts are very, very, reluctant to lock up young people.'
Exactly, as per sentencing guidelines. The judge effectively gave the maximum sentence he could.
|
...The judge effectively gave the maximum sentence he could...
CG,
I'm trying to be patient.
Your original post on this topic was wholly inaccurate - the sort of poorly-researched, unsubstantiated drivel I've seen quite a lot of on here.
OK, you know nothing of the criminal justice system, or the way newspapers are produced.
Nothing wrong with that, why should you?
So I gently try to point out a few facts, and the way the job works.
But still you keep coming back.
The sentencing guidelines are just that, guidelines, not tramlines.
The judge did not give the maximum sentence, effectively or otherwise.
Those are the facts, make of them what you will.
It's the cow I feel sorry for.
|
>> It's the cow I feel sorry for.
How many cows have received a bolt through the head today, just to put a nice steak on our plates?
Of course it's wrong to inflict suffering on an animal, but I can't see the point in locking up a kid for doing so, when we slaughter them in their tens of thousands, all for the sake of a nice bit of mince.
|
>> The sentencing guidelines are just that, guidelines, not tramlines.
>>
>> The judge did not give the maximum sentence, effectively or otherwise.
>>
>> Those are the facts, make of them what you will.
The guidelines you've linked to cover factors starting with the seriousness of the offence. The way the Mail report is written makes it difficult to be sure what exactly happened, particularly how close the offender was to the cow. Was the bolt shot 'straight into its face' or 'from across a field'? I'd suggest the offence was middle range where the SGC guidance gives a starting point of a high level community order and a range starting with 12 weeks custody. The most serious category involve offences such as cockfighting and long term neglect, neither present here. Not clear either that there was an attempt to kill or torture.
The report is silent on mitigation. The offender is a Youth which may also affect outcome.
I know a bit about criminal justice but I'm not sure where the appeal from a DJ goes. Crown Court? But I guess a sentence that was way outside the guidelies for the actual offence (albeit appropriate for more serious offending) would be overturned.
I agree with CG, the judge passed the most severe sentence possible in the circumstances. It was certainly not a 'slap on the wrist' and if the public think 18 months supervision and 180 hours community service is then the blame lies, in part, with sloppy and tendentious reporting like that in the Mail.
And I feel sorry for the cow as well!!
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 24 Feb 11 at 21:55
|
Youth court appeals go to the crown court, same as a magistrates' court appeal.
I would suggest the use of a weapon puts this case in level three, and the report said the court found there was intention to harm, but not kill.
The Mail gets blamed on here for everything from corked wine to crop failure, but I don't think the public need its help to decide if they think not sending a person to prison is soft or not.
I've seen plenty of victims and families leave court feeling very let down.
In this case, I think the lad should have been given a short stretch, but the leniency or otherwise of the sentence was not under discussion, just the public's view of it.
Last edited by: Iffy on Thu 24 Feb 11 at 22:03
|
Iffy,
It was the involvement of a District Judge (what used to be a 'stipe'?) that I thought might affect the appeal route rather than the youth element but thanks for clarifying the point.
I agree that victims and families can leave feeling let down and accept that in some cases that will be inevitable. Some will understandably feel nothing short of the rope would suffice an I wouldn't want to be trying to explain why a 'lenient' sentence has been passed.
My contention is that there is a relationship between constant press assertions that sentences are a slap on the wrist and the public's belief that they are so. What happened to a mission to explain??
|
...My contention is that there is a relationship between constant press assertions that sentences are a slap on the wrist and the public's belief that they are so...
I'm inclined to credit the public with a little more independent thought.
People know roughly what community work and supervision means, and can compare that in their own minds with prison.
The Mail tells its readers what they want to hear, not what they should think.
Most successful newspapers do the same.
|
>> looking for nailed-on examples of rank bad journalism
Are any of the headlines in the OP of this thread accurate?
It's not hard to find in depth articles tearing the latest wail story apart, whether the author is an unfairly edited / quoted mail interviewee, a british doctor at the end of his tether with factual errors in the mail or any of the comical "will it give you cancer" mail headline logging sites. They're only a google away.
Me? Can't be bothered personally, but i would rather read less sensationalism.
|
>> Are any of the headlines in the OP of this thread accurate?
Some are opinion others contain some grain of fact. None, except perhaps those about going to jail for defying a court are wholly accurate. My post at 10:53 today explains the background to the 'tenants in arrears cannot be evicted' story with which the OP starts.
Another one from the Mail a few weeks ago suggested that under the Human Rights Act you could be evicted for shouting at your wife. The case was actually about whether physical acts were required to invoke the protections afforded to victims of domestic violence. A London council had said the answer to that question was yes and had declined to take action in a case where a wife complained of psychological abuse of various types including, but not limited to, shouting. The Supreme Court said the definition did not require physical assault and ordered the Council to look again. The leading judge was Baroness Hale, the only female Supreme Court Justice and another of the Mail's favorite targets.
And dealing with the OP's final point our judges are, as I'm sure Iffy will agree, very bright. Those who get on the High Court or Appeal Court bench are very bright indeed. Members of the public should at least read the judgements, not the headlines, before condemning.
|
...our judges are, as I'm sure Iffy will agree, very bright...
Me and Bromp have differing views on many things, but we are agreed about that.
Most cases don't tax the judges' intellect at all, but on the rare occasions when they are put on their mettle, they are really found wanting.
I've called judges lots of things over the years, but stupid is not one of them.
|
>> ...our judges are, as I'm sure Iffy will agree, very bright...
>>
>> Me and Bromp have differing views on many things, but we are agreed about that.
>>
>> Most cases don't tax the judges' intellect at all, but on the rare occasions when
>> they are put on their mettle, they are really found wanting.
>>
>> I've called judges lots of things over the years, but stupid is not one of
>> them.
Really or rarely?
|
...Really or rarely?...
Oops.
And another thing, judges are not so hasty - or stupid - as to type 'really' when they mean 'rarely'.
|
|
Dont think we all needed to know that!
|
>> Well they have had a Prime Minister gunned down in public!
>>
So have we, but that was in the bad old days before Lauren Order was born.
|
>> He is not going to get killed or have parts of his anatomy removed in Sweden is he.
Who knows? Sweden may send him to USA where he may face death penalty.
|
>> >> He is not going to get killed or have parts of his anatomy removed
>> in Sweden is he.
>>
>> Who knows? Sweden may send him to USA where he may face death penalty.
As the judge said, there are mechanisms to make sure that he is not extradited to the US unreasonably.
I don't buy his claim that he shouldn't have to face the charges in Sweden, just because he thinks that the US might try to extradite him.
Just because you make an enemy of the US, doesn't then give you some kind of immunity from the legal process.
Anyway, he has clearly being involved in illegal acts, with regard to leaking confidential material, so it may well be that the US have a strong case to have him extradited. You can't just break laws with impunity, and expect to get away with it.
|
>> or have parts of his anatomy removed in Sweden is he
Didn't much like Ikea meatballs when i tried them
|
>>
>> He is not going to get killed or have parts of his anatomy removed in
>> Sweden is he.
>>
Contrary to the modern liberal image the Swedes like to present, they do not have a good record over certain neo-nazi policies:
"Later, in the 1920s and 30s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in a variety of other countries, including Belgium,[25] Brazil,[26] Canada,[27] and Sweden,[28] among others. The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin used eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany, and when proponents of eugenics among scientists and thinkers prompted a backlash in the public. Nevertheless, In Sweden the eugenics program continued until 1975"
(Wikipedia, of course)
|
|
That was 80 years ago, the British Empire was still sticking it up fuzzie wuzzies.
|
>> That was 80 years ago, the British Empire was still sticking it up fuzzie wuzzies.
>>
>>
And we were prepared to use posion gas from the air....
|
|
They also weren't too keen on blocking the Nazi hordes from using Sweden as a route through which to attack Norway, who at least resisted.
|
Attacking the Swedish Justice system seems a tad unfair. It''s teh UK Injustice System which is going to enforce the Swedish Courts orders...
Just because the man upset the US does not mean he is exempt from the law on other issues.. AND if he upsets the US, a careful man would ensure - If he fears Swedish Justice, - that he keeps his nose clean in Sweden.
|
A footnote to this thread.
Bromp junior was in London today and, while Mrs B visited an expensive music shop, he joined me for lunch and a bit of local sightseeing including the Royal Courts of Justice. As the Court of Appeal (Criminal) was sitting we edged into a public gallery.
Seemed to be an argument about the judge’s directions and motivation of different defendants in this case tinyurl.com/6daopyl (which maybe on Iffy’s bailiwick).
Counsel for the Crown was, while not QC material, outlining pretty competently why she contended the trial judge’s directions to the jury were competent. The judges were letting her get on with the job wile asking very focussed questions to ensure she was covering the right issues.
You could argue about their need to be in wigs & gowns and situated on a dais in a VERY formal court but the business was extremely focussed and professional.
|
General deterioration of justice/law & order in UK - Skoda
