Search results

Which is why I am saying we should look at the law itself. And besides, that’s not quite right surely. You go and see a barrister or lawyer and they agree to take your case, or not. My wife's friend struggled to get a lawyer to take her case.

Bo selecta?

A few. David Platt against Belgium in the 1990 World Cup. Alan Shearer against Germany in the 2000 Euro's. Regis's goal against Sheff Weds in the QF of the 87 FA Cup. The 3rd goal (Garry Thompson?) Against West Ham in the 81 League Cup semi-final, after we came back from 2 down to win 3-2...

Anyone got a match?

Undoubtedly. I understand they believe they have done nothing wrong and were quite puzzled and shocked and confused upon arrest.

Burnball.

I could understand the torture and strangulation defence, but they clearly have not taken proper care of their children and left them without medical care and treatment. Obvious starting point would be to accept the charges of neglect, but plead a defence of the other charges, much harder to prove.

Turnball

Turnbill

:)

I am not the type for just picking up on grammar though. Not usually my style. The fact is that the question mark here makes all the difference. Without that the sentence just becomes a sentence and not a question. I don't usually pick up on little grammatical errors, but a question mark turns a...

I do think we are talking about different things here, Clint. :) I am not talking in terms of just an assumption. I am talking of something much more concrete. As an example I will use this Turpin case. A lot of it is alleged, so some element of doubt. I think we have to take the doctors'...

I am not talking assumptions. I am talking about your knowing a client is guilty. If it is true these Turpin parents chained their children to their beds and beat them and starved them, then they are guilty of child cruelty. Seemingly doctors have said they are all malnourished. Even just that...

Surely the remit of a lawyer should be to see a fair trial and justice done.

Yes, agree. What you are quoting is the system as it stands and that is what I advocate needs changing. I am not sure on the rest past that of defending someone you believe is guilty, but that is surely the starting point. It all begins from there. You see the client, hear the story, look at...

Yeah, I get ALL that. You're going off on a bit of a tangent. :) I don't believe they are acting as judge and jury, I think they would just be acting on their conscience. If you were a lawyer and had a client you knew was guilty of a bad crime, would you try and secure a not guilty verdict for...

Nope, me neither. I think they would have said to plead on diminished responsibility or suchlike and the moment they said 'No, we are pleading not guilty,' I wouldn't have taken the case. I think in such a circumstance where every defence lawyer believes them guilty, but they are adamant they...

Just always wondered how they can defend a client in court that they know is guilty. I understand them trying to get their client a fair trial and highlighting mitigating circumstances and background and trying to obtain the best deal etc.,but when they know the client is guilty, I just cannot...

To be fair to him he's been quite funny on Roast Battle.

Well some dyslexics might say Joy Seppala is the Brian of the operation.