DaveR

Barry Road = Sir Charles barry, architect of Dulwich (dull-itch) College and Houses of Parliament

"Or they genuinely believe that the rules for what you can do in your own home should differ according to your financial status, one law for the rich and another for the poor, which quite frankly isn?t forgivable." I think the original post compared the situation between private and public landlords i.e. it is (apparently) routine for private landlords to ban smoking, presumably to reduce the risk of fire, cut down on cleaning/redecorating costs etc. With council housing the taxpayer is indirectly the landlord, and councils could, perhaps should, take similar action to protect 'our' property and reduce costs. Not really about rich and poor at all.

"An old Spanish joke goes, "how do you know Jesus was a Spaniard? He lived with his mum until he was 34." The full version is, how do you know Jesus was Italian (or Jewish/Spanish etc.)? He thought his father was God, thought his mother was a virgin and didn't leave home until he was 34.

In my experience, most of the classes are pretty poor - I've sat through a few painful 'taster' sessions (I ought to give Diddi Dance and honourable exception because my daughter loves it and the lady who runs it is extremely good). I'm not sure whether they are actively preying on the paranoia of cash-rich time-poor parents, but it often seems that way. I have noticed that the classes which are scaled down versions of essentially serious activities - ballet, football, gymnastics etc. - tend to be much better, as the people running them are genuinely committed and usually properly qualified - Little Kickers certainly falls into this category.

"Is it just me or does he always land with his arse in the custard" Love it. I heard a similar one in French - "his arse is covered with medals"

"I feel that the judiciary use archaic language to protect their industry." Sometimes you need specialist language to describe specialist things - I don't really know what a cylinder head gasket is, but that doesn't mean the language is wrong - you just need a specialist you can trust to explain it. "The fact that when you buy a house you have to give the solicitor the money, which he can go bankrupt with whilst in his possession. That you need a solicitor at all to sell any of ones own properties is an outrageously unnecessary expence, all they seem to do is hold up proceedings to some how, justify there position and costs." There's no legal requirement to have a solicitor to buy or sell a house. And there are very strict rules about where solicitors put money that's not theirs; break them and you risk getting struck off. "Lawyers are responsible for the theft of the common land, and if they can make that legal there is nothing that I can think of that they can't do. " ?? "I have never come across a solicitor that I felt I could trust." Isn't that really your point, SteveT? There are plenty of dodgy lawyers around, no doubt about that, and maybe you've dealt with some. But it's a shame to condemn a whole profession and a whole justice system on that basis. Particularly when some lawyers (and judges) are currently doing as much as anyone to resist the authoritarian instincts of our present government.

"On the topic of the defense barrister, I believe that if they are informed of a client's guilt they are unequivocally obliged either to talk them into a guilty plea or resign. Can anyone confirm?" Not exactly. A barrister can only act in accordance with the instructions of their client. If a client says "I did it but I want to plead not guilty", you can still act for them, but you can't put forward any positive case on their behalf. For example, if you have a witness who says he saw your client commit the offence, you can't suggest to them that they are lying or mistaken - the most you could do would be to say "are you sure?". It doesn't often get to that point.

SteveT, is there any particular experience or knowledge that leads to your "feelings"? I don't mean that in a confrontational way, but I would be interested to know. "Fitting up" usually means some sort of fabrication of evidence, 'verballing', 'planting' etc. Not even a hint of that in Barry George's case, to my knowledge. The expert evidence at the first trial has now been discredited, but that's another story. In my experience, the judiciary are far from being a 'monolith' but are a highly unpredictable body of individuals, and are often criticised for exactly that reason. Judges in criminal courts have less power than in civil courts and are generally much less interventionist now than they were in the past. There is incompetence in every field, but no more in the judiciary than elsewhere, and as for corruption, is there any evidence? Punishment - should it be harsher or more lenient? I remember a survey a year or two ago where people were asked to guess what they thought the likely sentences were for a number of different crimes, and then say whether they thought that was too high or too low. Most people thought sentences were too low, but in fact most had significantly underestimated that actual sentences imposed. Believe me, I have no reason to put on rose-tinted specs where judges and courts are concerned, and there is definitely room for improvement, but the Barry George case is a classic example of a miscarriage of justice because a case was so untypical. Hard cases make bad law.

"Mate of mine is a Barrister. Defending legal aid cases usually. He gets guilty people off all the time. How can this be right?" Individual cases are not really a good guide to whether the system works. Lots of possibly guilty people do get off because there isn't enough evidence, and a good barrister will point out defects and weaknesses very effectively to a jury. In any case that is mainly reliant on witness evidence, and particularly 'victim' evidence, it will be more difficult to reach the standard of proof i.e. beyond reasonable doubt. Where there is objective evidence, particularly non-witness evidence, it is much easier. Conviction rates for different offences bear this out - drug possession, where the key evidence is usually a big bag of what is undeniably heroin/coke or whatever, 90%+ conviction rate. Common assault, often no injury and one person's word against another, more like 50%. There is no doubt that really good defence lawyers can make a difference, and that if you can pay for them you can get them. But there are very few criminal lawyers who only do privately paying work, and lots of very good ones that do almost exclusively legal aid work. Lawyers also love a challenge, andit's the case rather than the fee that is the attraction. The criminal courts are probably the part of the justice system where how much cash you have matters the least.

This was a very unusual murder for a number of reasons: celebrity victim, weapon not recovered, no scene-of-crime forensic evidence, no obvious motive - I could go on. I am not aware of any evidence that Barry George was actively 'fitted up', and after two full trials and two appeals, I would have expected it to come out. It has never been suggested that any witness lied or that any evidence was fabricated or that any dubious investigative tactics were used (contrast with Colin Stagg). What appears to have happened is that George came under suspicion because of his generally doubtful previous behaviour and a few odd things he did in the days after the murder. He was interviewed and didn't give a great account of himself. He was identified by one witness as having been in the street earlier that day. The analysis of his clothes turned up the alleged gunpowder residue, now discredited. They key decision had to be taken - enough evidence to charge? At that stage I suspect the cops and lawyers felt the pressure of a massively high profile unsolved murder, and convinced themselves that there was. After that it was a matter for the jury, and they may well have felt the same pressure. George didn't give evidence (in either trial) and juries often don't like that. They key point to arise from this case is that prosecutors need to be strong and objective and resist the pressure to put someone in the dock on the basis that thay cam let a jury decide. That is, however, a million miles away from the type of case where there has been clear misconduct/corruption/criminality on the part of investigators or lawyers.

Sorry Matt, it's you. Your (destined to be fruitless) search for the 'edgy' brought you here, and it will take you on to pastures new. Good luck.

"In the trade it is called, being framed, fitted up, put any sap in to release us to nick motorists and cigar butt droppers. I remember having a conversation about this case when they stated they had found 'a loner' and Barry George fell into the hands of the police and from that moment he was gonna be 'it'. Conveniently forgetting that one third of the population live alone, and are 'loners'. He was a simple mark who had no help from any source except his solicitor, but he is not mentioned, why Is this another case where the solicitor and/or court is unfit for purpose British justice in this case, and most of the cases that Charles Dickens wrote about from Pickwick Papers to Bleak House, just stinks." A few strange conclusions to draw from one very unusual case. The investigation had been going no for nearly a year before Barry George was arrested, and had, as far as I'm aware, followed classic major incident procedures. It does seem pretty clear however that cops and prosecutiion lawyers attributed too much weight to generally prejudicial evidence e.g. he's a bit of a weirdo, not good with women, lied to us in interview, and took their eye off the ball - there was almost no direct evidence against the guy. At that stage, pressure to get a result (and if I'm cynical, the knowledge that any jury would not be too impressed with George) probably took over. I see that it is now being reported that at least one of the cops neve thought it was a good case, and that the famous mask and gun photo isn't even of him - that is worrying.

Yeah, but what's your point?

The new 4% alcohol Stella is apparently known as "child beater"

"On that count I don't recommend getting married btw, severely dents it" Only if you give in - ban wedding mags from the house, and insist that simplicity is the latest thing. Wild flowers only, and pork pie and guiness at the reception. That kind of thing.

I was in S'pore earlier in the year, and we have considered a move there, and yet... Ex-pat life is always different from home - it's just a question of degree. For example, had no difficulty turning down mainland China - just too isolating to be so definitively outside domestic society. Similarly, HK can be a fun place, but not where I want my kids to grow up. The food is great though. But food in Malaysia better, and a lot cheaper.

"I'm much better off today than I was 10 years ago." "New Labour has actually been good for me" Not necessarily connected. New labour have been good in the sense that they have not been old labour - T Blair & G Brown realised in '97 that their best plan for the UK economy was essentially to leave well alone. Still couldn't resist blowing too much cash on the public sector wage bill tho', plus a few (not so) stealthy but very damaging taxes on business and investment. The real trouble started when Gordon broke up with "Prudence" and started dallying with some racier dates (apologies for unwieldy metaphor)

Or Manor Place, off Walworth Road - further but generally not as busy.

I watched Bent a lot when he was at Ipswich and to be honest I wasn't 100% sure he had the quality, but there is no doubt about his determination and application. He has a point to prove having been 4th choice despite the big price tag, so I'm not surprised he's taking no prisoners at the moment.

That Global Research article is hilarious: "The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain." And the CIA shot Elvis!

Another obvious solution would be for anti-social f&ckers to go shop somewhere else

Monica We all have our opinions, and this is a place for expressing them freely. You hold yours pretty fiercely, as might be expected - this is your career. I think it is unhelpful to try and polarise the debate i.e. either you are in favour of complementary medicine or you are some kind of drug company stooge - conventional medicine has been around for a long time, and there is a huge body of uncontentious knowledge. What is clear is that there are a lot of people who believe that various types of therapies are effective, and plenty of anecdotal evidence to support their views. What is lacking is independent evidence. In the final analysis, if you believe very strongly that something will work (or you are desperate for it to work) it probably will. But aspirin cures a headache whether you give a sh!t or not.

More Goldacre - difficult to disagree, IMHO "But let's look at the evidence. Diet has been studied very extensively, and there are some things that we know with a fair degree of certainty: there is convincing evidence that diets rich in fresh fruit and vegetables, with natural sources of dietary fibre, avoiding obesity, moderate alcohol, and physical exercise, are protective against things such as cancer and heart disease. But nutritionists don't stop there, because they can't: they have to manufacture complication, to justify the existence of their profession. And what an extraordinary new profession it is. They've appeared out of nowhere, with a strong new-age bent, but dressing themselves up in the cloak of scientific authority. Because there is, of course, a genuine body of research about nutrition and health, to which these new "nutritionists" are spectacularly unreliable witnesses. You don't get sober professors from the Medical Research Council's Human Nutrition Research Unit on telly talking about the evidence on food and health; you get the media nutritionists. It's like the difference between astrology and astronomy. These new nutritionists have a major commercial problem with evidence. There's nothing very professional or proprietary about "eat your greens", so they have had to push things further: but unfortunately for the nutritionists, the technical, confusing, overcomplicated, tinkering interventions that they promote are very frequently not supported by convincing evidence."

"there has to be a reason why the 'Celts' for example almost wish you lose at everything" There is - inferiority complex. But we won't hold that against you.

definitely stay away from shopping centres, at all costs particularly if your wife wants to buy blinds