Wombat

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This article explains the current law on > disclosure: Previous convictions law could be > changed > > In theory, according to their codes of conduct, > solicitors and barristers should not suggest, > devise or concoct a defence case for defendants in > criminal prosecutions. > > However, many leading criminal law solicitors > employ non-lawyers such as ex-policemen who are > not bound by the codes of conduct and often ensure > that defendants know how to avoid making damaging > admissions during their trial testimony. > > There is a very thin line between a verdict of > guilty and not-guilty - one wrong word is often > all it takes to swing the balance. You have a strong belief in the mystical power of this code of conduct.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've never heard anything so idiotic as an > insistence that a persons guilt of a crime should > be determined according to the crimes they may > have committed previously. > > Of course they're going to dress smartly - they're > hardly going to come in wearing black and white > stripes, an eyepatch and a bag marked 'swag' are > they? > > As for being 'briefed' by a barrister, well duh? > Preparation of the client is a key part of the > legal process and is a key part of ensuring > justice is done. > > If you are suggesting that barristers are > 'coaching' clients (i.e. telling them what to say) > then that is illegal under perjury laws and a > breach of the barristers own code of conduct. > > As for 'five years means five years', it's just > the sort of tub thumping block headedness that > you'd expect from a fat conservative politician > pre election. > > The good behaviour arrangements are a key part of > rehabilitation and keeping order within the prison > system. You let that slip and the whole thing > turns into a riot. Surely not that idiotic... Given that it's used to influence the jury in exactly that way when it's deemed admissible in court. And you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that a code of conduct is sufficient in preventing a barrister leading a horse to water. I'm with you on the good behaviour arrangements btw - it's just that the minimum sentencing guidelines are askew.

Have used all the local companies mentioned on this thread and none of them are brilliant. Bit of a lottery - hence people having both good and bad experiences. Personally, if I'm catching a flight I won't use any of them because of the gamble. Camberwell Cars are a bit better in terms of reliability but certainly aren't perfect. For airports - ADS every time.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just to add, in case the fellow tries this > 'technique' again, that he had a Polish sounding > accent (to me, though I'm not an expert of accents > from Eastern Europe). He was possibly 30,average > height/build, not clean shaven and smoked. It > might just trigger an alarm bell if it should > happen to you. I'd put money on it being a Romanian accent....

sillywoman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Wombat- our bike was a 12 year old BMW - not new & > definitely not 'race-rep'. A workhorse. As the > same fate befell our 24 year old, very battered > suzuki trials bike 3 years ago, & our 15 year old > Suzuki some months before that, all seemingly > taken the same way - though those two were on the > road with one chained to a lamp post - the latest > was off road & chained to the house, I'm not sure > how useful your advice to 'make it less desirable' > is? Thanks anyway. Fair enough. You'd definitely think they'd appear in the 'less desirable' category to thieves - amazing what they'll steal now. Can't imagine it would be kids - wrong sort for them - but can't see that the resale value would be enough for the pros to bother. Very odd. And very unlucky. Sorry that it's happened (a number of times) to you. With regard to the noise of an alarm - they're ok if you hear them and can run out in time, but it won't stop anybody just lifting it into a van as it wails away. I can attest to that one from personal experience. And most people, sadly, don't bother doing anything if they see it. I'd summarise alarms as better than nothing and at least they bring your insurance premium down a bit.

Sadly, another solution is have a less nickable bike. If you're chaining it to something and they're still taking it then make it less desirable. New BMW, new KTM, anything race-rep - they're all very desirable. Anything new to be fair.

Sorry that this has happened. Got to be honest though - not chaining to something immovable was poor form. We all get the insurance rises as a result of these thefts. You could make it a little harder for them. Ground anchor. You're (he's) lucky enough to have a place to park off-road so ground anchor is the answer. And a big chain of course.

Phone them up - ask to speak to either Dave Gristwood or Andy Toms (they're the directors) and explain what happened. Clearly he doesn't need to lose his job over this etc but it's about time that people are held accountable for their (bullying) actions on the road - and you know what he's stupid enough to have done that when in a company-marked lorry. It reflects badly on their company so I'm sure they'll have a word with him and maybe he'll think twice again.

Horsebox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wombat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'd accept a blanket 20mph limit round here as > > long as, at the same time, all the > > holier-than-thou cyclists on this thread agree > to > > carry a registration plate and insurance so > that > > they too are accountable. > > Accountable for what, exactly? > > Cyclists tend not travel in excess of 20mph and > are hardly likely to kill somobody in a collision > anyway. > > And who in their right mind would introduce a > cycle registration/insurance scheme solely for > East Dulwich? > > Epic Clarkson-esque driver Fail. You're very very good. Got me. Re-read my post and when you detect the irony in it feel free to write back.

I'd accept a blanket 20mph limit round here as long as, at the same time, all the holier-than-thou cyclists on this thread agree to carry a registration plate and insurance so that they too are accountable.

lilolil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >:D forum!!! Erm...I'm fairly sure that smiley doesn't have its thumbs up.

espelli Wrote: > > Wombat, I disagree. You have the option not to put > yourself in those situations. You assume that > everyone else does too. > > I think that any of us who didn't grow up living > on an estate where there is a large gang presence > can not really understand how young people end up > doing things that as an individual they would > never do. > > The children who go on to join these gangs are > scared of what will happen when they get older. > Children as young as 9 are seeing close up what is > happening and it scares them that they cannot see > another way to live. It is all very well for > someone who goes home to their comfortable life to > tell them that they have choices, but they don't > always see that they do. > > Some of them get involved young as an insurance > policy, others hold out for as long as they can > but often turn to the gangs when an older family > member has something bad happen to them. A few > manage to steer their way through it unscathed. > For the children I work with this is their future > as they see it. None of them are bad, they are > children who are scared to grow up because they > have seen what happens when you do. I am not > making excuses for any of the violence and nor do > I think it should go unpunished. I am pointing out > that from our perspective, on the outside, we may > not see the whole picture. I don't doubt that there's difficulty in being able to fully escape from the reaches of such gangs but there are ways in which they can be avoided and many choose not to follow those ways. Those people are who I'm talking about. The ones who make a conscious decision to go down that path. And there are many. My point is that when they finally face a significant charge in court they bleat the argument that you use and get supported by the many professional apologists. Net result = they get yet another chance. My point is that there are those who do have little choice, absolutely, yet there are many who fully choose the 'wrong'. And they get comforted with the same blanket argument in court that they're a product of their environment. It's an easy 'out'. And they exploit it to the full.

LegalEagle-ish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LegalEagle-ish Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > What about if it is in self-defence? > > > > Or defence of one's property? > > > > Or defence of one's family? > > > > Or defence of one's friends? > > > > If you feel that you are likely to be targeted > by > > someone who may kill you or others you care > about, > > is it ok then to stab someone? > > > Good God. What a ridiculous response. Clearly > it's about context. > > Is this what you mean by context? If it's you or > your loved ones being targeted or threatened then > it's ok, but if it's an 'urban' youth being > targeted or threatened then they should be strung > up or banged up for life? No. What I mean by context is someone walking around with a weapon on the streets. If someone comes into my house and threatens my loved ones the law allows for my need for defence. We also put in place a system in this society that allows someone who's being targeted or threatened (your words) to go to the police and ask for assistance. (I'm leaving this section blank for your inevitable response about these 'urban' youths not feeling able to go to the police. Blah.) There's the option for all of these people to not put themselves in the situations they put themselves into. Yes, there are the situations where someone who's entirely innocent has no choice but to end up in the wrong place/ time (e.g. Damilola Taylor) but more often that not there are the people who choose to be in a certain place doing what they choose to do. On one hand it's admirable that you look for the good in these people but on the other hand I feel my sense of society in this country eroding as a result of their actions.

LegalEagle-ish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What about if it is in self-defence? > > Or defence of one's property? > > Or defence of one's family? > > Or defence of one's friends? > > If you feel that you are likely to be targeted by > someone who may kill you or others you care about, > is it ok then to stab someone? Good God. What a ridiculous response. Clearly it's about context. And to respond to Sean's post about me treading the line of right and wrong: I'm not perfect, I would hate for anybody to be perfect. But the issues we're talking about here aren't little "ooh, I only tipped 5% for my toasted sandwich" incidents, they're ones where our society has VERY clear views on what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. So why pick faults in the terminology. We all (even the apologists) are aware of what is absolutely not permissible in our society as do the people who commit the crimes yet they CHOOSE to ignore the fact.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jimmy, wombat, etc... I think you're taking a very > simplistic view of the situation. No, these kids > are not being "forced" to carry knives, nobody is > saying that. But as I said earlier, people are > products of their environment, nobody is born > "evil", nobody is born a murderer. > > So don't you agree that it could be a good idea to > take a look at what's happening in their lives, > try and figure out why kids are turning out like > this? Or would you prefer we just ignored the root > cause of the problem? Absolutely agree that the root causes need to be looked at, but in tandem with appropriate punishments. People know that they will get umpteen opportunities before 'really' being sentenced which translate into a number of (literally) get out of jail free cards. So what happens is that invariably said offender simply keeps on doing what they want when they want UNTIL they get nicked for something judged important enough to warrant a custodial sentence. And that's when the bleating begins. And that's what I'm bored of. But that's frequently what gets them off the hook because there are professional apologists out there writing in-depth reports on the effect of social deprivation on these people. Right and wrong is very easy to understand. Seriously. Why make excuses for people who choose to ignore the difference?

Have to agree with the comments re. people offering sob stories once they're caught for something/ injured. Have yourselves a day in court to listen to some of the utter rubbish that is used come sentencing in an attempt at mitigation. Lots of people have difficult upbringings and deal with it in different ways but I swear to god you would think we were living in Dickensian London still when it comes to the excuses that are heard in court. Life can be bad, really bad but there's no excuses for a lot of the stuff that goes on. I'm bored with sympathy for criminals. Seriously. I'm bored with giving people like that chances that they abuse. These people only ask for second chances once they're caught, they'd NEVER think of changing their behaviour before that point. Why waste your time looking for the good in them, use the nice stuff on people and places more deserving.

Jamma Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not anti police but when walking up Lordship > Lane last night I reached the tape and asked the > officer if the road was closed off to pedestrians > too or if I could walk up the pavement. He said it > was all closed and added 'this tape seems to > confuse people' in a sarcastic way. I pointed out > there was people walking up the other side of the > pavement. I have no idea if they were breaking the > cordon, or witnesses held inside the cordon or > what. Why did he have to behave like such a c0ck > to a blameless and polite member of public? Surely that crime scene tape was a bit obvious though?

Also worth noting that they'll hardly ever take you to court as it's not worth the cost to them. They'll usually cancel just before it gets to that stage.

> > If you challenge it you?ll lose and end up paying > ?120. Need to correct you on the "...end up paying ?120." It's wrong. You're given tome to pay the original fine amount of your appeal is unsuccessful. Also - they'll almost always decline the initial appeal (weeds out the non-serious appealers) so always go for a second appeal. > > > >

eclectic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi, Im new to the forum, we went to liqourish for > the first time last night, and had 2 of their > pizzas and they were really tasty with an > excellent variety of toppings and very cheap as on > sundays, mondays and tuesdays, its buy one get one > free on their pizzas! the atmsopshere was nice and > excellent service. Great, that sounds like a wonderful recommendation. Thank you so much. No, really.

snorky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > arrest does not mean guilt -pls make sure this > forum isnt used as a reason to cast doubt on a > trial verdict. > > um blah

At least PM me to tell me why you've deleted a thread. It's a bit BB isn't it?

Just thought I'd leave this here for anyone who hadn't tired of the previous one.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Its a horrible indictment on London > > But as soon as 'Operation Trident' is mentioned - > then a swathe of the population can sleep easy. > > Maybe its time the press stopped mentioning this - > as it's becoming a codeword. I agree that it is being used as a codeword - but is it any less valid than stating explicitly that the majority of gun crime in London is black on black? A lot of people are doing all they can to tackle the issue but being in denial of the severity of the problem is going to help nobody.

Most of the time they won't want the expense of having a representative go to court so they'll drop it before that time. Just a case of taking a gamble. They'll almost always reject the initial appeal in the hope you change your mind so as to pay at the reduced rate. Just keep appealing would be my advice - but then again it won't be me paying any fine.