Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
As if on cue.
Don't read if you want to remain upbeat and relatively sane today.
"Mr Kaye [the defendant's lawyer] said if the actions were involuntary then the charge was manslaughter - not murder."
-
For the past few years, I have contributed to a second year uni course on Media Ethics
Hold on, you're saying there are media ethics, too?
I gotta sit down...
-
I'm studying for a legal ethics exam.
There are legal ethics? Man, I've been doing this job all wrong.
OK my main point here, and one that I'm obviously not putting forward well, is that it is almost always wrong to personalise a lawyer's actions or statements.
A lawyer's role is quite different than the general public perception of it (and that's another issue).
A lawyer's role requires different ethics than those of a 'normal person'. Sometimes those ethics can be perceived as unsavoury, but they are necessary* under our current conception of a lawyer's role. The role is a result of our adversarial system.
Sometimes the 'problem' lies with the lawyer. One debated example is where they take the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law as a basis for their tactics - like using delay tactics to attempt to run the other party out of money in an attempt to force settlement.
From what's been said here (not having kept up with media reports), I don't see Comeskey as having stepped outside his ethical role. We don't have to like the defence he is running on behalf of his client, but to my mind the debate isn't about whether he should run it but whether the role of a lawyer, and the ethics (and so the defences) that spring from it, is right for our society.
OK, I'm cool with all of that - the lawyers job is to advise and represent their client to the absolute best of their ability. Clearly in this case, the defendant had a poor to non-existent grasp of english, and therefore clearly couldn't represent themselves. Hence one obvious reason why he needed qualified representation.
But you and Steve seem to be talking past each other.
Once the verdict was in , Comesky went out of his way to start flinging the nasty stuff.
As has been pointed out, this doesn't seem to make a lot of legal sense on the face of it. If he intends to lodge an appeal on behalf of his client, where's the benefit?
If there is no benefit, why is he doing it? Because he's an attention whore with a nasty streak?
I couldn't possibly comment, but that does seem to be one obvious conclusion, unless finer legal minds can explain an advantage to all that muck-flinging that has otherwise been overlooked?
-
But their intended purpose is sitting on a boat, packed full of items that aren't actively trying to cut their way out, break bits off for use as shivs, etc. So while they can take quite a lot of load without buckling (you can stack full containers quite high), they may be somewhat more vulnerable to ingenious inmates.
Pretty much what was going through my mind earlier.
Who knew that more or less back-to-back repeats of 'america's hardest prisons' on the discovery channel would eventually be useful for something?
It is a foolish prison officer who treats his charges as stupid. When you sit a person with well-demonstrated sociopathic tendancies in a confined space for hours at a time, they tend to spend a lot of that time thinking up ways to turn their immediate surroundings into weapons. Them having extended amounts of time compensates for them not being MacGuyver-level intellects - they get there in the end.
A lot of the cost in prison design is trying to make the cells and communal areas inmate-proof - bolting down chairs and tables, making toilets out of something that won't shatter and leave you with a sharp edge, etc etc.
Not something you generally have to consider for your average home rennovation.
-
not in my universe...
-
We watched All gone Pete Tong which I thought was an interesting take on going from Djing to completely deaf. Really liked it.
A much better film than you'd think from the advertising and publicity.
Can't quite decide whether it wants to be slapstick or serious at first, but eventually decides to get serious in the 2nd and 3rd acts, and is much the better for it.
-
Ridiculous idea.
I mean, it's quite clear from that new telecom ad with Lucy Lawless that these things are as easy as pie to escape from, even when they're drifting in the middle of the ocean.
We should be keeping these scum off our streets. And seas. Not leaving them to roam and swim free.
-
A smack probably has no part in good Panteral correction then...
-
A smack probably has no part in good Panteral correction then...
-
Maybe the inside of those sheds does feel way cooler than the outside looks?
Yes, we may be doing the man and his uphill salesjob a great disservice.
However, I'm inclined to think that if it has a beak and quacks, its probably a duck, and not a succulent Christmas turkey full of delicious chestnut stuffing.