Presidential Election 2025

Ridiculous.
Legal system would fall apart overnight.

Overly simplistic and binary as usual from you.

Culling hasn't worked...4K killed in 1st cull in 1995, 55K in 2022...ironically culling may increase the population.

Animal rights groups have argued for other strategies to be tried, fencing, fertility control, habitat management etc. The State as so often, responds lazily and cheaply - imagine being strategic!

Lastly, the 'destruction' you mention is also overblown and debatable.

You want to fix something that wasn't broken until FG decided to use it as a smear for a few votes.

We are on the same page with valid criticisms of CC and her policies. But on this one, i must totally disagree

• Everyone is entitled to representation. From the most vile murderer, to a corrupt executive at the top of the societal ladder.
• Barristers will be assigned cases, as they come up. Unless there is a serious conflict of interest (related to victim, related to defendent/client) - they should take these cases
• Allowing barristers to pick and chose, weakens the system. Certain high profile clients may be refused representation, based on public perception
• If this continued, public perception would become a serious consideration in 'choosing' who receives legal representation, and who remains in line waiting to be represented.
• Criminals could justifiably appeal convictions based on the real possibility that an assigned barrister did not offer credible counsel, due to public perception, and their not wishing to have been associated with a case.
• If this is taken seriously, then a precident exists for the media to enquire with all future TD/MEP/Councillors who campaign for election, and who previously served as barristers. Who did they represent in criminal and civil cases. Why did they take these cases, why did they plead not guilty for this or that client. This has the real ability to drag our legal system into the party political landscape.

Its just plain wrong, and in my opinion it is a desperate smear campaign. We could debate for hours on CC's foreign policy, and position on Europe; it is valid to do this, and we are entitled to ask questions of Connolly on the basis of her policy.

Who she represented in any legal case is irrelevant.

I actually fully agree with you. My point was that FG missed the mark totally with this barrister angle and it has backfired.

I hope the press continue digging into the unanswered questions after the election. When you actually hold power, and the presidency has a little, it needs to be held to account.

Wonder if it will have a question of how the parties handled their campaigns? Hopefully the sample period for the poll covered the Primetime debate.

She had to appear and act presidential. She did that well. As for FG, the only thing it did with its campaign was to confirm its reputation as some kind of Nasty Party. The SocDems (the Nice People's Party) did well out of this and even Bacik's position in Labour seems a lot stronger against the Alan Kelly types due to Connolly's campaign being so effective.

What random people say on the internet cannot be controlled by CC.

Populist movements, being anti Establishment, tend to accuse their critics of smearing their leaders eg Trump. In the case of CCs defenders, is this just populism, or is the criticism unfair?

I think the criticism of hiring the woman with gun convictions is absolutely legitimate.

No, it won't.

It will be the usual smiles and handshakes for the official pictures.

Also remember that the Bar Council are themselves barristers. There should be an Independent regulator. Yes I know officially there is, but it has next to no power and , self regulation continues

Might not even be Simon Harris the way things are going

But if common sence, freedom to choose what work you will take on, etc, prevails then if CC was totally on the side of those who a bank is trying to evict because of her moral compass or whatever then I fail to see why she could not find a reason to refrain from taking on such work ie representing a bank in a court case to do with the repossession of a family home.

This is where your analysis is flawed in my view. Barristers must work on the cases on which they have been assigned. They dont actually have the freedom to choose, unless and until, a true conflict of interest is present.

Lets use a hypothetical.

• Lets assume you are a barrister, working independently. Lets say you are also a strong advocate 'AGAINST' Fox hunting, for example.
• You then receive a case, where you must defend a man who was arrested and charged with tresspassing on someone elses land, while engaged in a fox hunt. Footage emerges of this man, taking great pleasure in shooting and otherwise injurying foxes during a hunt. All technically legal, let us assume. He was arrested for tresspassing and nothing more.
• You may justifiably feel that the mans actions are cruel, and you may not want to have anything to do with this case. You have recently protested such a hunt, and may view this as grounds to abandon the case, and hand it off to someone else. You are incensed by the mans behavior

This is all very unfortunate, and i deeply sympathize. But you must take the case, you are a barrister, thats your job. Its not personal, put your feelings aside and get on with it.

The only way you will avoid this case, is if you are related to the person charged, or perhaps the landowner on which he was tresspassing. Otherwise, you are stuck with it, and you must do your job

You could try and 'invent' reasons to say there is a conflict of interest, but that would be unethical would it not? Im sure in this situation, you would be ethical, so you wont attempt this. So, you have to represent the man in question.

If you dont wish to do so - resign as a barrister- you are not cut out for this line of work! You cannot compartmentalize your personal beliefs, from your professional obligations.