Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Without the solicitors, the criminals are fúcked"- *alleged* Dublin criminal

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    44leto wrote: »
    Well on the new rates solicitors will have to make their own tea.

    Wow, if you only new what amount of work legal secretaries had to do, you'd withdraw that statement immediately. Pure ignorance.


  • Options
    #93
    Brain Stroking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,874 ✭✭✭Brain Stroking


    44leto wrote: »
    Well on the new rates solicitors will have to make their own tea.

    This is the market place, if there are to many professions in the legal practice why isn't the consumer benefiting from the additional competition??. I draw a parallel there are a lot of unemployed builders, house improvements have never been cheaper.

    You've given away that you havent got the first clue about life in a legal office by the bit in bold. How's that chip on your shoulder?


  • Options
    #94
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    woodoo wrote: »
    Criminals should have to pay some of their legal costs out of their dole.
    Yes. Because every person that receives legal aid is on the dole.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #95
    SirDelboy18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭SirDelboy18


    Better call Saul.


  • Options
    #96
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    Yes. Because every person that receives legal aid is on the dole.

    And anyone else should have to pay towards it too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    K-9 wrote: »
    Exactly, tighten up bail laws, we'd a referendum about it years ago, fat lot of good it did.

    Rather than tighten up bail laws what about addressing the ridiculous amount of time it generally takes to bring cases before the courts.


  • Options
    #98
    frisbeeface
    Registered Users Posts: 697 ✭✭✭frisbeeface


    I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the ignorance in this thread :(


  • Options
    #99
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    I can see both arguments here. one the one the the right to a defence is a noble law. but on the other hand we have have drug dealers and murderers swanning around the streets after getting off with technicalities.

    I do think *known* gang members should have their right to a trial denied and a sentence handed out on the spot. They don't have a right to a trial in gangland, a point of the finger and you're dead.


  • Options
    #100
    laoch na mona
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭laoch na mona


    judges are overpaid **** there just upset that cuts would slightly affect them


  • Options
    #101
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    RichieC wrote: »
    I do think *known* gang members should have their right to a trial denied and a sentence handed out on the spot..

    1) Define "gang" ?
    2) Known by whom ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    RichieC wrote: »
    I do think *known* gang members should have their right to a trial denied and a sentence handed out on the spot. They don't have a right to a trial in gangland, a point of the finger and you're dead.

    Because we should of course strive to model our justice system on the methods used by career criminals to ensure obedience. Come on.


  • Options
    #103
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    RichieC wrote: »
    I do think *known* gang members should have their right to a trial denied and a sentence handed out on the spot. They don't have a right to a trial in gangland, a point of the finger and you're dead.
    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    2) Known by whom ?
    This, I have to hear.


  • Options
    #104
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    RichieC wrote: »
    I do think *known* gang members should have their right to a trial denied and a sentence handed out on the spot. They don't have a right to a trial in gangland, a point of the finger and you're dead.

    You mightn't like a model where everyone is treated equally in front of the law but that is a cornerstone of any modern democracy. If someone, even someone with previous criminal offenses, is not seen in the eyes of the state and the judiciary as innocent before being proven guilty, then the rights of the individual have been compromised and, in hindsight, expendable. Everyone has a right to a fair and equal trial. Would you like Ireland to become a police state?


  • Options
    #105
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    The dogs on the streets know who the gang leaders are...


  • Options
    #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,427 ✭ [Deleted User]


    RichieC wrote: »
    The dogs on the streets know who the gang leaders are...

    I don't think canine knowledge is admissable as evidence.


  • Options
    #107
    Jev/N
    Registered Users Posts: 3,456 ✭✭✭Jev/N


    LighterGuy wrote: »
    I hate solicitors.
    Scum. Just utter scum.

    Think about it, even if a decent bloke studied to become one. The nature of the job will turn him. Lying and twisting events. Repersenting blatantly guilty people. And I hate all that "ah people are innocent until proven guilty" bollocks out of them. Its just an excuse to justify the nature of repersenting a scumbag.

    Solicitors don't just defend criminals, you know?


  • Options
    #108
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    RichieC wrote: »
    The dogs on the streets know who the gang leaders are...

    Yeah and those gangs will never be a reason to destroy the general right to a fair trial. It you give in to them, you give in to the whole idea.


  • Options
    #109
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    Yeah and those gangs will never be a reason to destroy the general right to a fair trial. It you give in to them, you give in to the whole idea.

    That's what the special criminal court is for


  • Options
    #110
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    MagicSean wrote: »
    That's what the special criminal court is for
    The thin end of the wedge.

    Originally set up to try terrorist cases, then organised crime... what next? Where do you stop?


  • Options
    #111
    RMD
    Registered Users Posts: 2,662 ✭✭✭RMD


    It's not the solicitors who keep the criminals out of jail, they don't make the rulings. The judges and juries are to blame on that count.

    Not all solicitors / barristers represent criminals, many don't even practise that area of law. To tar an entire profession due to a certain % is sheer ignorance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,646 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    goat2 wrote: »
    all those positions you mention, are hard, nurses work long hours, garda deal with some very hard cases, remember they have to knock of the doors of people who have just lost their son or daughter in an accident, dealing with murder, dealing with late night drunks, the teacher i must say has got a hard job, dealing with children and teenagers is not easy, trying to motivate some to learn must be so hard, when there are others in the same classroom who want to learn and know how important it is to have an education, soldiers peacekeeping, dont know much about soldiers, and i dont know why you mentioned nigerian
    ahem


  • Options
    #113
    Funkfield
    Registered Users Posts: 1,602 ✭✭✭Funkfield


    This thread could be retitled "Better call Saul"


  • Options
    #114
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Why aren't criminals liable for fees once convicted? Surely if they are innocent, no fees, if you did the damn crime then your paying the fees we had to incur to give you a fair trial since you didn't just admit guilt.

    Then when they get out they can find a job and pay the fees. If they reoffend then it should be viewed as having had no intention to pay the fees and they should be charged accordingly with that on top of the new crime and stack it up.

    You'll soon find that if prison works as a deterrent at all that crime would go down TBH. If it doesn't or you object, I can't help but read it as an admission that prison isn't actually working to reform the criminals and we should try to come up with a new system and preferably one that doesn't cost so much.

    Seems criminal to me that you aren't entitled to free healthcare to a proper standard in this country yet criminals can commit as many crimes as they like and not actually pay the fees for their day in court when found guilty. They are using the service and wrongly so when found guilty so time to charge them for the service they are using.


  • Options
    #115
    LighterGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,243 ✭✭✭LighterGuy


    Jev/N wrote: »
    Solicitors don't just defend criminals, you know?

    Yes I know that, they defend normal, non-criminal people too.

    But its all bullshit. Its about the money. Be it about representing someones rights, being in the wrong, being in the right etc etc. Its all about the money.

    A Solicitor/barrister/whatever doesnt care if their client is guilty/in the wrong. Its about the wage. Win, lose or draw. They dont give a fuck. Only thing they care about is € sign. So where does morality come into it?

    I just dont understand why people dont just admit that solicitors/barristers/etc put money over conscience/morality first? ... Oh and I aint no naive idiot too. But imagine a solicitor handling a case for some junkie scumbag who is just looking to get compensation. Claiming he fell down a hole when he was never near the place?!

    But the same people would moan about a plummer charging them 90 euro to fix a tap? ... Calling them a bunch of 'ripping off, dirty, no decency, ****' .... what the difference IMO ... both looking to get paid.


  • Options
    #116
    BornToKill
    Registered Users Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭BornToKill


    LighterGuy wrote: »
    Oh and I aint no naive idiot too.

    No?


  • Options
    #117
    rusty999
    Registered Users Posts: 252 ✭✭rusty999


    On a different note Can anyone tell me why the Rate Your Solicitor website appears to be taken down ? I always enjoyed reading the comments and ratings given by people on there and if you were unhappy with your solicitor you could tell it as it is so to speak. I heard something about it being sued which I think would be a pity as its peoples democratic right to be able to express their opinions.


  • Options
    #118
    Brain Stroking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,874 ✭✭✭Brain Stroking


    LighterGuy wrote: »
    Yes I know that, they defend normal, non-criminal people too.

    But its all bullshit. Its about the money. Be it about representing someones rights, being in the wrong, being in the right etc etc. Its all about the money.

    A Solicitor/barrister/whatever doesnt care if their client is guilty/in the wrong. Its about the wage. Win, lose or draw. They dont give a fuck. Only thing they care about is € sign. So where does morality come into it?

    I just dont understand why people dont just admit that solicitors/barristers/etc put money over conscience/morality first? ... Oh and I aint no naive idiot too. But imagine a solicitor handling a case for some junkie scumbag who is just looking to get compensation. Claiming he fell down a hole when he was never near the place?!

    But the same people would moan about a plummer charging them 90 euro to fix a tap? ... Calling them a bunch of 'ripping off, dirty, no decency, ****' .... what the difference IMO ... both looking to get paid.

    LOL


  • Options
    #119
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    rusty999 wrote: »
    On a different note Can anyone tell me why the Rate Your Solicitor website appears to be taken down ? I always enjoyed reading the comments and ratings given by people on there and if you were unhappy with your solicitor you could tell it as it is so to speak. I heard something about it being sued which I think would be a pity as its peoples democratic right to be able to express their opinions.

    I'd read it was about a claim. The problem was people were making some very libelous comments on it and if I was a solicitor myself I wouldn't entertain it as a forum for discussion over personal matters. People have a democratic right to say many things but law suits can shut down sites. I suppose it is open to someone else to try a similar site.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



Advertisement