Government's Mortgage Rescue

neverdespairgirl

New immigrants are rarely entitled to council housing.

Gangstabird

It did seem a bit odd to us that every old white/black lady in london who lived on this estate was replaced by a family from abroad though NDG. This was around 10/11 years ago though.

When I say family from abroad - they were either Kurdish or Somalian and to be honest when we tried to speak to the parents, they didn't speak English. This was not just one house either. There were around 7 that I can think of (bless them old ladies who died).

neverdespairgirl

The situation in relation to housing has changed hugely since a decade ago, for immigratns.

pickledpink

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

In what way have I contradicted myself?

neverdespairgirl vbmenu_register("postmenu_14531435", true);
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan


Join Date: May 2006
Location: central London
Post Count: 3,841
Thanked 8,046 Times in 2,890 Posts



Quote:
Originally Posted by Realy
If you have got the money you pay for you legal team they do not care if you are guilty or innocent. They just want to win the case.

Almost all criminal cases in this country are legal aid (same pay rates for anyone). Prosecutors are paid the same whether they are dealing with a tramp or a billionaire.

Lawyers don't care if someone is, in their opinion, guilty or innocent. They care about the justice system working. Of course they like to win, who doesn't?


NDG,

You've contradicted yourself by saying that lawyers don't care if someone is, in their opinion, guilty or innocent. You then go on to say they care about the JUSTICE system working!:eek:

So what you're saying is that a lawyer would represent someone who, in their opinion, was guilty, but as they "of course like to win, who doesn't?" (your words) they'd happily forget about JUSTICE !!!!!:cool:

Which law do you specialise in, NDG?

Vinegartits

The law and justice bear little relation to each other.

Ask any solicitor or barrister.

lostinrates

If defence atually KNOW their client is guilty, i.e. s/he he told them so, they CANNOT then pursue a course of action defending a not guilty plea (I think). I think you have missunderstood NDG's quote about knowing guilt, and I think you misunderstand our justice system. Even those who are subseuently found guilt, or indeed who plead guilty at first oppertunity, are entitled to defence to get the fairest sentence, with mitgating factors considered.

When I was a law clerk I had opinions about, well, all of 'my' clients, good opinions, bad opinions. The justice system of our country, rightly, protects people from 'opinions' except those of a jury and sentencing judge.

moanymoany

When I worked as a solicitor in the Magistrates Court representing people on criminal charges - it would have been wrong of me to allow someone to plead not guilty if they had admitted to me that they were guilty. I could not have represented them.

If they told me they hadn't done it - but I thought they had - what could I do but do my best for them in their not guilty plea. My belief could be wrong!

In a criminal charge it is for the prosecution to prove they are guilty.

So, for me as a solicitor, I did the best for my clients. I have to say that I have only once seen what I thought was a wrong decision.

pickledpink

It appears that you haven't absorbed my message.

I wrote:

You've contradicted yourself by saying that lawyers don't care if someone is, in their opinion, guilty or innocent. You then go on to say they care about the JUSTICE system working!:eek:

So what you're saying is that a lawyer would represent someone who, in their opinion, was guilty, but as they "of course like to win, who doesn't?" (your words) they'd happily forget about JUSTICE !!!!!:cool:


How can NDG claim that she cares about JUSTICE - and then at the same time say that as lawyers like to win a case they wouldn't care whether their client ws innocent or not - as long as they won the case?!:o

In other words, she is saying she'd happily represent someone who she believed was lying.

lostinrates

barristers 'don't care' because regardless of guilt or not the person needs representation, people barristers or not, like to win....thats human natue. You can't 'know' someone is lying to you, you might feel it strongly, but you can't know it. I have never clerked in NDG's area of specialism, but I have worked on cases where the barrister has become comprimised, professionally'embarrassed' and has had to withdraw. Barrister's would rather withdraw than be disbarred!

ETA: I think its perhaps easier to say that its easy to have morals over individuals, harder to have morals that conflict individual people with ideals. Barriter, lawyers, any one in the justice system, is reuired to hold the value of ideals hgher than the value of smaller individual feelngs. That is why lawyers like 'Mr Loophole' are held in little regard by many of their peers. For the justice system to work as it was intended and deemed fair the defence Counsel and team must work as hard as they can to defend/present mitigation...otherwise the system fails and becomes unfair.

pickledpink

lostinrates wrote: »

barristers 'don't care' because regardless of guilt or not the person needs representation, people barristers or not, like to win....thats human natue. You can't 'know' someone is lying to you, you might feel it strongly, but you can't know it. I have never clerked in NDG's area of specialism, but I have worked on cases where the barrister has become comprimised, professionally'embarrassed' and has had to withdraw. Barrister's would rather withdraw than be disbarred!

ETA: I think its perhaps easier to say that its easy to have morals over individuals, harder to have morals that conflict individual people with ideals. Barriter, lawyers, any one in the justice system, is reuired to hold the value of ideals hgher than the value of smaller individual feelngs. That is why lawyers like 'Mr Loophole' are held in little regard by many of their peers. For the justice system to work as it was intended and deemed fair the defence Counsel and team must work as hard as they can to defend/present mitigation...otherwise the system fails and becomes unfair.

So you agree with me then.

NDG said

neverdespairgirl vbmenu_register("postmenu_14523201", true);
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan


Join Date: May 2006
Location: central London
Post Count: 3,850
Thanked 8,066 Times in 2,894 Posts





Quote:
Originally Posted by Realy
Prosecutor or defence, I could do neither.
I feel to socially responsible to try and send a person I knew was innocent down.
Or to defend a murderer, rapist or paedophile who I knew was guilty.
Plus I am not qualified.;)

As a prosecutor, you don't try to convict people you know are innocent.

As a defender, you don't try to defend those you know are guilty.






Then you say:


You can't 'know' someone is lying to you, you might feel it strongly, but you can't know it.

So NDG doesn't defend people she apparently KNOWS are guilty.:rolleyes:

So how does she know they aren't guilty?:p


She's gone awfully silent!!!:rotfl: