Sycamore Gap tree at Hadrian's Wall 'felled overnight'

This is the bit that gets me.

Mr Wright asked if there were not restaurants in Carlisle they could have visited rather than make a three-hour round trip on an afternoon when storms were forecast to hit the area.

Mr Carruthers replied the restaurants in Carlisle were "not the best" and the Metrocentre would be better.
Click to expand...

Aye you were on a three hour round trip cos the restaurants in Carlisle are crap!
 
Derek W said:
This is the bit that gets me.



Aye you were on a three hour round trip cos the restaurants in Carlisle are crap!
Click to expand...
So worth the drive for the list of bang average chain restaurants and fast food joints on offer, the man is a Comedy genius, I'm slightly disappointed his other half wasn't called to the stand to commit perjury in his defence by backing up the nonsense claim or did I miss that golden nugget!
 
jpaul said:
is the last laugh on the audience paying for the defence team. ( USA audience will lap up the upcoming Disney mini-series - like Menezes one, all things Brit ]
Click to expand...

I love reading your posts sometimes. Just absolute top-shelf, perfect irrelevant waffling. Delicious.
 
a1ex2001 said:
It’s like a carry on movie, I know they are entitled to a defence but the lawyers conducting it should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this nonsense to go on.
Click to expand...

Firstly, everyone is entitled to a defence and lawyers must follow their clients' instructions, regardless of how stupid they may be. The only thing they can’t do is knowingly lie or mislead the court. For example, if a client told you privately they had committed the crime, but instructed you to lie, you can’t do this.
 
Liefrich said:
Firstly, everyone is entitled to a defence and lawyers must follow their clients' instructions, regardless of how stupid they may be. The only thing they can’t do is knowingly lie or mislead the court. For example, if a client told you privately they had committed the crime, but instructed you to lie, you can’t do this.
Click to expand...

It's almost as if we should treat criminals with the utter contempt they deserve. If they decide to operate out with the law then why should the law be there to protect them.
 
Liefrich said:
Firstly, everyone is entitled to a defence and lawyers must follow their clients' instructions, regardless of how stupid they may be. The only thing they can’t do is knowingly lie or mislead the court. For example, if a client told you privately they had committed the crime, but instructed you to lie, you can’t do this.
Click to expand...

Yea and I'm sure they always follow that rule...

The Cray brother's lawyer totally had no idea what they were up to :D
 
Last edited:
Derek W said:
It's almost as if we should treat criminals with the utter contempt they deserve. If they decide to operate out with the law then why should the law be there to protect them.
Click to expand...

no one is a criminal until they are convicted.... Are you suggesting that people don't deserve lawful protection before they are convicted? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Derek W said:
It's almost as if we should treat criminals with the utter contempt they deserve. If they decide to operate out with the law then why should the law be there to protect them.
Click to expand...

Because we operate a society based on the rule of law and individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I'm not sure why that is so hard to comprehend. It would be unfortunate if you were ever accused of a crime you didn't commit.
 
Liefrich said:
Firstly, everyone is entitled to a defence and lawyers must follow their clients' instructions, regardless of how stupid they may be. The only thing they can’t do is knowingly lie or mislead the court. For example, if a client told you privately they had committed the crime, but instructed you to lie, you can’t do this.
Click to expand...
I agree but I think I'd have pulled a sicky if I was the defence lawyer for either of these idiots, the web of stupidity would be enough to drive a good man to drink!
 
a1ex2001 said:
I agree but I think I'd have pulled a sicky if I was the defence lawyer for either of these idiots, the web of stupidity would be enough to drive a good man to drink!
Click to expand...

We have the cab rank rule which makes that difficult. Also, it's an interesting case which is getting national coverage!
 
Liefrich said:
We have the cab rank rule which makes that difficult. Also, it's an interesting case which is getting national coverage!
Click to expand...
It is good that we give everyone a legal defence, such a waste of time though when the obviously guilty decide to drag things through the courts I guess the other option is US style plea bargaining which I'm not a huge fan of either as it leads to some right anomalies.
 
a1ex2001 said:
I agree but I think I'd have pulled a sicky if I was the defence lawyer for either of these idiots, the web of stupidity would be enough to drive a good man to drink!
Click to expand...

Easy money though. They get paid either way and they don't have to put much effort in to this case, feet up in their mansion garden after 5 mins work. No one expects them to win.
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
It is good that we give everyone a legal defence, such a waste of time though when the obviously guilty decide to drag things through the courts I guess the other option is US style plea bargaining which I'm not a huge fan of either as it leads to some right anomalies.
Click to expand...

I would assume they must have been advised to plead guilty but insisted on going to trial. Hopefully their wasting of the courts time will be reflected in the sentencing. Maybe they were hoping to get Sir Bob Massingbird for their defence?
 
Mr Badger said:
I would assume they must have been advised to plead guilty but insisted on going to trial. Hopefully their wasting of the courts time will be reflected in the sentencing. Maybe they were hoping to get Sir Bob Massingbird for their defence?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that sentence discounts are dependant on the time you plead guilty i.e. the sooner you plead guilty, the bigger the sentence "discount" is available. The longer you leave it (in court time, not actual time), the less discount you can expect.
 
Last edited:
Richie said:
I'm pretty sure that sentence discounts are dependant on the time you plead guilty i.e. the sooner you plead guilty, the bigger the sentence "discount" is available. The longer you leave it (in court time, not actual time), the less discount you can expect.
Click to expand...
Yup

IIRC the earlier you plead guilty the higher the discount, same with things like if you show remorse.

These idiots by the sounds of it are going to get neither of those discounts if found guilty and may end up with some aggravating factors thrown in to make the sentence harsher than the default starting point.
 
Diddums said:
Laurel and hardy these two.

The only suitable punishment is for them to go and hold the tree back in place until it grows back.
Click to expand...

Surely burying them underneath would be more useful? They're proving themselves to be able to waffle a load of compost in court so that would be good for the growth of a tree.
 
Its like they have got a revolving wheel of excuses and every morning before going into court, they spin it to see what excuse they are going to use that day.

Still puzzled why they have pleaded not guilty when its glaringly obvious they did it. AT least come up with a halfway plausible defence.

What next - "it was little green men that made us do it"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom