Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Alleged.

Kilkrazy wrote:Alleged.

Allegedly...

So can I fail the IQ test so I don't have to do jury duty?

Nevermind, I'm not even allowed to anyways, lol.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Alleged.

Allegedly...

Alleged.

Yep, The Lawyer has to defend his/her client. be they shoplifters, Car thieves or baby rapists.

The lawyer doesn't have to defend criminals. He has to defend alleged criminals.

Kilkrazy wrote:

The lawyer doesn't have to defend criminals. He has to defend alleged criminals.

Not if they have prior convictions.

or, if its on appeal.

Kilkrazy wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Alleged.

Allegedly...

Alleged.

Yep, The Lawyer has to defend his/her client. be they shoplifters, Car thieves or baby rapists.

The lawyer doesn't have to defend criminals. He has to defend alleged criminals.

Yes, Sorry.

Alleged.

Quite.

Justice is served, though in my mind she deserves two months for the actual contempt of court charge, doubled for being a chav and doubled again for being a txtspeaking chav on facebook.

Four months imprisonment for lolspeak, sounds about right for me.



Serriously, I am not upset she got custodial, a suspended sentence was expected and eight months is actually rather harsh; but its about time the lesson of the side effects of spilling your guts on social networking sites is brought home. Ms Fraill is making for an excellent object lesson.

mattyrm wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The lawyer doesn't have to defend criminals. He has to defend alleged criminals.

Not if they have prior convictions.

The trial is based on the evidence, and the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty.

That's the definition of lack of prejudice.

Orlanth wrote:Justice is served, though in my mind she deserves two months for the actual contempt of court charge, doubled for being a chav and doubled again for being a txtspeaking chav on facebook.

Four months imprisonment for lolspeak, sounds about right for me.



Serriously, I am not upset she got custodial, a suspended sentence was expected and eight months is actually rather harsh; but its about time the lesson of the side effects of spilling your guts on social networking sites is brought home. Ms Fraill is making for an excellent object lesson.

Condign punishment has been imposed in order to make a good example of her. A two month suspended sentence wouldn't have got into the papers. Thanks to eight months custodial the case has been reported everywhere.

Jurors get told at the beginning of every trial not to do that kind of stuff. This woman's fate rams the lesson home.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Justice is served, though in my mind she deserves two months for the actual contempt of court charge, doubled for being a chav and doubled again for being a txtspeaking chav on facebook.

Four months imprisonment for lolspeak, sounds about right for me.



Serriously, I am not upset she got custodial, a suspended sentence was expected and eight months is actually rather harsh; but its about time the lesson of the side effects of spilling your guts on social networking sites is brought home. Ms Fraill is making for an excellent object lesson.

Condign punishment has been imposed in order to make a good example of her. A two month suspended sentence wouldn't have got into the papers. Thanks to eight months custodial the case has been reported everywhere.

Jurors get told at the beginning of every trial not to do that kind of stuff. This woman's fate rams the lesson home.

Sentencing this way is 'common' in the UK. Most sentences are lenient because prisons are full, sometimes they really throw the vbook at someone. Lasdt time was one of the student rioters from the tuition fee hike protests. IIRC he got 2 years for affray, it sent a message. Sentencing like that is a career ender, not what you want to face if you want to get a degree and better your life.

Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming thats an IQ issue and not a bias issue?

If the test is any good, there is no difference.

Orlanth wrote:
Last time was one of the student rioters from the tuition fee hike protests. IIRC he got 2 years for affray, it sent a message. Sentencing like that is a career ender, not what you want to face if you want to get a degree and better your life.

Entirely merited, in my opinion. IIRC, he threw a fire extinguisher off an office block roof; it would have killed someone if it had hit and it was only for the grace of God it didn't.

OT: I think the judge really didn't have much choice other than to impose a strict custodial sentience on this woman - you really cannot allow such flagrant contempt of court to stand without sending a clear and unequivocal message that it will be dealt with in the harshest of terms. Unfortunately for her, they chose to make an example of her when sentencing.

I'm curious about this "legally punish people who talk about personal lives on social networks" charge.

Or "Oh noes, I know things".

Do you mean the "Super Injunction" cases?

dogma wrote:I'm curious about this "legally punish people who talk about personal lives on social networks" charge.

Or "Oh noes, I know things".

Did you read the whole story Dogma? She didn't just talk about her personal life, she went on facebook, found the bird who was involved in the trial then went "LOLZ! court iz for laffz!"

Or something...

The silly fat chav deserves a stretch in sing sing if you ask me!

I was referring to this matty.

Orlanth wrote:Justice is served, though in my mind she deserves two months for the actual contempt of court charge, doubled for being a chav and doubled again for being a txtspeaking chav on facebook.

My translation is: I'm an old man who doesn't know anything about the modern world, and I know it, and it makes me mad.

Ok, dogma. You just wont stop following me around to troll.

I asked you nicely. Perhaps I asked the wrong person.

I'm not following you. Its simply that we have many similar interests.

<rest of post deleted for being unnecessarily rude. >

If you bothered to read the entire post, which wasn't much bigger than that you would see my actual serious comment is in the last section, and contradicts the former. That should be obvious to anyone, or at least ambiguous enough for any honest poster not to warrant a personal attack.

Here we go:

Orlanth wrote:
Serriously, I am not upset she got custodial, a suspended sentence was expected and eight months is actually rather harsh; but its about time the lesson of the side effects of spilling your guts on social networking sites is brought home. Ms Fraill is making for an excellent object lesson.

You see its all about the topical issues of indiscretions on facebook, not an 'old man who doesn't know anything about the modern world'.

That's very harsh. Orlanth almost always makes a positive contribution to a thread, his posts are enjoyable to read through (if sometimes mind-boggling huge in their length) and he rarely attacks anyone on a personal level (though he may dismiss their arguments out of hand).

Honestly, from a removed third party, it does appear that you are picking on him for the sake of well, picking on him.

Orlanth wrote:
You see its all about the topical issues of indiscretions on facebook, not an 'old man who doesn't know anything about the modern world'.

To put it differently, I place you and Frazzled in the same category.

Reported. Hugs and kisses back.

Emperors Faithful wrote:



Honestly, from a removed third party, it does appear that you are picking on him for the sake of well, picking on him.

Indeed.

Might well be worth using the ignore function then.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
You see its all about the topical issues of indiscretions on facebook, not an 'old man who doesn't know anything about the modern world'.

Spoiler:

We still talking bout ol' Tex Mex Frazz here?

In the US truth is always a defense to slander, so you're safe here.

From GC's Father's Day card:
(cartoon pic of a little girl and top part of a house)
"Dad, now that I am older I appreciate all the things you did to protect me"

(card opens to full house pic which has a moat and crocodiles)
"But the moat and alligators were a bit much."

YES!

she sounds like the kind of person who gets selected for jury duty... I went to jury summons and while they didn't specifically ask about IQ they first weeded out the most educated basically everybody with a degree was dismissed round 1 then for cuts round 2 ( i had no degree at the time so I made it through) they asked us questions on what we did and the 4 of us who had jobs that required any independent thought were dismissed the remaining people were almost entirely high school drop outs, people working as waiters/waitresses and in fast food... I was very disgusted with the process given the nature of the trial would have needed people with some degree of intelligence to analyze (white collar crime)