Jump to content

Facebook, yobs canal boats and a lock


bigcol

Featured Posts

2 minutes ago, bigcol said:

Top banana!!!  Just brilliant 

I moaned that they were'nt decent Ordnance survey maps, but just cheap old maps obtained free through Kensitas cigarette coupons. I did learn a lot about geography in the holidays though. I learnt how to travel most of the country train spotting on a single 1d platform ticket and never got caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RevCedd said:

Sorry Phil, but speaking as someone with two degrees in law, who worked as a solicitor for 16 years and has sat on the bench for 7 years I can confidently say, with the greatest of respect, that you are talking out of your derriere.  If those yobs came before the Magistrates they would be doing exactly the type of community service that some here are crying out for and, if they kept appearing, they would probably end up doing some time. 

The two law degrees are irrelevant, the fact that you have demonstrated an ability to engage in study, in a nice warm environment does not in any way show that you have the first clue about dealing with the little turds during the commission of their crimes. Nor does the 16 years as a solicitor and 7 on the bench, as when you encounter them, they will have calmed down and or, been coached on how to behave and what to say. Totalling up your years, amounts to a mere 23 years in the criminal justice system, so you still have a way to go to equal my derrière. I do however concede that it is not entirely your fault, as a magistrate, in that even if the miserable individual is found guilty your hands are effectively tied by the utterly useless sentencing guidelines. Regarding community service take it from someone who knows, it's a waste of time so you may as well in future not bother issuing it from your bench. 

49 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Whilst I don't disbelieve your statement speaking as someone who for several years wore a blue uniform and a big funny hat Phil is not far from the truth. Banging a head against a brick wall for todays police springs to mind. Many was the time I wasted considerable time getting certain little and not so little darlings in front of Magistrates and indeed at crown court only to listen to defence who of course were not under oath making Jackanory seem like a history programme.

There were several occasions I can think of during the mitigation phase of a case, where I had to physically remove myself from the court room, for fear of rolling about on the floor at some of the story telling engaged by the defence solicitors/barristers about their 'clients'. The alternative would have been held in contempt for my uncontrollable outburst of laughter. What I found risible was when the court swallowed it, hook line and sinker.

edited to add.... there were to be fair several judges and one old magistrate, who did see through the tissue of lies being spun, and would give a knowing look to the effect that they were not being fooled. They were unfortunately in the minority.

Edited by Phil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Whilst I don't disbelieve your statement speaking as someone who for several years wore a blue uniform and a big funny hat Phil is not far from the truth. Banging a head against a brick wall for todays police springs to mind. Many was the time I wasted considerable time getting certain little and not so little darlings in front of Magistrates and indeed at crown court only to listen to defence who of course were not under oath making Jackanory seem like a history programme.

maybe  a discussion for another day but should lawyers and solicitors also be under oath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, thebfg said:

maybe  a discussion for another day but should lawyers and solicitors also be under oath.

All lawyers are 'Officers of the Court' which means, amongst other things, that they owe a constant duty not to mislead the court.  If any lawyer deliberately told an untruth in court that would be a disciplinary matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RevCedd said:

All lawyers are 'Officers of the Court' which means, amongst other things, that they owe a constant duty not to mislead the court.  If any lawyer deliberately told an untruth in court that would be a disciplinary matter.

I thought there might be something in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Phil. said:

The two law degrees are irrelevant, the fact that you have demonstrated an ability to engage in study, in a nice warm environment does not in any way show that you have the first clue about dealing with the little turds during the commission of their crimes. Nor does the 16 years as a solicitor and 7 on the bench, as when you encounter them, they will have calmed down and or, been coached on how to behave and what to say. Totalling up your years, amounts to a mere 23 years in the criminal justice system, so you still have a way to go to equal my derrière. I do however concede that it is not entirely your fault, as a magistrate, in that even if the miserable individual is found guilty your hands are effectively tied by the utterly useless sentencing guidelines. Regarding community service take it from someone who knows, it's a waste of time so you may as well in future not bother issuing it from your bench. 

There were several occasions I can think of during the mitigation phase of a case, where I had to physically remove myself from the court room, for fear of rolling about on the floor at some of the story telling engaged by the defence solicitors/barristers about their 'clients'. The alternative would have been held in contempt for my uncontrollable outburst of laughter. What I found risible was when the court swallowed it, hook line and sinker.

Well I'm glad that my 23 years experience in the law counts for nothing in your eyes.  Much better just to get confirmation of your prejudices from those more qualified. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RevCedd said:

Well I'm glad that my 23 years experience in the law counts for nothing in your eyes.  Much better just to get confirmation of your prejudices from those more qualified. 

I didn't claim your 23 years counts for nothing, just implied it may not count for as much as you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years ago I belonged to a Round Table, Dagenham Round table to be truthful, that gateway to the sunny east. Amongst the organizations that we raised money for and supported like the Dagenham Blind association were three childrens homes in Dagenham and Romford. The childrens ages ranged from about 10 to 16 and good kids, they had been told to call me ''sir'', not bizzard which I rejected, I han't been knighted.  We ran two main charity functions for them every year, a Chrismas sleigh towed by yours truely to distribute presents to their homes and a trip to the seaside in the summer with rides at a funfair, playing on the beach and fish and chip meal out of RT's funds.  This particular seaside trip I got into trouble with our RT Chairman.  A London transport bus and two mini buses were used to take the children to Walton-on- Naze.  We'd taken them there in the past where we parked the buses in the station car park. On this particular trip I was driving a mini bus with about ten children and their minder on board. Just after Colchester several children wanted to go to the toilet, so I diverted to Wivenhoe where my mum and dad lived, here they all trooped in to the bog while I had a cup of tea. And then onward to Walton. On arriving at Walton station car park there was no sign at all of the other two buses, funny I thought, anyway we got out to stretch our legs and were suddenly confronted with the Walton-on-Naze station bar, very enticing. I had a quiet word with the minder about being a bit thirsty and she agreed. So the whole lot of us trooped into the bar. Walton station bar was some bar,really big with good beers, built in the heyday for onetime holidaying at resorts in this country, sadly I believe its been demolished and a boring housing estate stands in its place. We spent about two hours in that lovely bar, the children loved it, drinking and playing the machines and didn't want to leave, they didn't really want to play beach ball and build sand castles on the beach anyway. I eventually wrenched them all out and back into the bus and cruised along the prom looking fof the rest of our crowd, and lo!! after a bit there they all were playing ball and building sand castles on the beach. Out we all got and went onto the beach where I was severely reprimanded by our horrified chairman when he heard I taken the children into a pub. It was all my fault bla! bla! bla!.  What had happened was that they'd used another car park nearer the beach and hadn't informed me. Anyway we all then had our fish'n'chip supper and all came home safe and sound.  Our next RT meeting ''held in a pub'' was on the following Tuesday and I was late. They were just reading the minutes and  any other business when I walked in, to great cheers, I couldn't believe it, no cheers from the chairman I hasten to add. They'd just opened and read out several letters of thanks from the children of the homes of which 10 were to me thanking me for the lovely time in the pub, with hardly any mention of playing on the beach.  

  • Greenie 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wanted said:

The sentiment and not the methods in which you describe I agree with. Firm, consistent boundaries given to children are indeed part of that love. I think the answer is to be able to know what is appropriate at a given time. 

Just by way of balance, some of the most yardie kids, kids who carries blades and drugs who lived with us often had fluffy cartoon slippers tucked under their beds. There is a diamond in us all. 

Yes, strange that, sometimes the absolutely worse upbringing can result in mature and responsible adults and also best upbringing resulting in hopeless cases. I guess it's about a person deciding to take responsibility for their own wellbeing. 

I don't condone caning and the like, maybe sometimes acceptable in its time but not any longer. 

Edited by nb Innisfree
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, thebfg said:

I thought there might be something in place.

There is and its a joke.

19 hours ago, thebfg said:

maybe  a discussion for another day but should lawyers and solicitors also be under oath.

If they were then there would be slightly less waffle in courts.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bigcol said:

What is a Q/C  as a specific job,

is he of the highest standing?

as there are some slippery Q/Cs about!!!

 

Seems to me its someone who is better at bending the law than a lowly appointed solicitor ... i say that because i have known people hire a good barrister to keep their license after carrying out several motoring offences, where had they relied on an appointed solicitor they would have almost certainly lost it.

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, nb Innisfree said:

Yes, strange that, sometimes the absolutely worse upbringing can result in mature and responsible adults and also best upbringing resulting in hopeless cases. I guess it's about a person deciding to take responsibility for their own wellbeing. 

I don't condone caning and the like, maybe sometimes acceptable in its time but not any longer. 

All boils down to the same thing ... knowing right from wrong , everyone knows it but there arent the deterrents in place any longer or the morals or standards instilled in upbringing for the mindless few not to behave themselves irrespective of background or parenting.

Rick

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bigcol said:

What is a Q/C  as a specific job,

is he of the highest standing?

 

 

They're Queen's Counsels: experienced barristers appointed to higher office by the Queen. Typically I think, barristers who don't want to become judges would be offered such an appointment.

Yes, he (and probably a few she's too) is considered to be a very senior legal figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, nb Innisfree said:

Yes, strange that, sometimes the absolutely worse upbringing can result in mature and responsible adults and also best upbringing resulting in hopeless cases. I guess it's about a person deciding to take responsibility for their own wellbeing. 

I don't condone caning and the like, maybe sometimes acceptable in its time but not any longer. 

Caning worked. It made us think twice rather than knowing as they do now that absolutely nothing whatsoever can be done that may deter bad behaviour. We also got bashed with a pump across the backside, no big deal.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Caning worked. It made us think twice rather than knowing as they do now that absolutely nothing whatsoever can be done that may deter bad behaviour. We also got bashed with a pump across the backside, no big deal.

Freshwater or shower pump?  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Athy said:

They're Queen's Counsels: experienced barristers appointed to higher office by the Queen. Typically I think, barristers who don't want to become judges would be offered such an appointment.

Yes, he (and probably a few she's too) is considered to be a very senior legal figure.

Thanks

so the Q/C who awarded all the rangers footballers millions of pounds in loan, wages

instead of paying the tax man was/is a slippery queens council

lol

Yep I got caned by my dad, and my teachers

and yes I know it was for my own good.

didnt do me no harm,  did it???

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/09/2017 at 20:00, bizzard said:

They'd just opened and read out several letters of thanks from the children of the homes of which 10 were to me thanking me for the lovely time in the pub, with hardly any mention of playing on the beach.  

Obviously the members weren't part of CWDF as it seems they disapprove of kids in pubs.

 

 

 

Where is that tongue in cheek emoticon when you need it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bigcol said:

Can't get the emotions to work anyway!!

 

Just tried  on this post but this comes up in red?

 

The value entered includes a character that is not allowed such as an Emoji.

Use the button at the top of the reply box. The little smiley face. That'll give you loads of emojis. 

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 16:25, Athy said:

They're Queen's Counsels: experienced barristers appointed to higher office by the Queen. Typically I think, barristers who don't want to become judges would be offered such an appointment.

Yes, he (and probably a few she's too) is considered to be a very senior legal figure.

There is no higher authority than Judge John Deed, as portrayed by The Great Thespian Martin Shaw.

Mrs Mills occasionally sat as a Recorder though I'm not sure she ever took Silk, which may or may not support your view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2017 at 18:15, mrsmelly said:

Caning worked. It made us think twice rather than knowing as they do now that absolutely nothing whatsoever can be done that may deter bad behaviour. We also got bashed with a pump across the backside, no big deal.

Caning in my school was way over the top. Sometimes more like a thrashing. Made me hate school. I once got caned because the head had a new cane. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.