The future of the Labour Party

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So how do we know when a lawyer is lying? I guess we don't. Lying is his profession, he'd be disbarred if he didn't lie? So pleased we've got a liar as Prime Minister. How very depressing this all is.

Not sure you are getting this.

Client says to barrister "I don't think I am guilty because of x"

Barrister says to Court "My client's case is that they aren't guilty because of x"

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

When the jury finds against his client

I don't want anyone to think I'm arguing against everyone on here, but the lawyer might have lost his case simply because he wasn't persuasive enough?

[He's here!]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So how do we know when a lawyer is lying? I guess we don't. Lying is his profession, he'd be disbarred if he didn't lie? So pleased we've got a liar as Prime Minister. How very depressing this all is.

I can't work out whether you're pretending not to understand this (as I suspect Sultana is doing) or whether you just need to read up on a defence barrister's role.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Barrister says to Court "My client's case is that they aren't guilty because of x"

Sounds like a very honourable profession.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can't work out whether you're pretending not to understand this (as I suspect Sultana is doing) or whether you just need to read up on a defence barrister's role.

I think it's perhaps that fairly late in life I'm realising that people are paid enormous sums to argue that black is white. Hope they sleep well at night.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sounds like a very honourable profession.

Without that process, most people would have to go to Court without legal representation.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure you are getting this.

Client says to barrister "I don't think I am guilty because of x"

Barrister says to Court "My client's case is that they aren't guilty because of x"

This is how the law works. Its all in rhetoric. The lawyer lays out their clients case not their own thoughts or positions on it.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Without that process, most people would have to go to Court without legal representation.

Fair enough.

[MKHIBEE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't want anyone to think I'm arguing against everyone on here, but the lawyer might have lost his case simply because he wasn't persuasive enough?

Or perhaps he didn’t lie enough?

[MKHIBEE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure you are getting this.

Client says to barrister "I don't think I am guilty because of x"

Barrister says to Court "My client's case is that they aren't guilty because of x"

What happens if the client is guilty but pleads not guilty?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What happens if the client is guilty but pleads not guilty?

They're not guilty until the Court decides. It's part of the defence's job to make sure the process is correctly applied to their client.

A quick AI summary:-

A barrister can represent a client who has admitted guilt but insists on pleading not guilty. However, the barrister cannot present a positive case for the client's innocence if they know the client is guilty. They can still argue for mitigating circumstances to potentially reduce the sentence.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What happens if the client is guilty but pleads not guilty?

In any fair democratic legal system both parties in the trial get a strong defence on what they want put up. If a lawyer said no i don't believe you, one they would correctly be disciplined and two open up the nation to gross miscarriages of justice.

I can't believe im defending people's right to a strong and unbiased defence, but here we are

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can see the reasoning behind people saying that, in this case, he is not hypocritical.
However there are instances when he has been nothing but a hypocrite. A thoroughly shameful, incompetent, embarrassing leader of a once great party now reduced to a shambles.

I'd agree with that ha

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What happens if the client is guilty but pleads not guilty?

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[MKHIBEE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

What if his client committed the crime but pleads not guilty?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What if his client committed the crime but pleads not guilty?

See my post above.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What if his client committed the crime but pleads not guilty?

It's up to the court then to prove his guilt.

Have you never watched any court room dramas or followed real life cases? It's not perfect and the law "is an ass" but the alternatives are way worse.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

We could save a lot of money on senseless trials by just having defence lawyers decide if someone is guilty or not. **** it, let's have them decide on sentencing while we're at it.

Am I doing this right?

[MKHIBEE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's up to the court then to prove his guilt.

Have you never watched any court room dramas or followed real life cases? It's not perfect and the law "is an ass" but the alternatives are way worse.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

I have followed live cases and watched tv. My comments were slightly tongue in cheek.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I have followed live cases and watched tv. My comments were slightly tongue in cheek.

Well that was a complete waste of time.

I hope your tongue and your cheek are happy.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[MKHIBEE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well that was a complete waste of time.

I hope your tongue and your cheek are happy.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Very

[Andy Bee]

New YouGov poll out and it aint looking good.


https://x.com/search?q=yougov&src=typed_query&f=top

[cabbageandribs1875]

[cabbageandribs1875]

Sir Starmer u-turn number 271 PM set to announce welfare climbdown in deal with Labour rebels - BBC News

up the Rebs

[Jones28]

So Labour have decided not to go through with their proposed cuts - thats a good thing right? And shows that a) the party itself still has a real voice and b) Starmer actually listens, for self preservation or not, which can only be positive?

[He's here!]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sir Starmer u-turn number 271 PM set to announce welfare climbdown in deal with Labour rebels - BBC News

up the Rebs

He'd have faced a confidence vote if he hadn't compromised.

He's changed tack now on winter fuel payments, grooming gangs enquiry and benefits. All in the space of a few weeks. Not a great look. I actually have some sympathy with what he's trying to do as the benefits system is out of control.

Bottom line, it all plays into Reform's hands.

[jamie_1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He'd have faced a confidence vote if he hadn't compromised.

He's changed tack now on winter fuel payments, grooming gangs enquiry and benefits. All in the space of a few weeks. Not a great look. I actually have some sympathy with what he's trying to do as the benefits system is out of control.

Bottom line, it all plays into Reform's hands.

Whoever is elected in Scotland 2026 is going to face a similar challenge and make some tough decisions on benefits. It's going up significantly in Scotland with spending on devolved social security benefits expected to increase from £6.9bn in 2025–26 to £9.4bn in 2030–31. It's going to be an issue for someone as it's unsustainable.

[Mon Dieu4]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He'd have faced a confidence vote if he hadn't compromised.

He's changed tack now on winter fuel payments, grooming gangs enquiry and benefits. All in the space of a few weeks. Not a great look. I actually have some sympathy with what he's trying to do as the benefits system is out of control.

Bottom line, it all plays into Reform's hands.

I actually feel quite sorry for him on the benefit system front as well, obviously anyone unable to work or struggling should get help, but the UK seems to be a complete outlier in regards to people who can work but for whatever reason have slipped through the net, seems like it's been easier to throw money at them instead of addressing the issues and helping them, hopefully they are putting plans in place to help these people back into work or give them the training and support they need which will in turn help with the benefit bill, none of it will happen quickly though

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Whoever is elected in Scotland 2026 is going to face a similar challenge and make some tough decisions on benefits. It's going up significantly in Scotland with spending on devolved social security benefits expected to increase from £6.9bn in 2025–26 to £9.4bn in 2030–31. It's going to be an issue for someone as it's unsustainable.

What about the spending on tax breaks for rich people? Seems unsustainable and not conducive to a healthy society. Not to mention the growing rate of disparity not being healthy for a countries security.

Why not cut some of those benefits?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[jamie_1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What about the spending on tax breaks for rich people? Seems unsustainable and not conducive to a healthy society. Not to mention the growing rate of disparity not being healthy for a countries security.

Why not cut some of those benefits?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

That should be part of the discussion and looked at yes as well as some kind of reform of benefits. Both may be able to balance each other off.