or as I like to call them are absolute fucking CUNTS.
Yes, lawyers—particularly criminal defence barristers and solicitors—are expected to face significant professional and financial disadvantages if jury trials are reduced, a move currently being proposed by super-intellect David Lammy in England and Wales to tackle court backlogs. The legal profession has expressed deep concern that removing the right to a jury trial for many offenses will diminish the need for specialist advocates, reduce income for criminal practitioners, and potentially drive new talent away from the field.
So, do they actually care about the thousands of scumbags being relentlessly hauled through the British courts? Of course not. It`s all about the vast amounts of lovely money they`ll lose out on.
The proposed shift to “judge-only” trials for some cases is expected to shorten proceedings, reducing the work available for defence lawyers. As jury trials are considered “long-form” work, fewer of them directly equates to less billable time, ie, fewer fees for barristers.
• Shrinking Legal Aid: Restrictions on jury trials, particularly when moving cases to magistrates’ courts, may shrink the pool of cases that qualify for legal aid, reducing the overall funding for criminal law firms.
• Reduced Demand for Trial Specialists: Criminal law practitioners are concerned that they will be “overlooked,” as the need for specialists skilled in presenting cases to a jury (who can interpret “real-world” context and emotions) will decrease in a system that focuses on more technical, judge-only hearings.
• Diminished Professional Appeal: The reduced potential for career progression, combined with lower funding for criminal work, is causing law students to reconsider specializing in criminal law, potentially creating a talent shortage.
• Shift in Work Type: While the volume of cases may remain high, they will be shifted to magistrates’ courts where the nature of the work is different, often offering lower remuneration and less opportunity for in-depth advocacy compared to the Crown Court.
Thousands of lawyers have signed letters opposing the restrictions, arguing that the changes are based on “little evidence” and are not the correct solution to the court crisis, which they attribute to underfunding and poor management rather than the use of juries. Lawyers contend that these reforms will not only affect their livelihood but also weaken public confidence in the justice system.
No shit. Really?
What a bunch of parasitic, greedy, unconscionable sociopaths.
🤮
Nominated by sņigger-sņigger.
Simple solution to the court backlog, deport every foreign criminal back to their home countries.
Shoot every darkiè and peaceful at the moment of their arrest.
Problem solved.
And hang a couple of dozen woke judges, just to keep the others in line..
9
Excellent Barry. Can we hang a few Liebour front benchers too? Just to even up the figures.
4
Yes, some if not most lawyers are fucking cunts, but I think that is because they are invariably defending foreign criminals.
If I were to be arrested for kicking the side of a migrant hotel, burning a copy of the Koran or refusing to call a geezer in a frock ‘she’, then I would want someone who could use every loophole to keep me out of nick.
Good morning.
5
Indeed TAC and good morning.
Lawyers are always cunts until you need one.
They’ve gotten me out of a couple of potentially very tricky situations in the past!
4
Morning Thomas.
Many year’s ago I was in court and facing an inevitable sentence.
I won’t go into detail, but the key bit of evidence was a document that had my signature on it.
My lawyer wasn’t interested if it was my signature or not and he was careful not to ask me directly.
He told me that the judge would ask me and he told me to say, word for word, “Looking at that, I can say that is not my signature”.
In court, when the evidence was presented I was given the document to examine and asked the question.
I gave my answer as instructed.
I was eventually found not guilty.
The prosecution lawyer came over to my lawyer after the trial and said that I should be charged with perjury.
My lawyer told him that he should have listened more closely to what I said.
That’s the type of shyster that you need.
2
Fascinating tale there Artful. I doubt your lawyer was uninterested whether or not it was your signature on the document but he obviously intended to remain disinterested. In the end your lawyer nailed it with his superior command of the language relative to the members of the jury. Had the judge been on the ball he would have required you to give an unambiguous answer.
1
The whole system seems to be bent. If I smashed up an office window in town, I’m pretty sure I would end up in front of a magistrate, not a jury. When the loony groups like Just Stop Oil or one of their offshoots do it, they get a jury trial and then somehow the jury manages to let them off! Lawyers are a closed shop bunch charging outrageous fees, so them losing out would be a silver lining on this bad decision to remove jury trials.
2
Advocati scelerati quia semper Latine loquuntur.
0
That’s wrong. Try this:
Advocati scelerati ‘cunts’ quia semper Latine loquuntur.
0