An end to confused judges and their questionable decisions

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

And one miscreant does not damn the whole!!!!

[pop_gun]

Here's another example http://www.standard.co.uk/news/this-secrecy-in-court-wont-give-us-true-justice-6532410.html

[pop_gun]

I dealt with this same judge. 2 seperate claims, 2 seperate claims of bias from this judge

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?326955-Does-the-Judge-violated-a-court-rule-and-can-I-dispute-the-jurisdiction-of-the-court-to-hear-my-claim

[Conniff]

It lacks credibility to suggest a hearing shouldn't be filmed due to the sensitivity of another hearing. Legislation could be drafted to ensure only certain hearings were digitally recorded. To my mind it's a false dictum which allows the courts to do as they please without fear of repercussion.

 

The decisions of the lower courts are not scrutinized. Who other than the interested parties will ever bear witness to the proceedings?

 

The impression you give is that these judges try their best and sometimes get it wrong. Though I suspect you'll say that's the prices we pay for a free and fair judicial system?

 

When nothing could be further from the truth.

 

I rather like this post and tend to agree. They might have had training in law, but most of them lack the main ingredient, common sense.

[pop_gun]

A good way of knowing when a decision is likely to go against you, is when you are a litigant in person facing a solicitor.

The solicitor will always be allowed to present his claim or defence first. In the many of the cases where the solicitor is the defendant, he\she will be allowed to present your claim and their defence before you've even uttered a word.

The judge will then ask hostile questions of your claim as the defendant has provided it, denying you the right to present your claim until you've answered their questions.

 

The excuse for this behaviour is a solicitor is legally trained and therefore better equipped to speak to the court in a language it can understand.

 

I never knew corruption had it's own language. Oh well, you live and learn.

Edited October 16, 2012 by pop_gun

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Diffrent from the court scenarios I see !!

[pop_gun]

Diffrent from the court scenarios I see !!

 

I take it you gained your court experience watching matlock. I hear if you watch it long enough you start to believe the courts are just and never wrong.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I do not believe the law in this country bis never wrong I just do not have a jaundiced view and a relentless and unreasonable view that it is corrupt or biased on every case!!

 

I am sure if I had time to waste I could provide many instances of how the law is fair and reasonable.

 

BTW what is Matlock?

[determindator]

I think their should be more emphasis put into mediation by the legal system for consumer cases rather than the quick route preferred by the claimant of seeing Court as the first point of access. It feels as though the claimants don't want to explore all possible ways to reconcile a situation. I wonder why? Many people feel intimidated by the Court process and are LIP and more often are up against Barristers and Lawyers who IMO can be seen to guide the Judges into their way of thinking and I feel it tips the scales.

[Sillywizard]

I must pay more attention when reading these threads. I was in the middle of composing a reply to some points made then I realised that they've mostly been made by the same person who has a robustly negative opinion of the legal system in general, so much so that anyone who disagrees risks being the recipient of some ad hominem remark for having the cheek to hold different views. So I won't bother.

 

For the benefit of the poster to whom a barbed comment was directed , I can advise that I googled Matlock since I'd never heard of it either - it's an American legal drama which aired from 1986 to 1992. Interestingly, there was a spin off from the series called Jake and the Fatman, which in turn had a spin off called Diagnosis Murder, which I HAVE heard of. And this is the most interesting bit; Dick Van Dyke was the guest star in series 1, episode 1 of Matlock as a villain judge (quite appropriate given the current thread topic) and then he became the central character in the spin off from the spin off.

[MrHat]

Subbing

[pop_gun]

Legal services commission cover up over multi-million pound payments to wealthy convicted

criminals.

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/unacceptable-coverup-over-cost-of-legal-aid-for-wealthy-criminals-8359947.html

 

Legal aid started out to help the poor who couldn't afford a solicitor. Now solicitors and courts divert the money

to the wealthy, hold lengthy expensive court hearings and furnish their own pockets with the proceeds.

 

If Judges were paid a salary of £20,000p.a. and solicitors could only charge litigant in person rates, you'd see a lot more justice in the system. Money and power always corrupt.

[steampowered]

Just because a judge has made a decision you don't like doesn't make him "biased" or "corrupt". Judges try to do the best they can.

[Conniff]

Just because a judge has made a decision you don't like doesn't make him "biased" or "corrupt". Judges try to do the best they can.

 

What, like giving a serial rapist community service? Yea, pull the other one.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

We will always get the utra uman rights lawyer fron nonces r us who will the need to free perverts to offend again, not many judges act this way.

[Ford]

'ultra human rights lawyer...', how daft.

thats not v nice calling lawyers 'nonces' for doing their job. isn't that what you aspire/pretend to be? lawyer that is.

criminal judges/mags act within their sentencing guidelines. if not, then subject to appeal. either way.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Ford

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

'ultra human rights lawyer...', how daft.

thats not v nice calling lawyers 'nonces' for doing their job. isn't that what you aspire/pretend to be? lawyer that is.

criminal judges/mags act within their sentencing guidelines. if not, then subject to appeal. either way.

 

NOT ALL LAWYERS ARE IN THE PROFESSION PURELY TO GREEDILY GRAB HUGE AMOUNTS OF TAXPAYERS MONEY BEING WASTED ON RIDICULOUS HUMAN RIGHTS CASE FOR THE LIKE OF TERRORIST AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS,Q criminal law in the uk is flawed and far to lenient in many aspect, the civil law grows

by decisions right or wrong made by judges in the higher courts some who seem to have odd opinion on what human rights should actually mean!!!

 

BTW Ford after more than 40 years I have ahcieved my qualificatios and aspiration.

[Ford]

NOT ALL LAWYERS ARE IN THE PROFESSION PURELY TO GREEDILY GRAB HUGE AMOUNTS OF TAXPAYERS MONEY BEING WASTED ON RIDICULOUS HUMAN RIGHTS CASE FOR THE LIKE OF TERRORIST AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS,Q criminal law in the uk is flawed and far to lenient in many aspect, the civil law grows

by decisions right or wrong made by judges in the higher courts some who seem to have odd opinion on what human rights should actually mean!!!

 

BTW Ford after more than 40 years I have ahcieved my qualificatios and aspiration.

no need to shout

weren't you talking about 'perverts' #40? anyway, what HR should actually mean! what in your opinion! theres a long way to go on that. don't forget that 'we' drafted the echr.

they're not there to 'greedily grab' anything, just to do their job as per the law upon instruction. if cls aid is available then it is available, that's nothing to do with the lawyer. some hr lawyers even work pro bono.

talking about taxpayers money, most of it goes on 'domestic' crims (ie not the ones you highlight. jump on the bandwagon though) as has been pointed out earlier?

just like you said the civil law here is to be respected, the criminal law here is widely regarded and adopted. in its substance, it is not that flawed. it also 'grows' (more so than civ law), hence one reason why we don't have a strict 'criminal code'/bill of rights like other countries (although we're getting there)

again, it is the sentencing guidelines, which are determined by parliament. nothing to do with lawyers (apart from mitigation), which is what you complained of.

BTW, good for you

Edited December 9, 2012 by Ford

[citizenB]

TBH, I find some of the comments being made in this thread quite offensive. Please tone it down a bit, yes !

[Paulspounds]

I'm not alone in feeling the Judiciary is bias at best or corrupt at worst. There are plenty of stories in the media.

 

I'm with you. Something needs to be done.

[dx100uk]

I'm with you. Something needs to be done.

 

this thread is 6mts old...can we help you?

 

dx

[Paulspounds]

this thread is 6mts old...can we help you?

 

dx

 

Just browsing through different subjects and couldn't help agree with it