redfox

Gosh - makapaka gets about

I don't need anyone to look - any lawyer working in crime would know the answer too. Enjoy the sun - maybe wear a hat - stop your head getting overheated.:hihi:

If they didn't so advise they would be professionally negligent. That good enough?

The lawyers have nothing to do with the sentencing powers of the judge. The lawyer in this case presumably advised the client if he had a 'newton hearing' trial of the issue - and lost - his credit for pleading guilty would be reduced - if he won he would be sentenced on his version - The client no doubt thought it was worth it. It very rarely is.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf He was banned for 5 years from his 'release'. Small change in the law - so the ban actually has some longer term impact after release. I have said before these cases are some of the most difficult for the courts to deal with.

We have the Mental Health Act and Hospital Orders.

They have tried indeterminate sentencing - IPP - it failed, miserably. You should have a google search. There are sentencing powers available to lock people up until they are deemed fit to be released - then we had the Worboys fiasco - Politicians are not fit nor able to produce coherent sentencing powers for the courts to use - they keep moving the goal posts to suit whoever they want to appeal to by way of voters. Tough on criminals is far more complicated than lock em up and throw the key away. It is very expensive for a start and we all know how unpopular spending money on criminals is.

I suppose we could ask those in the employ or SCC or blindly devoted to them and every move they make, to enlighten us as to the rather startling revelations as highlighted in the link posted to The Star. I link here - https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheffield-council-s-secret-policy-for-tree-felling-revealed-1-9167600 Have we been lied to? Did SCC lie to a court?

Outraged driver - pleads guilty ? A non story if ever there was one - and having decided it was so outrageous now bleats about the impact it has - when that could all so easily have been avoided. If you read the tweet from the police in the article - she was actually given a FPN for not having proper control - s.41D RTA 1988 - it is a very handy little piece of legislation used by road traffic (or other) officers when stopping joe public for eating his sandwiches, brushing hair, putting on make up and that sort of thing - its an on the spot penalty - and as the outraged lady found if you pay the fine no points are endorsed - A very costly error all round.

I think you are confusing what is potentially reportable incident - and what amounts to due care. This may or may not amount to due care. If you are driving and owing to your presence on a road an "accident" occurs - etc that gives rise to potential offences of failure to stop/fail report and a possibly s.172 offence. You know that what that section is about though I would suggest you look at what amounts to due care - here is an easily digestible explanation via the RAC - https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/driving-without-due-care-and-attention/

Not a clue - nor have any of us - Just a question - would you want to be the figurehead of the 'tree' culling in this city. Didn't think so

Using your expert road traffic law knowledge - enlighten the folk on SF as to the legal position. You made the observation now back it up. Start with the RTA -

i think we should all be very aware and concerned at the level of abuse/vitriol and threats that politicians face these days. The advent of social media whilst allowing people to contact their MP or councillor and to exchange views is welcome on one level - it allows some to abuse that facility by issuing threats and the like. I am afraid a comment - "how does he know people turned up if he wasn't there" requires the response - maybe his wife/neighbour(s) told him or possibly his CCTV system if he has one. The tree issue has generated enormous levels of interest and emotion. I would be surprised if he hadn't been on the receiving end of unpleasantness. As i understand it MP's have to take serious and significant security measures - hardly a good sign is it.

The justice system is falling apart - no votes in it. William Roache/Nigel Evans and many other 'celebs' and plenty of ordinary folk who paid for their defence in criminal proceedings have been (and continue to be) acquitted - but they get nothing back (as used to be the case) of the money they spent fighting the allegations brought against them. There is a substantial gap now in those eligible for legal aid generally, and those who perhaps think they are eligible but are shocked to discover they are not.

I must give you credit maka - you put a shift in last night - On overtime were we? Given your previous comments as to "reading the contract" and your bizarrely faithful defence of SCC you plainly are in the employ of SCC - I cannot think of anyone who would be so concerned about this other than someone wedded to SCC. You singularly failed to deal with the contract terms issue - which is what you always do when the issue your being asked to respond to is just that little bit too specific - or the answer might involve actual criticism of your beloved. You can digest what Calvin has posted - I am all anticipation ... (1) The case as against some protestors was dismissed without hearing argument - Is that true or not true? (2) If it is true why has SCC suggested otherwise? (3) Or is Calvin wrong in suggesting that they have? (3) Why did SCC seek to imprison its own citizens - one a councillor? As opposed to other remedies. (4) Is it an accurate reflection of the position that the court were told whopping great fibs as to the number of trees to be removed. There you go - 5 - questions - answers on a postcard. Please.

Answering none of the points I put to you - won’t be long now until you call me out for avoiding questions - followed by liar then troll no doubt. All I said was that the person was responsible for their actions - does no one agree? I call you out - answer the question as to why SCC "decided to utilise a seriously expensive advocate (who went on and told them some of the case was garbage) when anyone with a brain would have worked that one out. It is not as if there are no briefs oop north who could have done the job" I know the legal dept is shut now but you with your special inside knowledge will be well able to answer that direct and specific question.

There is a great deal maka doesn't understand - but they do know their function in life is to defend SCC. I suppose I could start to ask how it was SCC decided to utilise a seriously expensive advocate (who went on and told them some of the case was garbage) when anyone with a brain would have worked that one out. It is not as if there are no briefs oop north who could have done the job. How they ended up paying frankly silly money for the advocate is yet another example of how daft SCC are.

You won't get a straight answer - only obtuse responses and an avid avoidance of any sort of proper reply - I was going to link to some information about the Kinder protest - but maka will swerve and deflect and do anything but answer a question - when said answer involves any possible criticism of the council - I cannot for the life of me imagine why that might be.

Indeed it was; no surprise. Not sure why the daily fail would be thought of by the yanks as the go to source for accurate information. The BBC had the Dr's quotes.

Whilst I follow your critique of the Donald - his source may or may not have been the daily fail - but as I understand it a Dr Martin Griffiths made the comments as to his hospital being likened to an Afghan war zone by some of his colleagues who worked at camp bastian in Afghanistan. Said Dr has invited the donald to visit when he graces us with his presence later this year - just what the Met Police wanted at the moment - I would imagine all police leave has been cancelled already and forces across the country will be sending officers to support the Met when they have to deal with the inevitable protests at his visit. I am sure there will be many who can educate (try to) the President that having more and more guns is not the answer; as his own country demonstrates daily.

Thanks for that - I think (without knowing more) he made a complaint to Professional Standards and (again with knowing more) he says that they acknowledge some fault. Unless he made a complaint to the IPCC. All a bit vague.

Link to this please.

Jim, you are obviously aware of the previous history of the accused - clearly know more than anyone reading a paper - With that special insight just set out why exactly he would have been inside at the time. The maximum is 15 years - he got 9 cos he admitted it - he gets credit for that. If the Judge had given him 15 you would have been wanting consecutive terms - and then whined when the sentence was reduced (at your expense) by the Court of Appeal. As for deceit - we all know he will serve half - maybe he should have got an extended sentence - or his licence extended - you up on the law about those forms of sentence? When you are let us know. There are no winners in this type of case only losers. I wouldn't wish the experience of being involved in cases like this on anyone.

I think you mean how do you prevent people getting into a car and driving it too fast and whilst intoxicated. Simple answer is you can't. When they do and offend you sentence them appropriately - and hanging people went out with the Ark when it came to sentencing policy. Enough contribution for you ? You don't get sarcasm do you?

Thats a lot more than you do pal -