Was right behind Jones' Dad when it happened. unbelievable it was, still think about it to this day

I hope you gave a statement to the polivce. Its the only way these scumbags will get what they deserve. If not its not too late to contact the defence team and offer to assist.

On another note it is interesting to see they have denied they were at fault and are going the self defence option, If this is found not to be true (ie there are plenty of witness statements to the contrary) then the sentence they will receive will be much harsher.

I expected they would pull out the "I was off my head and didn't know what I was doing" defence. Or I was abused as a child defence. Or my mum wouldn't buy me a BMX defence.

I hope you gave a statement to the police. Its the only way these scumbags will get what they deserve. If not its not too late to contact the defence team and offer to assist.

I think the prosecution team would prefer it.

No its not. Don't presume to characterise something which you clearly have absolutely no apprehension or understanding of.

Your statement is palpably wrong, and defamatory.

The legal system is not about truth, it's about the perception of truth; and to that end, a good argument can be more valuable than it should be.

I know lawyers who always say it is NOT about the truth, but all about the argument, and further seem proud of their profession for that fact.

Anyway, these guys are being tried in Victoria, The State of Violence, so will not get any meaningful punishment or deterrence.

It's amazing how they manage to sleep at night .

First they lie on one side-then they lie on the other.

But........our Right Honourable PM was a lawyer!!

I dont know much about law but you cannot be charged with defaming an industry. Otherwise we couldn't tell any more lawyer jokes.

You sure can (although its not criminal therefore there are no 'charges') - an individual within a class of persons can sue for defamation against a class of persons.

Sorry for degrading this forum into legal parlance..

You sure can (although its not criminal therefore there are no 'charges') - an individual within a class of persons can sue for defamation against a class of persons.

Sorry for degrading this forum into legal parlance..

I warned you they were smart fellows, Biffo

I warned you they were smart fellows, Biffo

What would the award for damages comprise? 4 hour lunch at Flower Drum?

What would the award for damages comprise? 4 hour lunch at Flower Drum?

that's a bit steep, lol

take-away at the golden arches would suffice in this case

But........our Right Honourable PM was a lawyer!!

Are you referring to the little, mono-browed North Shore solicitor or the Giant barrister from the Shore 1st 8 ?

Are you referring to the little, mono-browed North Shore solicitor or the Giant barrister from the Shore 1st 8 ?

You sure can (although its not criminal therefore there are no 'charges') - an individual within a class of persons can sue for defamation against a class of persons.

Sorry for degrading this forum into legal parlance..

This person would first need to prove that they were NOT a lying ,hypocritical ,scum sucking maggot and that they had been maligned by said defamer surely.

A publication that refers to a group of people, rather than named individuals, is defamatory of the members of the group only if a reasonable person would regard it as referring to every single member of the group. For example, the statement, "all lawyers are dishonest", is not defamatory of any particular lawyer because a reasonable person would not think that the statement meant that every single lawyer in Australia is dishonest. On the other hand, the statement, "Slow & Bideawhile is a dishonest firm of solicitors", could well be regarded as meaning that every partner in, and solicitor employed by Slow & Bideawhile is dishonest. In that case, each of them could sue.

http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/handbook/ch24s02s02.php#

Thank you for that clarification GV.

So if I say "All lawyers are mendastic ,evil ,parasites who deseverve a slow and painful death for their manipulation of societies problems " then I will be OK .

But if I said for example "John Smith of Scumstein ,Lieberg and Bullshyte is a fraudulent pedarist and so are his partners" then I may be in trouble .

A publication that refers to a group of people, rather than named individuals, is defamatory of the members of the group only if a reasonable person would regard it as referring to every single member of the group. For example, the statement, "all lawyers are dishonest", is not defamatory of any particular lawyer because a reasonable person would not think that the statement meant that every single lawyer in Australia is dishonest. On the other hand, the statement, "Slow & Bideawhile is a dishonest firm of solicitors", could well be regarded as meaning that every partner in, and solicitor employed by Slow & Bideawhile is dishonest. In that case, each of them could sue.

http://www.lawhandbo...ch24s02s02.php#

"...only if a reasonable person...". so that clearly doesn't mean lawyers, and / or politicians then.

Thank you for that clarification GV.

So if I say "All lawyers are mendastic ,evil ,parasites who deseverve a slow and painful death for their manipulation of societies problems " then I will be OK .

But if I said for example "John Smith of Scumstein ,Lieberg and Bullshyte is a fraudulent pedarist and so are his partners" then I may be in trouble .

In the said case of John Smith of Scumstein ,Lieberg and Bullshyte and his partners, I think you would be on pretty safe ground. At least according to my informants.

In defence of lawyers they are only as [insert derogatory term of your choice] as the legal system allows them to be.

Oh, wait a minute, they created the legal system..........

Edited July 19, 201213 yr by daisycutter

I was there at the game that day and saw the end of the scuffle. 2 on 1 isnt self defence

I grew up on the streets.

I was at the game & heard the news after i got home. To say I was angry is understating.

Reading the news yesterday & seeing the Twots, the Anger returns. I wish I was there to help Mr Jones.

In defence of lawyers they are only as [insert derogatory term of your choice] as the legal system allows them to be.

Oh, wait a minute, they created the legal system..........

That must be why the law is an Ass.......Hole.

That must be why the law is an Ass.......Hole.

Ah, but justice is blind Biffo

One of these days the Law and Justice might get together

P.S. Lawyer bashing just in good fun

Ah, but justice is blind Biffo

One of these days the Law and Justice might get together

P.S. Lawyer bashing just in good fun

Isn't it just? Six years of Uni and they all come out like they've never been layed and never smoked weed .

One day DC , after the great revolution , the lawyers will form the bedrock of a new society - literally .

Isn't it just? Six years of Uni and they all come out like they've never been layed and never smoked weed .

One day DC , after the great revolution , the lawyers will form the bedrock of a new society - literally .

You have the wisdom of Solomon, Biffo

Thanks DC- It's a burden guys like us must shoulder in between important things like surfing the net ,footy and the distractions in life .BTW ,did you notice that Toady from Neighbours is now the President of Syria?

I didn't but then I've never (ever) watched Neighbours (if I did I would have to kill myself)

Time for beddie byes

Night John-boy!

No its not. Don't presume to characterise something which you clearly have absolutely no apprehension or understanding of.

Your statement is palpably wrong, and defamatory.

Thank you learned colleague, for your most erudite reply, however I seek further and better particulars.

When you say “ No its not.” Do you mean it’s not the legal system? Or it’s not based on argument?

As to your statement “absolutely no apprehension”, I’ve felt apprehension whenever I’ve prepared a brief and appeared as an informant.

I take issue with the “palpably wrong and defamatory” statement but it is illustrative of the system where definite sides are taken.

You appear to have not understood the term “misrepresent”. For clarity; I meant the Defense is there to represent the client, not the truth. The term “economical with the truth” could have also been used.

If the system were based on truth, then a Defense which came upon information that would find the client guilty, would readily give up that information to the other side.

I look forward to the rebuttal.

Anybody have any updates as to how the actual trial is proceding? cant imagine it will take too long