Everyone is entitled to a defence(no matter what I think)The lawyers are just doing their job.....

"Power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages". Kipling

Without a defence...we would still be sending shoplifters to Tasmania

Without a defence...we would still be sending shoplifters to Tasmania

At least you might get some nice new sandstone bridges

Companies cannot sue for defamation.

And truth is always a defence!

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.

Maybe he is apprehensive about it? Or maybe he can't comprehend it??

Maybe he is apprehensive about it? Or maybe he can't comprehend it??

Maybe he never finished high school let alone Law School.

Maybe he never finished high school let alone Law School.

Maybe you don't need to pass High School English to go to Law School?

feels like Groundhog Day

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.

No its not- it may not be entirely accurate but it is fair comment, With a decent legal system like the Napoleonic code the court room theatrics wouldn't exist.Anyway thanks for the comment Justice Jet

No its not- it may not be entirely accurate but it is fair comment, With a decent legal system like the Napoleonic code the court room theatrics wouldn't exist.Anyway thanks for the comment Justice Jet

The Napoleonic code?!! Oh dear... a system that was on the brink of collapse 5 years ago.. theres a reason why it doest work. One of the chief amongst them being that an inordinate amount of innocent people are found guilty. I can't be bothered explaining why that is..

dworship, biffin et al - youre comments are insulting and trivialise the efforts of the vast majority of legal professionals (myself included) who treat their professional obligations and their responsibilities to the court with the utmost seriousness (dworship, our obligations to the court exceed those to our clients. Hence we may 'represent' clients, but the truth is and must be paramount). Not to mention the countless hours of charitable work, community service, and professional workshopping a lot of us perform to improve our industry and access to justice.

Human beings lie and are greedy - not lawyers. Each and every industry that all of you work for has and faces the exact same problems. The adversarial system is not perfect, nor is any other profession. Hence why as a society we constantly evolve.

I take issue when people watch a current affairs, read some literary masterpiece from the herald sun, or listen to their mate 'Bill' from work talk about how they got 'screwed' in court, and all of a sudden have the audacity to characterise an entire industry. Not to mention one that has housed almost unparalleled academic genius over the past 200 years in Australia. No different to someone who watches 'Company Men' and suddenly is an expert on the GFC

Having said that all, I don't practice in criminal law so I can't speak for that part of the legal industry. Although I can comfortably speak for lawyers generally - and Biffen, no I haven't just finished law school. Ive started, built and run a law practice that employs over 30 lawyers nationally. I speak with some level of authority,

Self-aggrandizing over

dworship and that other poster - you clearly can't place the word apprehend in appropriate context

Self-aggrandizing over

Q: What's the problem with lawyer jokes?

A: Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Q: What do have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in wet cement?

A: Not enough cement.

Q: Where can you find a good lawyer?

A: In the cemetery.

Q: What's the difference between a porcupine and a Mercedes Benz full of lawyers?

A: The porcupine has pricks on the outside.

The Napoleonic code?!! Oh dear... a system that was on the brink of collapse 5 years ago.. theres a reason why it doest work. One of the chief amongst them being that an inordinate amount of innocent people are found guilty. I can't be bothered explaining why that is..

dworship, biffin et al - youre comments are insulting and trivialise the efforts of the vast majority of legal professionals (myself included) who treat their professional obligations and their responsibilities to the court with the utmost seriousness (dworship, our obligations to the court exceed those to our clients. Hence we may 'represent' clients, but the truth is and must be paramount). Not to mention the countless hours of charitable work, community service, and professional workshopping a lot of us perform to improve our industry and access to justice.

Human beings lie and are greedy - not lawyers. Each and every industry that all of you work for has and faces the exact same problems. The adversarial system is not perfect, nor is any other profession. Hence why as a society we constantly evolve.

I take issue when people watch a current affairs, read some literary masterpiece from the herald sun, or listen to their mate 'Bill' from work talk about how they got 'screwed' in court, and all of a sudden have the audacity to characterise an entire industry. Not to mention one that has housed almost unparalleled academic genius over the past 200 years in Australia. No different to someone who watches 'Company Men' and suddenly is an expert on the GFC

Having said that all, I don't practice in criminal law so I can't speak for that part of the legal industry. Although I can comfortably speak for lawyers generally - and Biffen, no I haven't just finished law school. Ive started, built and run a law practice that employs over 30 lawyers nationally. I speak with some level of authority,

Self-aggrandizing over

dworship and that other poster - you clearly can't place the word apprehend in appropriate context

LOL - something we all suspected "Human beings lie and are greedy - not lawyers."

So, lawyers are not human. QED

Dear Benny ,

I thank you for your earnest defense of our wonderful legal system .Your post has raised many valid points ,some of them true .

As I am finding it difficult to control my laughter ,I seek an adjournment until such time as I can keep a straight face.

Edited July 21, 201213 yr by Biffen

The Napoleonic code?!! Oh dear... a system that was on the brink of collapse 5 years ago.. theres a reason why it doest work. One of the chief amongst them being that an inordinate amount of innocent people are found guilty. I can't be bothered explaining why that is..

dworship, biffin et al - youre comments are insulting and trivialise the efforts of the vast majority of legal professionals (myself included) who treat their professional obligations and their responsibilities to the court with the utmost seriousness (dworship, our obligations to the court exceed those to our clients. Hence we may 'represent' clients, but the truth is and must be paramount). Not to mention the countless hours of charitable work, community service, and professional workshopping a lot of us perform to improve our industry and access to justice.

Human beings lie and are greedy - not lawyers. Each and every industry that all of you work for has and faces the exact same problems. The adversarial system is not perfect, nor is any other profession. Hence why as a society we constantly evolve.

I take issue when people watch a current affairs, read some literary masterpiece from the herald sun, or listen to their mate 'Bill' from work talk about how they got 'screwed' in court, and all of a sudden have the audacity to characterise an entire industry. Not to mention one that has housed almost unparalleled academic genius over the past 200 years in Australia. No different to someone who watches 'Company Men' and suddenly is an expert on the GFC

Having said that all, I don't practice in criminal law so I can't speak for that part of the legal industry. Although I can comfortably speak for lawyers generally - and Biffen, no I haven't just finished law school. Ive started, built and run a law practice that employs over 30 lawyers nationally. I speak with some level of authority,

Self-aggrandizing over

Oh Dear,

An off the cuff comment is taken so seriously, Hit a nerve did we Benny.I was only trying to correct a patently ignorant statement that may have precluded vigorous debate on the site But since the subject of the law and lawyers has slunk its weasaly way into the thread I might deign to reply to your comments.and don't patronise people we might just understand a little more about codified jurisdictions than you imagine so-try me.

It isn't so much that the Napoleonic system is particularly wonderful but that the common law and the Australian legal system has become so ineffectual. . A legal code that encompasses most of Europe and has done so for over two hundred years, and, yes it does have its problems, but so does the common law system,notably the number of guilty people found innocent who should be behind bars and that, for anyone bar the poor of special groups the cost of litigation is born by the participiants rather than by the state. So the cost of justice here can be ruinous.

As for your confession that you are a lawyer,your secret is safe with me, from Chaucerian times through Dickens to the present time lawyers, reeves and their ilk have been treated with justifiable contempt If your tastes run to it you might care to listen to John Gay's Beggars Opera, written in the 17th century, he devoted much of the opera to sending up lawyers. No doubt these days some goutish magistrate would double his speeding fine on that basis.

dworship and that other poster - you clearly can't place the word apprehend in appropriate context

Everyone is entitled to a defence(no matter what I think)The lawyers are just doing their job.....

That excuse didn't work in the Nuremberg trials.

It wont save you in the Hague either.

That excuse didn't work in the Nuremberg trials.

It wont save you in the Hague either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Without a defence...we would still be sending shoplifters to Tasmania

Back in the (colonial) day - where did they send Tasmanian shop lifters

http://en.wikipedia....odwin's_law

Fascist!!

Back in the (colonial) day - where did they send Tasmanian shop lifters

Launceston.

The Napoleonic code?!! Oh dear... a system that was on the brink of collapse 5 years ago.. theres a reason why it doest work. One of the chief amongst them being that an inordinate amount of innocent people are found guilty. I can't be bothered explaining why that is..

dworship, biffin et al - youre comments are insulting and trivialise the efforts of the vast majority of legal professionals (myself included) who treat their professional obligations and their responsibilities to the court with the utmost seriousness (dworship, our obligations to the court exceed those to our clients. Hence we may 'represent' clients, but the truth is and must be paramount). Not to mention the countless hours of charitable work, community service, and professional workshopping a lot of us perform to improve our industry and access to justice.

Human beings lie and are greedy - not lawyers. Each and every industry that all of you work for has and faces the exact same problems. The adversarial system is not perfect, nor is any other profession. Hence why as a society we constantly evolve.

I take issue when people watch a current affairs, read some literary masterpiece from the herald sun, or listen to their mate 'Bill' from work talk about how they got 'screwed' in court, and all of a sudden have the audacity to characterise an entire industry. Not to mention one that has housed almost unparalleled academic genius over the past 200 years in Australia. No different to someone who watches 'Company Men' and suddenly is an expert on the GFC

Having said that all, I don't practice in criminal law so I can't speak for that part of the legal industry. Although I can comfortably speak for lawyers generally - and Biffen, no I haven't just finished law school. Ive started, built and run a law practice that employs over 30 lawyers nationally. I speak with some level of authority,

Self-aggrandizing over

dworship and that other poster - you clearly can't place the word apprehend in appropriate context

Can you honestly say the same for plaintiff lawyers, yes, the very same specialty that our dear truthful PM comes from??

Always seeking the truth? Come on......".it's all in the outcome, stupid" or, the end justifies the means.

Edited July 23, 201212 yr by monoccular

Back in the (colonial) day - where did they send Tasmanian shop lifters

Port Arthur

Back in the (colonial) day - where did they send Tasmanian shop lifters

Moe

................and Frankston