What is the point of the Legal Forum?

Overheal

Maximilian wrote: »

quote Aliens again, its game over man.

Wow. That might still be funny to me if you posted it up as a function call or something.

int main() {

        new lameJoke;
        cout << lameJoke.string("Aliens") << endl;
        return 0;
}

.....No, that was still pretty bad my course isnt about playing games at all.... :pac: but you get major kudos for supporting my favorite diety: the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think you are right here in fairness & that's something to look at. Some large font attempts at idiot proofing might be no harm.

\o/

Sangre

Hmm, probably should ask to be unban considering I'm starting with a firm in september...

Anyway, its pretty obvious what the forum is for, abstract legal discussion relating to bills, existing legislation, precedent and legal opinion. Also handy for those studying the law or hoping to pursue a career.

johnnyskeleton

Sangre wrote: »

Hmm, probably should ask to be unban considering I'm starting with a firm in september...

Yes, along with what college you went to, how many fe1s you have passed already, and what areas of law you are interested in, all the big firms want to know whether you have been banned from boards for any reason.

Sangre wrote:

Anyway, its pretty obvious what the forum is for, abstract legal discussion relating to bills, existing legislation, precedent and legal opinion. Also handy for those studying the law or hoping to pursue a career.

What really gets me is that it doesn't really take that much brain power to turn:

Someone please help: I'm up in the District Court tomorrow for possessing a small amount of hash. Should I just plead guilty or should I see a solicitor? Will I go to jail?

into:

I'm reasearching court cases because I am doing a course in journalism. I've heard that people can be jailed for minor offences, such as possession of a small amount of hash. Is this true? I would also like to know what the benefits are of having a solicitor versus defending yourself?

OR

Can my ex-spouse take my children away?

into:

Hypothetically, can the court order that one parent of a child gets sole custody, and if so what are the circumstances?

Sherifu

Maximilian wrote: »

Overheal wrote: »

I think adding that to the charter (perhaps in a nice looking ) ) would answer a lot of the confusion and frustration a lot of posters get from the LD forum.

I think you are right here in fairness & that's something to look at. Some large font attempts at idiot proofing might be no harm.

size=1 is the small one.
size=7 is the big one.
maybe throw in some red too

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What really gets me is that it doesn't really take that much brain power to turn:

True.

Maximilian

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Someone please help: I'm up in the District Court tomorrow for possessing a small amount of hash. Should I just plead guilty or should I see a solicitor? Will I go to jail?

into:

I'm reasearching court cases because I am doing a course in journalism. I've heard that people can be jailed for minor offences, such as possession of a small amount of hash. Is this true? I would also like to know what the benefits are of having a solicitor versus defending yourself?

OR

Can my ex-spouse take my children away?

into:

Hypothetically, can the court order that one parent of a child gets sole custody, and if so what are the circumstances?

Changing a question into a "hypothetical" one, does not necessarily mean the thread won't be locked. Its quite obvious sometimes that a question is framed in such a way as to sidestep the intent of the charter. Its not an easy call but if I'm reasonably sure its the case, I will lock the thread. Don't know what the other Mods think about these scenarios.

Overheal

Hypotheitcally speaking (:p) what if someone did instigate legal action versus boards? Boards.ie has hardly passed the BAR exam or anything; Surely there have been cases in irish law where your friend has said "yeah, you should just kill her" and the lad does, and he tries to blame it on his friend saying he told me to do it. Id say they didnt get very far with that.

Maximilian

Thats a bit of an extreme example. "Bob said I could do it" is no defence to murder.

Nerin

Maximilian wrote: »

Thats a bit of an extreme example. "Bob said I could do it" is no defence to murder.

bob said that?!:eek: oh well.
*gets shovel*

Jesus Wept

hullaballoo

Overheal wrote: »

Hypotheitcally speaking (:p) what if someone did instigate legal action versus boards? Boards.ie has hardly passed the BAR exam or anything; Surely there have been cases in irish law where your friend has said "yeah, you should just kill her" and the lad does, and he tries to blame it on his friend saying he told me to do it. Id say they didnt get very far with that.

Yeah, that's true.

There's absolutely no difference between telling someone to kill another person and misinforming them as to the consequences of possession of 'nuff for a joint. Absolutely no difference. None whatsoever. In fact, the two are so similar that there are Supreme Court judges who couldn't tell the difference. Subtlety doesn't describe it. In fact, I'd hedge all my bets with you on that. Fcuk Cheltenham, who needs it?

Amz

Er ... hug?

Sherifu

Someone took the ham out of his sandwich...

popebenny16

Well, as someone with 9 years PQE I don't post on the Legal board because it's like being back in school. Dosn't mean that the board has no worth nor substance nor expertise, in fact it can provide me with very good pointers. However, you have to have been already as far as me to get that subtlety.

Given the fact that the OP cannot understand a basic rule of a messageboard I'd say Aidan can rest easy in his bed.

Now, with that in mind, why does the OP want to be told what to do by someone who, unlike me, hasn't got to put their name, professional integrity and expensive indemnity insurance on the line when they advise him?

As I have often said, if you want your wisdom tooth out you go to the dentist.....

Overheal

hullaballú wrote: »

Yeah, that's true.

There's absolutely no difference between telling someone to kill another person and misinforming them as to the consequences of possession of 'nuff for a joint. Absolutely no difference. None whatsoever. In fact, the two are so similar that there are Supreme Court judges who couldn't tell the difference. Subtlety doesn't describe it. In fact, I'd hedge all my bets with you on that. Fcuk Cheltenham, who needs it?

... fuckit ballu, you dont need to get so sarcastic on me :rolleyes: my point being what defense do you have, if you try and blame someone else whom on the internet; via boards; told you it was safe to carry a pound of weed in the backseat of his car? I'm going to guess none.

hullaballoo

Sherifu wrote: »

Someone took the ham out of his sandwich...

Must remember to go for a smoke before posting a reaction... em, I get your point, Overheal. I just don't agree with you. I don't think that what you're talking about is the sort of advice people come here looking for. It's generally more along the lines of, 'I'm up in court tomorrow, but I don't want to fork out for a solicitor, what do I say to get off?'

This question usually gets, 'get a solicitor' or something, but every once in a while, some dipsiht will come along and say, 'it's grand, fella. The gards never turn up. You deffo won't have to go to jail/pay a fine/have other sentence imposed'. That's what the trouble is. Advising someone not to get professional legal advice in the context of the forum is just as bad as advising someone wrongly as to the merits/demerits of their case.

Overheal

Well, for example, I asked how long a charge could be pressed after a case report was filed and I was told typically 6 months for everything but extreme cases. I was banned when I gave an example and asked if they would consider that extreme. In the end I found out no, but it would have been nice to get a casual opinion on the matter.

But the LD mods have made their case here.

popebenny16

Overheal wrote: »

Well, for example, I asked how long a charge could be pressed after a case report was filed and I was told typically 6 months for everything but extreme cases. I was banned when I gave an example and asked if they would consider that extreme. In the end I found out no, but it would have been nice to get a casual opinion on the matter.

But the LD mods have made their case here.

This is actually a good example of why discussion of such things are banned.

Whilst The Petty Sessions Act has a general time limit of 6 months for making a complaint grounding the issue of a summons this dosnt apply in Indictable cases and there are also dozens of summary offenses where it dosnt apply either. "Extreme cases" is total bull, and if you relied on that there is the potential to go after boards (although I'd love to see your statement of claim, it'd be worth a laugh).

Overheal

I'm hardly going to sue boards for offering me informal conjecture :rolleyes: at the time I was looking for fast information before I responded more formally. But the point has been made so I'll accept in hindsight it was much better to be banned from the form and forced to find professional advice rather than sit on my ass on the word of a few boardsies...no offence.

edit: that was the term I was given; indictable offenses. Never got an answer on what a summary offense is though it mightve been handy at the time.

hullaballoo

Overheal wrote: »

I'm hardly going to sue boards for offering me informal conjecture :rolleyes: at the time I was looking for fast information before I responded more formally.

You might not, but given the number of times and calibre with which the site has been threatened with legal action, I can confidently say that there are those who would.

edit: that was the term I was given; indictable offenses. Never got an answer on what a summary offense is though it mightve been handy at the time.

I think the best definition available for summary offences is along the lines of, "a summary offence is an offence that can be tried summarily". I'm not joking. Maybe that's why you found that you were left high and dry in relation to that particular point.

Overheal

Fair enough. Vague definition anyway

And now theres an interesting question: just how many times has boards been under legal flak and was it mostly via the LD forum or more through incidents a la MCD and such?

witnessmenow

He just said those 3 letters, oh god i hope someone doesnt turn that into a discusion! Or Boards will have to try seek legal advice from its own forum ... which it cant ..... Did that not make sense... oh well

nesf

hullaballú wrote: »

There's absolutely no difference between telling someone to kill another person and misinforming them as to the consequences of possession of 'nuff for a joint. Absolutely no difference. None whatsoever. In fact, the two are so similar that there are Supreme Court judges who couldn't tell the difference. Subtlety doesn't describe it. In fact, I'd hedge all my bets with you on that. Fcuk Cheltenham, who needs it?

Well played, sir.

seamus

Overheal wrote: »

And now theres an interesting question: just how many times has boards been under legal flak and was it mostly via the LD forum or more through incidents a la MCD and such?

Depends on what you want to know.

There have probably been around a hundred people who've said, "I'm going to sue boards!". Then we site ban them and hear nothing further.

To the best of my knowledge, there have been a few (but less than ten) solicitor's letters received. But there is only one action actually being taken against boards at the moment.

There has never been a problem caused by the LD forum. Most "legal" threats are made by people who have no idea what the law is and believe that because they're unhappy it must be possible to sue boards.

Sangre

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes, along with what college you went to, how many fe1s you have passed already, and what areas of law you are interested in, all the big firms want to know whether you have been banned from boards for any reason.

Yes, that was exactly what I was getting at. Very droll.