Freeman Megamerge

HamsterFace

Ddi now posting "rumours " that the army are going to show up at water protests...

Nothing like a good rumour to whip up support. Pathetic....

Losty Dublin

In town on Wednesday and a bunch of protestors against water/capitalism/garda brutality/Israel/internment/fracking/fluoride/stealth taxes etc blocked O'Connell Bridge for a while yesterday. As usual there were plenty of lads in Guy Fawkes masks. These two lads rolling their own summed it up nicely for me.

my friend

Losty Dublin wrote: »

In town on Wednesday and a bunch of protestors against water/capitalism/garda brutality/Israel/internment/fracking/fluoride/stealth taxes etc blocked O'Connell Bridge for a while yesterday. As usual there were plenty of lads in Guy Fawkes masks. These two lads rolling their own summed it up nicely for me.

Plenty of useful idiots causing limited Garda resources to be redirected
A tactic used in other jurisdictions to enable illegal activity elsewhere

Surprised Williams and Co haven't been all over it, then again their colleagues are hawking plenty of paper stoking the flames, guess they are waiting till sales wane

MarkAnthony

I think if they're going to wear those masks we should be allowed to burn a few of them. I miss bonfire night

PS fully aware of the cultural implications but in this case I think we should make an exception.

ArmaniJeanss

I see Ben 'Not a freeman' Gilroy is going on about how he gave LMFM radio station a bloody nose and how he 'owned them' because they claimed he was incorrect when he said that there is currently only a 'provisional government' in Leinster House.
Whats the theory behind all this malarkey anyway?

Robbo

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I see Ben 'Not a freeman' Gilroy is going on about how he gave LMFM radio station a bloody nose and how he 'owned them' because they claimed he was incorrect when he said that there is currently only a 'provisional government' in Leinster House.
Whats the theory behind all this malarkey anyway?

It generally goes that the State lacks democratic legitimacy because of something hazy around 1922, therefore Billy McGuire is the real leader of the country because some of the 1916 leaders had a pint in one of his ancestors establishments. The State is in the pocket of the British Monarch and this is a terrible thing but rule by accident of birth is grand if you're Billy McGuire.

Billy keeps his hand in by once a year Turning the Sovereign with Seal, which by my understanding involves some scrap metal and listening to "Kiss From a Rose" on loop.

The correct way to inform the world of this revelation, according to our good friend Vin, is to ring up the switchboard at Leinster House and asking them if their tap is running if they're aware the state is illegitimate. Vin hopes that one day, they'll respond with "****, he knows, the jig is up lads" and it'll be a Last-Chopper-Out-Of-Saigon style exodus. Vin, Ben and Billy will rule the land as a ****ty Troika and unicorns will graze on the money trees which grow plentifully once the chemtrails are stopped.

This is all part of the usual Freeman tactic of harrassing lower paid workers at the front line of public service who have far too much crap to deal without this ****e.

MarkAnthony

See this is why you're the leader.

hullaballoo

Shameless robbery from elsewhere on the site but this image resonates for me in the context of this discussion:

Calina

I wish to point out that that's an Adalia penguin I think and you should not tar all penguins with the same brush. Baby emperors are very cute. Like babies, it's a bit of a pity they have to grow up but then they go on to decorate the outside of chocolate bar wrappers, performing a highly important service to humanity.

Losty Dublin

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I see Ben 'Not a freeman' Gilroy is going on about how he gave LMFM radio station a bloody nose and how he 'owned them' because they claimed he was incorrect when he said that there is currently only a 'provisional government' in Leinster House.
Whats the theory behind all this malarkey anyway?

Not this nugget again, surely?

http://www.bai.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Broadcasting-Complaints-Decisions-November-2013.pdf

Losty Dublin

It isn't Freeman but it makes more sense if you ask me

MarkAnthony

The one about the pigeons is true though :pac:

Robbo

The BBC have a piece today about the rise of the professional McKenzie friend in the UK. It notes that since Legal Aid has been slashed to the bone there, McKenzie Superfriends have made hay. And cash. It appears they're also being indulged to the point of being granted rights of audience there, depending on the mood of the judge.

For decades they were largely relatives, family friends, law students or charities helping out free.

Such McKenzie friends still operate, but in April 2013 the market in fee-charging McKenzie friends got a turbo boost from the government.

It cut legal aid from a range of areas of civil law, including most family cases involving divorce, child contact and residence, as well as debt, housing, immigration, welfare and employment.

That left many with a stark choice. Go to court on your own or, if you can't afford a lawyer, phone a McKenzie friend.

Without much fanfare, McKenzie friends charging between £16 and £90 an hour have become an important part of the civil justice landscape.

A report of the Legal Services Consumer Panel (which I've previously linked to) notes that there are many fine McKenzie Superfriends and then...

"Another view worries that such McKenzie friends may provide poor advice that harms their client and third parties, offer little in the way of consumer protection, prey on the vulnerable and exploit litigants as parrots to promote personal causes."

I've recently become aware of this group who offer McKenzie Friend Services out of Waterford. Their main source of information appears to be the reliably bonkers Catholic freesheet Alive! but they like to hide that from their screengrabs.

Beano

Clear something up for a layman if you could in relation to mckenzie friends. What are they allowed to actually do? Presumably they cannot act as lawyers and therefore cannot give legal advice?

Beano

Beano wrote: »

Clear something up for a layman if you could in relation to mckenzie friends. What are they allowed to actually do? Presumably they cannot act as lawyers and therefore cannot give legal advice?

Sit there and take notes in Court. Offer support and advice to the lay litigant. That's it.

Although I abhor the comparison try and think of it like this:

McKenzie friend is to lay litigant advocate as solicitor is to barrister (solely in terms of the functions during advocacy)

Beano

Deleted User wrote: »

Sit there and take notes in Court. Offer support and advice to the lay litigant. That's it.

Although I abhor the comparison try and think of it like this:

McKenzie friend is to lay litigant advocate as solicitor is to barrister (solely in terms of the functions during advocacy)

but what kind of advice can they actually offer? Not legal advice surely?

Pat Mustard

Beano wrote: »

but what kind of advice can they actually offer? Not legal advice surely?

A lot of these guys give legal advice. Some of them act as advocates in Court and are entertained by judges. By rights they should be told to be quiet or get out. They do not have rights of audience.

Beano

Thanks for the clarification. I find it bizarre that a lay person can give legal advice without censure and that judges entertain them. No less bizarre than someone actually listening to (and paying for) this advice i suppose.

Beano

Beano wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. I find it bizarre that a lay person can give legal advice without censure and that judges entertain them. No less bizarre than someone actually listening to (and paying for) this advice i suppose.

That's where it gets interesting. Technically that's illegal.

Losty Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

That's where it gets interesting. Technically that's illegal.

A layman here asking something which the legal pro's here may consider simple so please bear with me here.

In general, why can't a non qualified person speak or give legal advice in court or outside of the court room? Is there a law or crime in doing this or is there a standing order or SI or gentleman's agreement to stop it happening?

Pro Hoc Vice

Losty Dublin wrote: »

A layman here asking something which the legal pro's here may consider simple so please bear with me here.

In general, why can't a non qualified person speak or give legal advice in court or outside of the court room? Is there a law or crime in doing this or is there a standing order or SI or gentleman's agreement to stop it happening?

Well there is noting stopping any person in any place giving legal advice to another, but there is a law against holding oneself to be a solicitor when not in possession of a practising cert. That is simply to protect the general public.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1954/en/act/pub/0036/sec0055.html#sec55

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/0c609d7abff72c1c80256d2b0045bb64/a70259993571101e80256d2b0046a047?OpenDocument


The law only allows a person or their solicitor or barrister to speak on their behalf in court, again that is to protect the general public.

Ken.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Well there is noting stopping any person in any place giving legal advice to another, but there is a law against holding oneself to be a solicitor when not in possession of a practising cert. That is simply to protect the general public.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1954/en/act/pub/0036/sec0055.html#sec55

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/0c609d7abff72c1c80256d2b0045bb64/a70259993571101e80256d2b0046a047?OpenDocument


The law only allows a person or their solicitor or barrister to speak on their behalf in court, again that is to protect the general public.

Would there also be an insurance issue. I assume solicitor's and barristers are insured so if they make a big f*ck up that causes a client a loss they'd be covered somehow. If a lay litigant f*cks you up they probably don't have cover.

Or am I talking out my arse.

Pat Mustard

ken wrote: »

Would there also be an insurance issue. I assume solicitor's and barristers are insured so if they make a big f*ck up that causes a client a loss they'd be covered somehow. If a lay litigant f*cks you up they probably don't have cover.

Solicitors and barristers have professional indemnity insurance. If you lose out due to their negligence, you have a reasonable expectation of recovering your losses.

Lay litigants and McKenzie friends don't have professional indemnity insurance. When they screw up, there's no safety net.

johnnyskeleton

Losty Dublin wrote: »

A layman here asking something which the legal pro's here may consider simple so please bear with me here.

In general, why can't a non qualified person speak or give legal advice in court or outside of the court room? Is there a law or crime in doing this or is there a standing order or SI or gentleman's agreement to stop it happening?

The courts rely on lawyers to be truthful in their dealings with the court. A solicitor or barrister cannot tell a judge their client didnt do something if they know they did, or make up suppositions as to whether a bank has actually securitised a loan, but a random joe soap cna say whatever they want.

This causes particular difficulty in the more day to day stuff and a randomer might tell a judge that something is agreed when it isnt actually.

BlutendeRabe

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This causes particular difficulty in the more day to day stuff and a randomer might tell a judge that something is agreed when it isnt actually.

If told under oath, the randomer would be comitting perjury.

BlutendeRabe

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

If told under oath, the randomer would be comitting perjury.

Yeah, except that's the problem with litigants in person; they are making oral submissions while not under oath and they tend to not understand the limits of that. Of course that's not necessarily their fault.

What johnnyskeleton is getting at is that a litigant in person may stand up and say "I agreed with the Bank that this matter was settled and should be struck out" where the Bank never agreed any such thing. The Court won't start calling anyone a liar but if the lawyer for the other side isn't there yet or can't rebut the assertion (given in this hypothetical it may not be true at all - through misunderstanding or otherwise) then a serious problem occurs procedurally.

Peregrinus

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

If told under oath, the randomer would be comitting perjury.

McKenzie's friends are not under oath, and nor are advocates. They don't give evidence.

whippet

the ben fella apparently is due to destroy some bankers in belfast today ... according to his facemuck page. Anyone any insight as to what is going on there?

johnciall

Just saw this on Facebook: http://directdemocracyireland.ie/emergency-dail-legislation-collecting-water-bills-due-friday-14th-november-2014/

I have a sneaking suspicion that no such legislation will be raised tomorrow

Little CuChulainn

johnciall wrote: »

Just saw this on Facebook: http://directdemocracyireland.ie/emergency-dail-legislation-collecting-water-bills-due-friday-14th-november-2014/

I have a sneaking suspicion that no such legislation will be raised tomorrow

As the Dail doesn't sit on a Friday it's very likely. I see some Sinn Fein fans praising Mary Lou for preventing it anyway.