"Without the solicitors, the criminals are fúcked"- *alleged* Dublin criminal

Dionysus

So there we have it. I had tears in my eyes after that, and you could hear the glee in Mary Wilson's voice.

On Drivetime, at 17.20 today Fergal Keane was outside the Criminal Courts of Justice interviewing *alleged* criminals about how they felt when criminal (ahem) solicitors and barristers staged a walk-out on them. Starts at 52.25. Fast forward past your man who "feels very bad and very sad" (hehe - what a rogue!) to 53.42:

"*Alleged* Dublin criminal: The solicitors should be getting more money.
Keane: And who should pay them?
*Alleged* Dublin criminal: Who's going to pay them? The government should pay; the government should pay the solicitors because the reason why they should pay the solicitors is they're doing a good job, they're keeping criminals out of trouble, without the solicitors the criminals are fúcked."

---

If ever there were an advertisement for the truly heroic service which solicitors and barristers give Irish society as they nobly defend their ridiculous fees from the Irish taxpayer justice this is it. It's a shocking state of affairs that the government would think of reducing the income of a legal profession which works so hard for the marginalised in Irish society.

ThePower11

Poor old solicitors, God love them :rolleyes:

billybudd

Crime is lucrative, no overheads and with todays crazy judges not much risk.

qz

I would like to be a solicitor and make buckets of money and I don't give a fcuk.

Haters gonna hate.

starbelgrade

billybudd wrote: »

Crime is lucrative, no overheads

What about the upwards only rent policy on underground lairs?

Surely that's unsustainable in today's economy - especially for the small to medium sized criminal.

LighterGuy

I hate solicitors.
Scum. Just utter scum.

Think about it, even if a decent bloke studied to become one. The nature of the job will turn him. Lying and twisting events. Repersenting blatantly guilty people. And I hate all that "ah people are innocent until proven guilty" bollocks out of them. Its just an excuse to justify the nature of repersenting a scumbag.

paky

''if they've a legitimate right to walk out and strike...they've a legitimate right..do you know what i mean?''

Fishooks12

LighterGuy wrote: »

I hate solicitors.
Scum. Just utter scum.

Think about it, even if a decent bloke studied to become one. The nature of the job will turn him. Lying and twisting events. Repersenting blatantly guilty people. And I hate all that "ah people are innocent until proven guilty" bollocks out of them. Its just an excuse to justify the nature of repersenting a scumbag.

So much wrong with that post

So if you get charged with a crime will you represent yourself?

Hope that goes well for you

mackg

starbelgrade wrote: »

What about the upwards only rent policy on underground lairs?

Surely that's unsustainable in today's economy - especially for the small to medium sized criminal.

Ghost estate= free hideout for a criminal + several minions.

starbelgrade

Interesting fact 1 - it's possible in Ireland to become a solicitor without having a degree in law.

Interesting fact 2 - it's possible in Ireland to become a solicitor without having a degree in any subject.

BornToKill

LighterGuy wrote: »

And I hate all that "ah people are innocent until proven guilty" bollocks out of them. Its just an excuse to justify the nature of repersenting a scumbag.

And what if they are innocent?

Aurum

starbelgrade wrote: »

Interesting fact 1 - it's possible in Ireland to become a solicitor without having a degree in law.

Interesting fact 2 - it's possible in Ireland to become a solicitor without having a degree in any subject.

It's the same in England too. A lot of firms recruit about 50% law grads 50% non-law.

El Weirdo

LighterGuy wrote: »

And I hate all that "ah people are innocent until proven guilty" bollocks out of them.

That is probably the most important part of our legal system, it's not just made up by lawyers.

How is it bollocks, exactly?

billybudd

starbelgrade wrote: »

Interesting fact 1 - it's possible in Ireland to become a solicitor without having a degree in law.

Interesting fact 2 - it's possible in Ireland to become a solicitor without having a degree in any subject.

anything is possible in Ireland, when the majority will pay for it, no real questions asked and no answers given.

FF second in the polls, see anything is possible.

Temptamperu

starbelgrade wrote: »

Interesting fact 1 - it's possible in Ireland to become a solicitor without having a degree in law.

Interesting fact 2 - it's possible in Ireland to become a solicitor without having a degree in any subject.

How would you do this? I have always wanted my face on a billboard.

Hank_Jones

Robbed a granny and slashed a Garda with a stanley?

Why, you need....free legal aid!!!

What a load of bollocks.

El Weirdo

Temptamperu wrote: »

How would you do this? I have always wanted my face on a billboard.

Drive really quickly down the M50 on a motorbike without a helmet on. Good chance of getting your face on one then.

LighterGuy

BornToKill wrote: »

And what if they are innocent?

I was talking about from a solicitors point of view. Them agreeing to repersent a clearly guilty man. Take johnny cochran. Great example. Took on the Oj Simpson case. Cochran knew he was guilty. The world knew he was guilty. But he got him off.
I'm talking about ethics and morals here. Can a person repersent a clearly guilty man (talking oj case level of clearly guilty here) and look in the mirror and say "i am a good person" .. or is it all about the money. Not caring if they did it or not. As long as you get them off any get the paycheck.

Dionysus

Temptamperu wrote: »

How would you do this? I have always wanted my face on a billboard.

FE-1 (8 of them) and FE2 exams.

sock puppet

billybudd wrote: »

anything is possible in Ireland, when the majority will pay for it, no real questions asked and no answers given.

What? You know there's the small matter of professional exams? Who honestly gives a damn what degree they have.

El Weirdo

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Robbed a granny and slashed a Garda with a stanley?

Why, you need....free legal aid!!!

What a load of bollocks.

Please give us your suggestions for a better system.

billybudd

sock puppet wrote: »

What? You know there's the small matter of professional exams? Who honestly gives a damn what degree they have.

in the context of your query, why qoute me?

sock puppet

billybudd wrote: »

in the context of your query, why qoute me?

It seemed from your post that you had an issue with the fact that it doesn't take a degree in law to become a solicitor (or a barrister for that matter).

eth0

Temptamperu wrote: »

How would you do this? I have always wanted my face on a billboard.

Temptamperu &Temptamperu & Sons
<massive picture of your mug here>


"Have you made a cockup in the past 10 years you could possibly blame on someone else? Call now..."

K-9

This presumed innocent thing is costing the state a fortune.

I mean who needs the presumption of innocence?

Hank_Jones

El Weirdo wrote: »

Please give us your suggestions for a better system.

How about if someone is a repeat offender with a certain number of convictions, they lose their right to free legal aid?

Someone with 50 convictions doesn't deserve to have legal aid paid for by the taxpayer.

paky

LighterGuy wrote: »

I was talking about from a solicitors point of view. Them agreeing to repersent a clearly guilty man. Take johnny cochran. Great example. Took on the Oj Simpson case. Cochran knew he was guilty. The world knew he was guilty. But he got him off.
I'm talking about ethics and morals here. Can a person repersent a clearly guilty man (talking oj case level of clearly guilty here) and look in the mirror and say "i am a good person" .. or is it all about the money. Not caring if they did it or not. As long as you get them off any get the paycheck.

there is no such thing as a good person. criminals are just victims of circumstance.

Mike 1972

LighterGuy wrote: »

I hate solicitors.
Scum. Just utter scum.

Think about it, even if a decent bloke studied to become one. The nature of the job will turn him. Lying and twisting events. Repersenting blatantly guilty people. And I hate all that "ah people are innocent until proven guilty" bollocks out of them. Its just an excuse to justify the nature of repersenting a scumbag.

You do realise that no matter how guilty one is if there is no soliciter willing to represent them they can apply to have the case postponed/thrown out on the grounds that they cannot get a fair trial ?

Liam Byrne

paky wrote: »

LighterGuy wrote: »

I was talking about from a solicitors point of view. Them agreeing to repersent a clearly guilty man. Take johnny cochran. Great example. Took on the Oj Simpson case. Cochran knew he was guilty. The world knew he was guilty. But he got him off.
I'm talking about ethics and morals here. Can a person repersent a clearly guilty man (talking oj case level of clearly guilty here) and look in the mirror and say "i am a good person" .. or is it all about the money. Not caring if they did it or not. As long as you get them off any get the paycheck.

there is no such thing as a good person. criminals are just victims of circumstance.

Praying that this post is a wind-up!

starbelgrade

Hank_Jones wrote: »

How about if someone is a repeat offender with a certain number of convictions, they lose their right to free legal aid?

Someone with 50 convictions doesn't deserve to have legal aid paid for by the taxpayer.

Everyone deserves legal representation.

Just because they are guilty of 50 crimes doesn't automatically make them guilty of 51.

True, the legal system costs us money, but it's an important thing to spend money on. Not everything can be judged by how much it costs financially.

El Weirdo

Hank_Jones wrote: »

How about if someone is a repeat offender with a certain number of convictions, they lose their right to free legal aid?

Someone with 50 convictions doesn't deserve to have legal aid paid for by the taxpayer.

But in our system everybody is entitled to a fair trial. It doesn't matter how many convictions they have.

It is not entirely impossible that someone could have loads of minor convictions from when they are young, reform and go straight, become an upstanding member of the community and then be arrested for a crime that they are innocent of when they are older.

Do you deny that person legal aid because of their past?

LighterGuy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Praying that this post is a wind-up!

I hate solicitors. that it as you need to know baby.

Spunge

LighterGuy wrote: »

I hate all that "ah people are innocent until proven guilty" bollocks

:pac:

Snowie

Dionysus wrote: »

So there we have it. I had tears in my eyes after that, and you could hear the glee in Mary Wilson's voice.

On Drivetime, at 17.20 today Fergal Keane was outside the Criminal Courts of Justice interviewing *alleged* criminals about how they felt when criminal (ahem) solicitors and barristers staged a walk-out on them. Starts at 52.25. Fast forward past your man who "feels very bad and very sad" (hehe - what a rogue!) to 53.42:

"*Alleged* Dublin criminal: The solicitors should be getting more money.
Keane: And who should pay them?
*Alleged* Dublin criminal: Who's going to pay them? The government should pay; the government should pay the solicitors because the reason why they should pay the solicitors is they're doing a good job, they're keeping criminals out of trouble, without the solicitors the criminals are fúcked."

---

If ever there were an advertisement for the truly heroic service which solicitors and barristers give Irish society as they nobly defend their ridiculous fees from the Irish taxpayer justice this is it. It's a shocking state of affairs that the government would think of reducing the income of a legal profession which works so hard for the marginalised in Irish society.

lets start a lynch string em up leave them hanging :cool:

Hank_Jones

starbelgrade wrote: »

Everyone deserves legal representation.

Just because they are guilty of 50 crimes doesn't automatically make them guilty of 51.

True, the legal system costs us money, but it's an important thing to spend money on. Not everything can be judged by how much it costs financially.

Still makes them a danger to society after they are cleared of crime 51.

Taken from Guardian article, but still..

Repeat criminals responsible for half a million crimes

One in four criminals went straight back to crime and were responsible for more than half a million new offences last year.

Half of the crimes were committed by career criminals who had at least 25 previous offences to their name.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8853042/Repeat-criminals-responsible-for-half-a-million-crimes.html

All of this stuff relating to rights, I would think people would have a different view if a career criminal hurt someone close to them.

Brain Stroking

LighterGuy wrote: »

I was talking about from a solicitors point of view. Them agreeing to repersent a clearly guilty man. Take johnny cochran. Great example. Took on the Oj Simpson case. Cochran knew he was guilty. The world knew he was guilty. But he got him off.
I'm talking about ethics and morals here. Can a person repersent a clearly guilty man (talking oj case level of clearly guilty here) and look in the mirror and say "i am a good person" .. or is it all about the money. Not caring if they did it or not. As long as you get them off any get the paycheck.

You do realise Johnnie Cochrane was an attorney? Do you know anything about how the irish legal system works? Do you know that a very small percentage of solicitors work in criminal law? Do you realise that the bit in bold is essentially describing a perfect day for a barrister not a solicitor?
Do you understand the legal aid system and how cases are allocated to criminal solicitors' offices?

Aurum

LighterGuy wrote: »

I hate solicitors. that it as you need to know baby.

And who exactly is someone going to go to if they want to draw up a complicated will, sell their home, get a divorce/separation, are wrongly convicted of a crime, want to draw up a contract, injure themselves due to the negligence of another…the list goes on. If it wasn't for Irish lawyers with a social conscience, so many awful laws would still be in force (like bans on contraception, divorce, homosexuality, women serving on juries; again, the list goes on.) There are some lawyers who are lying, self-serving and arrogant, but I'm sure the percentage would be about the same as the number of people generally who fall into that category.

Hank_Jones

El Weirdo wrote: »

But in our system everybody is entitled to a fair trial. It doesn't matter how many convictions they have.

It is not entirely impossible that someone could have loads of minor convictions from when they are young, reform and go straight, become an upstanding member of the community and then be arrested for a crime that they are innocent of when they are older.

Do you deny that person legal aid because of their past?

It would have to be means tested in terms of convictions.

If someone is a repeat rapist who considered a danger to society, I don't think that person deserves free legal aid.

If repeatedly shoplifted bread from the supermarket, that's a different story.

There should be a harder line taken though.

Brain Stroking

Hank_Jones wrote: »

It would have to be means tested in terms of convictions.

If someone is a repeat rapist who considered a danger to society, I don't think that person deserves free legal aid.

If repeatedly shoplifted bread from the supermarket, that's a different story.

There should be a harder line taken though.

See you in Strasbourg

FTGFOP

Dionysus wrote: »

FE-1 (8 of them) and FE2 exams.

*casts aside sack of doorknobs*

El Weirdo

Hank_Jones wrote: »

It would have to be means tested in terms of convictions.

If someone is a repeat rapist who considered a danger to society, I don't think that person deserves free legal aid.

If repeatedly shoplifted bread from the supermarket, that's a different story.

There should be a harder line taken though.

No.

Who gets to decide who is a danger to society? Is that not what the courts are there to decide? Or do we leave it to the Daily Mail/Joe Duffy types?

mackg

Hank_Jones wrote: »

It would have to be means tested in terms of convictions.

If someone is a repeat rapist who considered a danger to society, I don't think that person deserves free legal aid.

If repeatedly shoplifted bread from the supermarket, that's a different story.

There should be a harder line taken though.

The problem here is that a convicted repeat rapist shouldn't even be on the streets in the first place.

LighterGuy

Brain Stroking wrote: »

You do realise Johnnie Cochrane was an attorney? Do you know anything about how the irish legal system works? Do you know that a very small percentage of solicitors work in criminal law? Do you realise that the bit in bold is essentially describing a perfect day for a barrister not a solicitor?
Do you understand the legal aid system and how cases are allocated to criminal solicitors' offices?

K-9

mackg wrote: »

The problem here is that a convicted repeat rapist shouldn't even be on the streets in the first place.

Exactly, tighten up bail laws, we'd a referendum about it years ago, fat lot of good it did.

Hank_Jones

mackg wrote: »

The problem here is that a convicted repeat rapist shouldn't even be on the streets in the first place.

Indeed and of course the system works....

I'm sure Larry Murphy thinks so anyway.

Hijpo

Dont intentionaly break the law and you wont have to worry about your free legal aid. Simples

K-9

Hijpo wrote: »

Dont intentionaly break the law and you wont have to worry about your free legal aid. Simples

Yeah, it really is that simple as the Birmingham 6 or the McBrearty's will tell you.

Bloody pc liberals they were.

Hijpo

K-9 wrote: »

Hijpo wrote: »

Dont intentionaly break the law and you wont have to worry about your free legal aid. Simples

Yeah, it really is that simple as the Birmingham 6 or the McBrearty's will tell you.

Bloody pc liberals they were.

Wernt the birmingham 6 sentanced in the uk? Thats a bit diffrent than some low life who repeatedly.offends because anytime hes caught he can get free legal representation. If it was costing him he might have a diffrent take on it.

AgileMyth

starbelgrade wrote: »

What about the upwards only rent policy on underground lairs?

Surely that's unsustainable in today's economy - especially for the small to medium sized criminal.

Add the fact that lairs are notoriously difficult to heat and you're running into big bucks already. And we haven't even started on the bitchin' selection of gadgets and cars and other cool shit

Guy:Incognito

Once you hit 30 convictions for whatever offences you should automatically be deemed guilty of whatever the DPP charges you with after that. Think of it as an incentive scheme not to rack up loads of convictions.

Millicent

Hijpo wrote: »

Wernt the birmingham 6 sentanced in the uk? Thats a bit diffrent than some low life who repeatedly.offends because anytime hes caught he can get free legal representation. If it was costing him he might have a diffrent take on it.

Seriously? That's your argument? That legal aid should only apply to the UK because we don't have any wrongful convictions here?