drug dealer free.. has the world gone mad?

ScumLord

catallus wrote: »

The laws have worked perfectly well to limit the damage done by drugs to a small section of society; legalising the stuff will only result in more people using drugs;

This is simply untrue, by all accounts prohibition has only promoted drug use and we've seen drug use increase year on year since prohibition was introduced. Not only has prohibition increased the use of drugs they intended to eradicate (by 1980 :rolleyes:) we've seen the introduction of new drugs.

in the case of the thread topic, heroin legalisation would be a marketeers wet dream.

Just like tobacco and alcohol are wet dreams to marketers? If drugs were legal we wouldn't allow advertising so your argument there is defunct.

sdeire wrote: »

Jailing him for the heroin might have been a mistake, but he should have done time purely for admitting doing cocaine and causing the entire debauchal to happen.

So anyone that ever admits to taking drugs ever in their life should be jailed?

Femme_Fatale

timthumbni wrote: »

I am speaking from my personal experience with lawyers.

Your personal experience is not the full story and it's not difficult to grasp this.

Maybe your relatives are dead on but that is not the point. They may be just doing their job but what of it? The legal profession is rotten to the core.

No it isn't. Quit saying dickish stuff about the many many people who work in that profession whom you don't know.

A friend of mine was advised by her solicitor to say her ex husband was a big drinker and beat her when he was drunk. As he was neither she told the lawyer to feck off. They said they advised all clients to say this to paint their ex in a bad light.

Ambulance chasers describes them perfectly. All IMO of course.

One solicitor firm = them all being ambulance chasers. FFS. Beyond simple-minded. Like something a child would say.

timthumbni

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Your personal experience is not the full story and it's not difficult to grasp this.

No it isn't. Quit saying dickish stuff about the many many people who work in that profession whom you don't know.

One solicitor firm = them all being ambulance chasers. FFS. Beyond simple-minded. Like something a child would say.

Fair enough femme. I know most if not all my friends describe the legal profession the same way as myself. I will stick to my view of them being mostly ambulance chasers and you are the opposite. C'est la vie. :-)

In my younger days I even went out with a solicitor (albeit a junior one)and what she told me would do nothing but confirm my suspicions. A very corrupt and dishonest profession. (In my opinion of course femme so don't bust a gasket)

Femme_Fatale

timthumbni wrote: »

Fair enough femme. I know most if not all my friends describe the legal profession the same way as myself. I will stick to my view of them being mostly ambulance chasers and you are the opposite. C'est la vie. :-)

In my younger days I even went out with a solicitor (albeit a junior one)and what she told me would do nothing but confirm my suspicions. A very corrupt and dishonest profession. (In my opinion of course femme so don't bust a gasket)

You're being a dick about countless people you've never met, end of. Your friends sharing your idiotic view doesn't make them right.

periodictable

I think that in order to practice law you have to jettison any moral compass you may possess. It's a game, and a shameful one at that.

ScumLord

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

No it isn't. Quit saying dickish stuff about the many many people who work in that profession whom you don't know.

I would agree that the legal profession is rotten to the core. That's not to say that the people involved are bad just that they have to conform to the corrupt system to succeed.

Our system of justice turns smart people into dumb cogs in a machine that simply doesn't work as intended.

Femme_Fatale

ScumLord wrote: »

I would agree that the legal profession is rotten to the core.

In what sense? It being an edgy soundbite?

timthumbni

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

You're being a dick about countless people you've never met, end of. Your friends sharing your idiotic view doesn't make them right.

I don't agree that I have an idiotic view. That's your opinion. I have my own view On ambulance chasing solicitors which is obviously shared by some others. I'm not getting into an argument. This is a message board where conflicting opinions are obviously going to crop up.

Calling people idiotic or a dick because they have a different viewpoint is not very constructive femme. (And I quite like your posts on a number of issues previously)

:-)

Bepolite

ScumLord wrote: »

I would agree that the legal profession is rotten to the core. That's not to say that the people involved are bad just that they have to conform to the corrupt system to succeed.

Our system of justice turns smart people into dumb cogs in a machine that simply doesn't work as intended.

What are you on about?

Judge Ellen Ring is a recently promoted DC Judge who dealt with 'scumbag' after 'scumbag' and can spot one a mile off. She took very little crap in the DC and was very well deserving of a promotion to the Circuit Court.

I have no idea what you're talking about in relation to the profession being rotten to the core, or the participants being dumb. Barristers are generally not well paid and do the job because they have a passion for doing it. Most would be earning more managing a Tescos.

What exactly are you trying to say beyond as someone has put well, making a sound bite?

Femme_Fatale

timthumbni wrote: »

I don't agree that I have an idiotic view. That's your opinion. I have my own view On ambulance chasing solicitors which is obviously shared by some others.

Well I can see you're whittling it down from all solicitors to most solicitors to ambulance-chasers, so that's progress.
But it is absolutely idiotic to smear the entire profession (which is what you did) the way you did - and not even based on this jurisdiction either.

This is a message board where conflicting opinions are obviously going to crop up.

And people will challenge inflammatory posts like yours.

Femme_Fatale

Bepolite wrote: »

What are you on about?

Judge Ellen Ring is a recently promoted DC Judge who dealt with 'scumbag' after 'scumbag' and can spot one a mile off. She took very little crap in the DC and was very well deserving of a promotion to the Circuit Court.

I have no idea what you're talking about in relation to the profession being rotten to the core, or the participants being dumb. Barristers are generally not well paid and do the job because they have a passion for doing it. Most would be earning more managing a Tescos.

What exactly are you trying to say beyond as someone has put well, making a sound bite?

It's just one of those things "to say": "Durrrrr... solicitors are all crooks", "Durrrrr... journalists are all vultures", "All priests are paedos", "All bouncers are power-trippers" etc. No real meaning or thought.

Bepolite

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's just one of those things "to say": "Durrrrr... solicitors are all crooks", "Durrrrr... journalists are all vultures", "All priests are paedos", "All bouncers are power-trippers" etc. No real meaning or thought.

I don't actually get why people don't understand how the legal profession is split. The people arguing the case in court are barristers not solicitors (generally) and they are a completely different group to the people on the gravy trains at tribunals.

It's like accusing all builders of being scum because a multi-billion euro developer has ripped people off. Hang on a minute maybe I'm undermining my own point here... :pac:

Sir Humphrey Appleby

carzony wrote: »

jesus I know lads 'bullied' into holding drugs and got tougher sentencing that this :eek:

Lose the faux outrage, build a bridge and get the hell over it!

timthumbni

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Well I can see you're whittling it down from all solicitors to most solicitors to ambulance-chasers, so that's progress.
But it is absolutely idiotic to smear the entire profession (which is what you did) the way you did - and not even based on this jurisdiction either.

And people will challenge inflammatory posts like yours.

Fair enough femme. If you read my earlier posts I'm basing my views on the uk legal system in Northern Ireland. Maybe the Irish system is different but I have never heard a good word said about solicitors up here.

Anyway I'm not going to argue as I couldn't be arsed. It's not often that you get someone sticking up for lawyers though so in that aspect you are a bit unique.

And btw "inflammatory"????? That is hardly appropriate when talking about
them. Solicitors are hardly slaves working on a plantation. Not unless said slaves were charging £60 quid for sending out a letter that is. ;-)

downonthefarm

I'd say the filth were sick they didn't get him locked up

Femme_Fatale

timthumbni wrote: »

I have never heard a good word said about solicitors up here.

Confirmation bias does create that illusion all right.

It's not often that you get someone sticking up for lawyers though so in that aspect you are a bit unique.

Huh? It's not often that I experience people attacking the entire profession whatsoever, just occasional stupid slurs by the odd person with a grudge. Vast majority of people view individual solicitors as just doing a job.

And btw "inflammatory"????? That is hardly appropriate when talking about them. Solicitors are hardly slaves working on a plantation. Not unless said slaves were charging £60 quid for sending out a letter that is. ;-)

It's completely appropriate to say your comments about every member of a profession being corrupt, are inflammatory - and with practically nothing to back it up.
I don't know what the slave comparison is for, seeing as nobody even went near suggesting they are in any way slaves.

Bepolite

carzony wrote: »

jesus I know lads 'bullied' into holding drugs and got tougher sentencing that this :eek:

There were. Thanks to the 'Daily Mail, Hang um high I votes for politicians what are tuff on crime brigade' we ended up with mandatory sentences for people with certain amounts of drugs not withstanding they and their families probably would have been burnt out of their houses if they hadn't have held the drugs.

If people engaged in 10% of the research into crime and the criminal court system that they did say on, porn or the Xfactor we might actually start moving in a direction that would resolve the social problems we have in this country.

80% of domestic burglaries in Dublin are carried out by Heroin addicts. Why not simply hand it out in Clinics? Suggesting that this will hook people on Heroin is like suggesting hetrosexual men will get hooked on Cock because the gay saunas exists. Who in their right mind is going to start using Heroin? If you're in the position of starting to use Heroin, you're going to start using Heroin if it's handed out or bought from outside the Corpo.

ScumLord

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

In what sense? It being an edgy soundbite?

Well I did explain in the rest of the post but the failings of our justice system (and many western justice system because we all ape each other) is common knowledge I thought. It's basically a verbal fight between two solicitors where money can influence the outcome.

Bepolite wrote: »

Barristers are generally not well paid and do the job because they have a passion for doing it. Most would be earning more managing a Tescos.

Have you ever had to pay for a barrister? Because I have, and the number they plucked out of thin air was €10,000 to €15,000, that's on threat of going to the high court where we were guaranteed a bill of €100,000, a day! How can the average citizen afford justice like that?

I've been part of legal proceeding that are ongoing 3 years now and all that seems to be happening is solicitors swoop in like vulture to take their cut and move on. My parents where getting separated for 15 years because the solicitors wanted to drag it out as long as possible rather than work out a solution.

The legal system in this country enrages conflict, it does very little to solve it. Any dealings I've had with solicitors has ended up with both parties never speaking to each other again and the only resolution was in the eyes of the state.

Every legal "fight" goes the same way, aim for the sky and work back from there, it's a case of take as much as you can, damn the consequences and make sure we get paid. It's not at all about conflict resolution like it should be.

Bepolite

ScumLord wrote: »

Well I did explain in the rest of the post but the failings of our justice system (and many western justice system because we all ape each other) is common knowledge I thought. It's basically a verbal fight between two solicitors where money can influence the outcome.

Have you ever had to pay for a barrister? Because I have, and the number they plucked out of thin air was €10,000 to €15,000, that's on threat of going to the high court where we were guaranteed a bill of €100,000, a day! How can the average citizen afford justice like that?

I've been part of legal proceeding that are ongoing 3 years now and all that seems to be happening is solicitors swoop in like vulture to take their cut and move on. My parents where getting separated for 15 years because the solicitors wanted to drag it out as long as possible rather than work out a solution.

The legal system in this country enrages conflict, it does very little to solve it. Any dealings I've had with solicitors has ended up with both parties never speaking to each other again and the only resolution was in the eyes of the state.

Every legal "fight" goes the same way, aim for the sky and work back from there, it's a case of take as much as you can, damn the consequences and make sure we get paid. It's not at all about conflict resolution like it should be.

You're talking about the civil system - true some are in general practice and Judicial Review is bloody expensive and out of the range of some people that should have access to it. Since the completion of the CCJ the criminal and civil bar have effectively been split. It's a simple case of noting being able to be two places at the same time.

The criminal system largely allows people to rely on legal aid where they don't have the means to pay. I can assure you a CC barrister, unless he/she is a particularly good one is not making mega bucks.

Bepolite

ScumLord wrote: »

Well I did explain in the rest of the post but the failings of our justice system (and many western justice system because we all ape each other) is common knowledge I thought. It's basically a verbal fight between two solicitors where money can influence the outcome.

This is simply wrong. Most western justice systems are a complete departure from our own costing the tax payer many, many times what ours cost. We share the common law system with the English Speaking world only.

Sorry I just want to expand on this because I'm not trying to berate you. In criminal trials money plays very little part. Most trials are sone on legal aid. If they are not they're done by the same barristers that you'd hire anyway. Now if a Blackrock lad is up on a drugs charge can Mummy and Daddy afford a top Senior counsel - yes of course they can and I take your point there. Thats a rare, rare exception. (probably because Daddy plays golf with the right guard :pac:)

As for the Civil - Civil system (the continental civil law system) there is much to recommend it but thats a different topic entirely.

timthumbni

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Confirmation bias does create that illusion all right.

Huh? It's not often that I experience people attacking the entire profession whatsoever, just occasional stupid slurs by the odd person with a grudge. Vast majority of people view individual solicitors as just doing a job.

It's completely appropriate to say your comments about every member of a profession being corrupt, are inflammatory - and with practically nothing to back it up.
I don't know what the slave comparison is for, seeing as nobody even went near suggesting they are in any way slaves.

Ok femme. I said I wasn't going to argue so we will just agree to differ on this issue. You love solicitors. I don't. It's not a big deal anyway.

Bepolite

timthumbni wrote: »

Ok femme. I said I wasn't going to argue so we will just agree to differ on this issue. You love solicitors. I don't. It's not a big deal anyway.

I'm pretty pro-legal profession and I'll admit a good proportion of solicitors are cnuts! :P Present company excepted Femme if your at Blackhall

Femme_Fatale

timthumbni wrote: »

Ok femme. I said I wasn't going to argue so we will just agree to differ on this issue. You love solicitors. I don't. It's not a big deal anyway.

You keep saying you're not arguing, yet you keep coming back. And also you keep putting nonsense in my mouth. I never said anywhere I love solicitors - don't be so childish. I said they're not all evil monsters like you said they are.

Femme_Fatale

Bepolite wrote: »

I'm pretty pro-legal profession and I'll admit a good proportion of solicitors are cnuts! :P Present company excepted Femme if your at Blackhall

Nah it's cool, I never studied law.

Bepolite

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Nah it's cool, I never studied law.

Conversely of course there are a great number of absolutely brilliant solicitors and ones that are arses but professional and very capable.

You don't have to have studied law to be a solicitor just pass the exams

timthumbni

Bepolite wrote: »

I'm pretty pro-legal profession and I'll admit a good proportion of solicitors are cnuts! :P

I await you getting a notice of intention to sue by any of the legal eagles on here. Though I'm not sure if they could unscramble your description of cnuts as they are a bit dopey. (And would probably charge 500 squid for the pleasure)

That's my last word on this. God bless all the legal profession the poor wee souls.

Femme_Fatale

timthumbni wrote: »

I await you getting a notice of intention to sue by any of the legal eagles on here. Though I'm not sure if they could unscramble your description of cnuts as they are a bit dopey. (And would probably charge 500 squid for the pleasure)

Idiocy. And bitterness.

God bless all the legal profession the poor wee souls.

Only you are saying that - nobody else did.

end of the road

kneemos wrote: »

How is breaking the law not bad?

how is breaking it not good in certain cases? protesting against a corrupt government in a country where you have to risk your life to protest, those breaking that law are doing a good thing even though it may cost them their lives

Bepolite

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Only you are saying that - nobody else did.

I am I know a fair few of the poor bastards. 70% of the robed ones walking around the CCJ haven't a pot to piss in. Oddly enough if they could earn a decent wage it would remove the main bar to entry which is wealth. Either Mummy and Daddy need to be able to support you or a partner or you have a trust fund. Some make it without this but they're few and far between.

That doesn't mean the system is corrupt or the people operating in it are stupid. 60% of new quals don't make it a career. That's a hell of an attrition rate for dumb people to be surviving! A BL (Barrister-at-Law Degree) is a hell of a good way into the civil service :pac:

timthumbni

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

You keep saying you're not arguing, yet you keep coming back. And also you keep putting nonsense in my mouth. I never said anywhere I love solicitors - don't be so childish. I said they're not all evil monsters like you said they are.

Hi hold on here. You say I was putting words in your mouth but then you do the same by saying I called solicitors "evil monsters"

I have never called them evil monsters though I would agree with the other poster who said a lot of them were cnuts. Lol. No offence femme. Have a good night. I wasn't joking when I said I wasn't arguing. On this issue it would be like 2 bald men fighting over a comb. Ha.

end of the road

kneemos wrote: »

Selling drugs does harm people .

yeah, them publicans, pushing their alcohol on people, yet its legal.

kneemos wrote: »

Drugs of any sort have all sorts of financial,social,physical and mental health consequences.

yet a couple of those drugs are legal for those who choose to take them (alcohol, the drugs contained in cigarettes and caffene) its still no argument to keep a law that definitely doesn't work and costs us trillions to fail to enforce

Femme_Fatale

timthumbni wrote: »

Hi hold on here. You say I was putting words in your mouth but then you do the same by saying I called solicitors "evil monsters"

Oh you know you said as good as.

I have never called them evil monsters though I would agree with the other poster who said a lot of them were cnuts.

Yeh some of them are bound to be, nobody is disagreeing with that. But that doesn't mean the whole profession are, which is what you keep saying - you... surely are capable of acknowledging there are all different types within the profession? Surely...?

I wasn't joking when I said I wasn't arguing.

Yet you keep doing so.

timthumbni

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Idiocy. And bitterness.

Only you are saying that - nobody else did.

Femme. You aren't being nice here.. Can't we just agree to disagree.

timthumbni

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Oh you know you said as good as.

Yeh some of them are bound to be, nobody is disagreeing with that. But that doesn't mean the whole profession are, which is what you keep saying - you... surely are capable of acknowledging there are all different types within the profession? Surely...?

Yet you keep doing so.

Femme. Did I spill your pint earlier or something??? You are being super defensive on this matter when it's not really a big issue either way. Can you not accept that some people have different opinions to yourself regarding the legal profession????

timthumbni

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Oh you know you said as good as.

Yeh some of them are bound to be, nobody is disagreeing with that. But that doesn't mean the whole profession are, which is what you keep saying - you... surely are capable of acknowledging there are all different types within the profession? Surely...?

Yet you keep doing so.

Btw our posts seem to be off kilter a wee bit as by the time I post you have posted something else. Peace....... ;-)

SamAK

ScumLord wrote: »

Just like tobacco and alcohol are wet dreams to marketers? If drugs were legal we wouldn't allow advertising so your argument there is defunct.

Controls could be put in place, laws could be drawn up to prosecute those that supply drugs to under 21's or 18's.....the same controls that are currently in place to regulate tobacco and alcohol are perfectly applicable to other currently illegal substances.

I think at this point I need to remind the anti-drug brigade here that the tobacco and booze are two of the most damaging drugs that humanity has ever known. Legal, of course. LEGAL! WHY??

Harm reduction, harm reduction, HARM REDUCTION! That's what we want, no one in their right mind would suggest that legalization would be the perfect fairy-tale solution and that all issues would just disappear. But, it might be a teeny-tiny bit(or a LOT) more sensible and effective than current policy. And if it that's a possibility, why not give it a shot?

We all know why not, because politicians and lawmakers would have to backtrack and admit that they have been completely myopic, narrow-minded and utterly wrong for decades. We need more people like Ming Flanagan, people who are willing to stick their necks out and admit that Government has gotten it WRONG on certain issues.

timthumbni wrote: »

I will stick to my view of them being mostly ambulance chasers. A very corrupt and dishonest profession

Does 'falsifiability' relate here?(taken from wikipedia, if you fancy reading further) - "no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization"

I find it ridiculous that there are people here who are convinced that all solicitors are scoundrels when it's universally impossible for any one person to have known and met every single solicitor/barrister/legal professional on this planet. It's no good using personal experience as justification for such sweeping generalizations, because in the grand scheme of things, any one person's experiences in life are just a drop in the ocean.