Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Criminal Record for... Finding 20 Quid
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
BalcombeSt4 wrote: »Nobody is, there is no such place.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »This is from your exhaustive research into the Irish District Court and English Magistrates Court?
Yes, the former.Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »A guilty plea with the relevant pleas of mitigation will take a number of hours to produce although will take very little time to actually plead.
You joking? I do not know who to feel sorry for, you or the person who liked your comment. That is not the case in THIS CASE. It has been claimed that THIS CASE was a waste of resources! You talking GENERALLY, which, I am not arguing against!
This is the District Court we are talking about, or the British equivalent. Hours to produce? You serious? She admitted to the police her wrong doing! Now one checks for whether proper procedures were complied with by the police.
The subject case involved the woman admitting to the police that she was guilty at the police station! That interview transcript and video of same would not take 30 minutes to look over. The police station log book would take 5 minutes.
Talking to person about why they did it, their background, their work /education history, medical history and request for documents to support that 25 minutes in her case.
Chat to copper / prosecuting solicitor about previous criminal convictions if any - depends on whether there is any in this case.Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »I've not moaned at all. I'm bemoaning the fact your post is utter tosh.
If you had the remotest of ideas as to what was said and the context. But, you don't. :rolleyes: Back in your box!Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »Ha. Ha. Do you know what a lawyer working for the CPS is paid, do you realise this would most likely go to a panel to decide if it was doing to be prosecuted. Again not taking a huge amount of time but it's all adding up.
Mother of god!
The CPS would be in court presenting 20-30 cases in a sitting. The will be paid a flat fee for each case as oppose to time, or they are on a salary.
The quote that you used by me said nothing about his wage. He is already in the court presenting other cases. This case, involving the girl (and that is the only case that I am talking about) would take no more than 5 minutes to present to the judge because....................she already admitted in the police station that she committed the crime. So long as the cops did everything correctly during arrest and detention, it is plain sailing. His job is done.Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »:rolleyes: So you've never actually been involved in a minor criminal case then. You can easily be there all day waiting for your case to be called, your barrister will remain present.
You are some ticket!
You never actually read what was said or understood that the comments are directly about THIS case and not the generality
Yes, you are waiting for hours, sometimes you are not.
But Legal aid IS most certainly NOT going to pay you for waiting for hours. You are paid for doing the case , a flat fee, with additional for each time there is an arrangement etc. It matters not one jot whether you waiting for 5 minutes or 2 hours just to tell the court that the matter has to be put to another date for whatever reason. You are going to get the same fee
The quote that you highlighted referred to the PRESENTATION of the case!!!!!!!! Again, THIS case involved a person who went into court with the sole purpose of admitting guilt. 2 minutes. Mitigation would not be long either as it was a minor offence , what 10-20 minutes?Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »They don't pass on full costs to defendants. I would have thought that was obvious when some scum bag is done for assaulting a granny and charged £55 costs.
Judge's dinner was sarcasm.
You also ignored this
"It cost the court no more than £175 (possibly a little more, really,"
Bar the sarcastic comment about the judge, I clearly acknowledged that it costed more than £175Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »Clearer on the law in England perhaps.
Why? No need. Most people, bar some here, know that what THIS person did was theft .
Anyway, the English definition of Theft is similar. ‘A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive the other of it’
Section 4 of Thefts and Frauds Offences
a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it.
(2) For the purposes of this section a person does not appropriate property without the consent of its owner if—
(a) the person believes that he or she has the owner's consent, or would have the owner's consent if the owner knew of the appropriation of the property and the circumstances in which it was appropriated, or
(b) (except where the property came to the person as trustee or personal representative) he or she appropriates the property in the belief that the owner cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps,
but consent obtained by deception or intimidation is not consent for those purposes.
(3) (a) This subsection applies to a person who in the course of business holds property in trust for, or on behalf of, more than one owner.
(b) Where a person to whom this subsection applies appropriates some of the property so held to his or her own use or benefit, the person shall, for the purposes of subsection (1) but subject to subsection (2), be deemed to have appropriated the property or, as the case may be, a sum representing it without the consent of its owner or owners.
(c) If in any proceedings against a person to whom this subsection applies for theft of some or all of the property so held by him or her it is proved that—
(i) there is a deficiency in the property or a sum representing it, and
(ii) the person has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the whole or any part of the deficiency,
it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, for the purposes of subsection (1) but subject to subsection (2), that the person appropriated, without the consent of its owner or owners, the whole or that part of the deficiency.
(4) If at the trial of a person for theft the court or jury, as the case may be has to consider whether the person believed—
(a) that he or she had not acted dishonestly, or
(b) that the owner of the property concerned had consented or would have consented to its appropriation, or
(c) that the owner could not be discovered by taking reasonable steps,
the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the court or jury shall have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether the person so believed.
(5) In this section—
“appropriates”, in relation to property, means usurps or adversely interferes with the proprietary rights of the owner of the property;
“depriving” means temporarily or permanently depriving.
(6) A person guilty of theft is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.0 -
-
-
Yes, the former.
It doesn't seemed to have been all that effective. I suggest doing and sitting in the DC for a couple of days and seeing how many people would be present. Each being paid for their client.You joking? I do not know who to feel sorry for, you or the person who liked your comment. That is not the case in THIS CASE. It has been claimed that THIS CASE was a waste of resources! You talking GENERALLY, which, I am not arguing against!
Eh?This is the District Court we are talking about, or the British equivalent. Hours to produce? You serious? She admitted to the police her wrong doing! Now one checks for whether proper procedures were complied with by the police.
English court... Britain has different legal systems. But you want to limit this to the DC as that's the one we're both familiar with that's fine.
Then you'll be well ware of roughly what percentage of people plead guilty and that happens next... Hint it rhymes with See bin litigation.The subject case involved the woman admitting to the police that she was guilty at the police station! That interview transcript and video of same would not take 30 minutes to look over. The police station log book would take 5 minutes.
Talking to person about why they did it, their background, their work /education history, medical history and request for documents to support that 25 minutes in her case.
Chat to copper / prosecuting solicitor about previous criminal convictions if any - depends on whether there is any in this case.
An underestimate and one from only one side but as you point out it's generally a fixed fee here which again won't be anywhere near the figures you've pulled out of - well...If you had the remotest of ideas as to what was said and the context. But, you don't. :rolleyes: Back in your box!
..your box perhaps.Mother of god!
Let's leave my mother out of it.The CPS would be in court presenting 20-30 cases in a sitting. The will be paid a flat fee for each case as oppose to time, or they are on a salary.
Generally they're on salary they will have spent at least 2-3 hours reviewing the case and dealing with the back and forth. There's €100 or so including employers cost just on this side.The quote that you used by me said nothing about his wage. He is already in the court presenting other cases. This case, involving the girl (and that is the only case that I am talking about) would take no more than 5 minutes to present to the judge because....................she already admitted in the police station that she committed the crime. So long as the cops did everything correctly during arrest and detention, it is plain sailing. His job is done.
As demonstrated several times, this is not how it works and keep insisting on what you've seen on the Bill makes it more painfully obvious that you're raving than your posting style.You are some ticket!
You never actually read what was said or understood that the comments are directly about THIS case and not the generality
Yes, you are waiting for hours, sometimes you are not.
No sometimes you're first, sometimes you're last. But if it's a fixed legal aid fee as you assert...But Legal aid IS most certainly NOT going to pay you for waiting for hours. You are paid for doing the case , a flat fee, with additional for each time there is an arrangement etc. It matters not one jot whether you waiting for 5 minutes or 2 hours just to tell the court that the matter has to be put to another date for whatever reason. You are going to get the same fee
The quote that you highlighted referred to the PRESENTATION of the case!!!!!!!! Again, THIS case involved a person who went into court with the sole purpose of admitting guilt. 2 minutes. Mitigation would not be long either as it was a minor offence , what 10-20 minutes?
More ravings... Case prep is where the cost is coming in and has been explained to you more than once at this stage.Judge's dinner was sarcasm.
You also ignored this
"It cost the court no more than £175 (possibly a little more, really,"
Bar the sarcastic comment about the judge, I clearly acknowledged that it costed more than £175
Eh? That wasn't even in the article. The Article makes reference to the costs she's been asked to pay. That would be the court cost and possibly a contribution to the cost of the lawyers involved. It will be a fraction of what the actual case cost.0 -
-
-
-
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »Hmm...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2973157/woman-who-pocketed-20-she-found-on-the-floor-charged-with-theft/
Heinous I tell thee. The poor victim was in a wheel chair. :eek:
Heinous I tell thee 0 -
-
I honestly have no idea why you quoted my post and added in a bunch of nonsense to it.
You don't ? Normally, mods should have the ability to ...you know...follow what was said, especially when you actually respond to another person's post
I made a comment about taking welfare off them. Was not intended to be taken seriously
Then, you got all pious and mealy mouthed (this is After Hours, after all , DMC type threads are rare in this area of the site) I simply responded , with the above statement that you quoted. Again, not really being serious. You get jumped up , the response was treated with the respect it deserved.
This is what you said
"Why do you assume that someone who picks up money off the ground is a welfare claimant? Are you figuring that she must have been desperate/short of cash? In which case, interesting that you want to put her into poverty for it. But then, it's also interesting that your view is apparently "She is a criminal. Nice people don't commit crimes. Nice people don't have misfortune or need help from social services. Therefore, criminal = welfare claimant."
As dodgy logic goes, it's well up there."And..so? Yes, it's worse in some parts of the country than others. But the level of sheer hatred against anyone down on their luck that needs social support is a bit sickening.
Save your class warrior - man of the people guff for politics section. This is After Hours. The comment was not intended to be taken seriously. You took the bait, sadly. The articles reporting this incident, of them attached by me, made it clear that the culprit was not a welfare claimant.
However, on a serious level,
"But the level of sheer hatred against anyone down on their luck that needs social support is a bit sickening":D Lol
Leave it out! Most people in Ireland who have been a lifetime on welfare, with the exception of people on disability, should get a kick in backside. There were plenty of jobs going before the crash and even during the crash, more than enough avenues to find new skills. Career mothers and the work shy junkies should not be offered sympathy .
This does not even logic, unless people who are earning are perfect people who never do anything wrong. Your comment was total sweeping rubbish based on nothing more than prejudice. Even if it turns out she IS on social welfare, your comment is still bigoted nonsense against people poorer than you.
Take your class warrior rubbish somewhere else! Social Welfare claimants are now a distinguishable class group are they? .Identity politics gone bonkers. 0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement