[plannerj]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 14 October 2016 - 07:17 PM, said:

I get cross examined by barristers at least once a month, sometimes 3/4 times a month and they have been doing for over 20 years so I'm sorry if that doesn't fit the experience criteria

Joke. Try telling the next one, or any one, he's as thick as a pudding. Let me know beforehand though, I'd like to be present. By the way, I find it amazing that your original post alluded as to your mystery as to a barrister's route to qualification. Oh, and by the way, if you happen to be a police officer, I've met quite a few who truly were .....................!

[Tyrion]

Is tomorrow too soon to make the bench or will he be back on Tuesday?

[Guest_freelander2_*]

http://www.walesonli...atasha-12026937

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Westbars Spireite, on 14 October 2016 - 06:50 PM, said:

Ah, thanks for that Pete. Confirms my earlier comments.

Not at all.

The initial complaint has to be made by the complainant. Thus making them the person who registered the complaint.

I actually agree with you that the police may have encouraged her to wrongly pursue Evans for her memory loss. And that the CPS most definitely saw their moment in the spotlight as a chance too good to miss. And that she was quite possibly poorly advised.

Though why she went to the police to retrieve her mislaid bag when she knew full well that it was at the premier inn is anyones guess.

[Search & Destroy]

Why was that deleted ffs

[Spireiteboy155]

Surely this needs putting to bed now. Enough is enough.

I'll be the first to admit that I was non too complimentary of the interest shown in Ched and then ultimately his signing.

I'm also man enough to let it go now, trust our justice system and see him as an innocent (albeit stupid!) man.

Come on, guys. Let's move on.

Onwards and upwards (hopefully as we can't go much further down!)

[azul]

Spireiteboy155, on 14 October 2016 - 09:00 PM, said:

Surely this needs putting to bed now. Enough is enough.

I'll be the first to admit that I was non too complimentary of the interest shown in Ched and then ultimately his signing.

I'm also man enough to let it go now, trust our justice system and see him as an innocent (albeit stupid!) man.

Come on, guys. Let's move on.

Onwards and upwards (hopefully as we can't go much further down!)

Doubt this judgement will be put bed anytime soon, certainly not in the wider world anyway.

[jack bauer]

Tyrion, on 14 October 2016 - 08:39 PM, said:

Is tomorrow too soon to make the bench or will he be back on Tuesday?

my guess would be that he will not be involved at all tomorrow, I would think he will be on the bench on Tuesday though

[Spireiteboy155]

azul, on 14 October 2016 - 09:06 PM, said:

Doubt this judgement will be put bed anytime soon, certainly not in the wider world anyway.

Sadly, I fear you are correct.

[azul]

Spireiteboy155, on 14 October 2016 - 09:10 PM, said:

Sadly, I fear you are correct.

Duplicate

This post has been edited by azul: 14 October 2016 - 09:20 PM

[jack bauer]

so what now? do people feel the footballing world will see CE as a footballer again? Lot's of questions moving forward, can he recreate the form of a striker rated highly at this level. Will other clubs be interested in looking at him if he does? Does he owe us some extended loyalty for taking him when no one else would? I put these out as questions going forward in this saga simply as i'm interested in what people think.

[azul]

azul, on 14 October 2016 - 09:18 PM, said:

I think the actions of "Ched's People" could come under close scrutiny

Will it hold up?

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

plannerj, on 14 October 2016 - 08:38 PM, said:

Joke. Try telling the next one, or any one, he's as thick as a pudding. Let me know beforehand though, I'd like to be present. By the way, I find it amazing that your original post alluded as to your mystery as to a barrister's route to qualification. Oh, and by the way, if you happen to be a police officer, I've met quite a few who truly were .....................!

I know what the qualification is, I struggle to understand how some of them get it, given the questions they ask me. I often have a bit of sport with them in court in makes it worthwhile. I've often said to the judge that I can't answer the question as the question doesn't make sense and when they have reworded it, I've still told the judge it doesn't make sense. I think my record is five times on the trot. The judge told me on one occasion that I knew exactly what he was trying to ask me and I replied I'm sorry your honour I thought I was here to answer the questions he asked me not the ones I thought he wanted to ask me. The judge just laughed and said "quite, now if you want him to answer what we all know damn well what you are wanting to ask, then just ask him or move on". He then proceeded to re-word the question and he made it a closed one, so I just said "no" and the judge laughed at him.

He then went on to subtract one figure from another and got the wrong answer. In the next sentence he then went on to say he had carried out multiple calculations over a five year period and he came up with a different figure to the one I had given him. He then said "what does that suggest to you" obviously implying my figure was wrong. I just replied " as you have just subtracted one figure from the other and got the wrong answer, I would have no confidence you could carry out hundreds of calculations and come up with the right answer, so it suggests you have gone wrong somewhere, as my figure is correct". It was a long session lol

Another one waved a piece of paper at me and asked me what is was. I said i didn't know but I could make a good guess. He said I shouldn't be guessing and that if I was there to give evidence then I should know. I let him grill me about it for about 10 mins then I got bored and said to him "you do realise this has nothing to do with me and that's not my evidence", "well if it's not yours, who does it belong to?" I just pointed to my colleague at the back of the room and said him, so I suggest you call him as a witness if you want to talk about it lol.

I could write a book. The trouble with day to day barristers is that they take on too many cases through pure greed and don't give themselves time to prepare. Obviously in high profile cases like Ched's they prepare to the max

PS I'm not a police officer

This post has been edited by Ernie Ernie Ernie: 14 October 2016 - 09:33 PM

[Toddhopper.]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 14 October 2016 - 09:30 PM, said:

I know what the qualification is, I struggle to understand how some of them get it, given the questions they ask me. I often have a bit of sport with them in court in makes it worthwhile. I've often said to the judge that I can't answer the question as the question doesn't make sense and when they have reworded it, I've still told the judge it doesn't make sense. I think my record is five times on the trot. The judge told me on one occasion that I knew exactly what he was trying to ask me and I replied I'm sorry your honour I thought I was here to answer the questions he asked me not the ones I thought he wanted to ask me. The judge just laughed and said "quite, now if you want him to answer what we all know damn well what you are wanting to ask, then just ask him or move on". He then proceeded to re-word the question and he made it a closed one, so I just said "no" and the judge laughed at him.

He then went on to subtract one figure from another and got the wrong answer. In the next sentence he then went on to say he had carried out multiple calculations over a five year period and he came up with a different figure to the one I had given him. He then said "what does that suggest to you" obviously implying my figure was wrong. I just replied " as you have just subtracted one figure from the other and got the wrong answer, I would have no confidence you could carry out hundreds of calculations and come up with the right answer, so it suggests you have gone wrong somewhere, as my figure is correct". It was a long session lol

Another one waved a piece of paper at me and asked me what is was. I said i didn't know but I could make a good guess. He said I shouldn't be guessing and that if I was there to give evidence then I should know. I let him grill me about it for about 10 mins then I got bored and said to him "you do realise this has nothing to do with me and that's not my evidence", "well if it's not yours, who does it belong to?" I just pointed to my colleague at the back of the room and said him, so I suggest you call him as a witness if you want to talk about it lol.

I could write a book. The trouble with day to day barristers is that they take on too many cases through pure greed and don't give themselves time to prepare. Obviously in high profile cases like Ched's they prepare to the max

PS I'm not a police officer

What an incredible wit you have.

[azul]

Search and Destroy, on 14 October 2016 - 08:51 PM, said:

Why was that deleted ffs

I guess almost everyone has dark fantasies.

Most normal people don't put them in print

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

Toddhopper., on 14 October 2016 - 09:35 PM, said:

What an incredible wit you have.

It's not really wit it's a self defence mechanism. They are paid to trip you up and make you look stupid, so you just give it back when you get the chance. Sadly for some of them if they have t deviate from their set questions they do not have the speed of thought to adjust. That's not to say I haven't been beaten up big time on occasion

[brockwell-spireite]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 14 October 2016 - 09:40 PM, said:

It's not really wit it's a self defence mechanism. They are paid to trip you up and make you look stupid, so you just give it back when you get the chance. Sadly for some of them if they have t deviate from their set questions they do not have the speed of thought to adjust. That's not to say I haven't been beaten up big time on occasion

there are the ones who are literally the brightest legal brains in the world.... and there are those that scrape through the BPTC or BVC as it used to be but have the family ties/name/history to blag a job at a chambers, having mooted against many of them my experience is that the majority of them are extremely smart and quick thinking, i did witness one in Chesterfield do his best to blow and absolutely open and shut case with his incompetence though.

[Search & Destroy]

azul, on 14 October 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

I guess almost everyone has dark fantasies.

Most normal people don't put them in print

Don't even remember what is was.

Maybe didn't get past the "taste" police

[dim view]

KevinArnottsGoldenBoot, on 14 October 2016 - 08:51 PM, said:

Not at all.

The initial complaint has to be made by the complainant. Thus making them the person who registered the complaint.

So, technically, you are right. The process has to be kick started with the identification of a complainant, otherwise the wheels of justice can't get underway. When the complaint has been registered, the State becomes the complainant.

So, the big question is........... to what extent was the woman coerced into becoming the complainant, and by whom?
Perhaps she knew her own mind and there was no coercion.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

[quote name='brockwell-spireite' timestamp='1476482612' post='1247498']
there are the ones who are literally the brightest legal brains in the world.... and there are those that scrape through the BPTC or BVC as it used to be but have the family ties/name/history to blag a job at a chambers, having mooted against many of them my experience is that the majority of them are extremely smart and quick thinking, i did witness one in Chesterfield do his best to blow and absolutely open and shut case with his incompetence though.
[/quo

the brightest brains in the word wouldn't be anywhere near our cases or courts lol