Fascist plan to jail lawyers

ThePrisoner said:
Jail people for defending other people in legal cases if they lose the case.
Click to expand...
That's not what he said.

It was specifically aimed at people committing fraud, knowingly (as lawyers). Probably a good thing given the reputation they often have anyway.

Don't knowingly commit fraud and there's no issue.

As an anecdote, I was doing some IT in a solicitors office, in that there London, over 20 years ago and overheard a lawyer instructing his client, in English, that they were to claim they needed a translator in court. I accept it might be to make it easier all round but there was, even then, a whole lot of nudge, nudge; wink, wink in terms of playing the system.

I'm as left as this board gets and in and of itself I see nothing wrong with this (I know that it will suffer from scope-creep and be packaged up with a load of other bits that stink, but that's politics).

Ideally they'll apply the law to politicians who post fraudulent leaflets through doors like the one I got today from Jacob Young making dubious claims about free parking in Redcar.
 
The Tory supporters will love this. Instead of having an immigration system fit that is properly resourced and fit for purpose, lock up the lefty lawyers.
 
Steer said:
The Tory supporters will love this. Instead of having an immigration system fit that is properly resourced and fit for purpose, lock up the lefty lawyers.
Click to expand...
It's very much a standard page from the Tory playbook.

Announce something that already exists (Lawyers are already regulated and face sanctions for dishonesty). Package it up as a new means to tackle the current bogeyman. Wait for it to be misinterpreted and (a) have the misinterpretation lapped up by the right, whilst (b) the interpretation is howled at by the left (which makes the right happy yet again).

Result is a boost for the Tories without ever really needing to do anything.

For me, this is an ideal opportunity for the left to go with it and ask why the Tories haven't done this sooner etc.

Nobody wants "illegal immigrants". The problem is there aren't many that fit the definition (mainly due to Tory cuts).
 
Scrote said:
It was specifically aimed at people committing fraud, knowingly (as lawyers). Probably a good thing given the reputation they often have anyway.

Don't knowingly commit fraud and there's no issue.
Click to expand...
How could fraud be proven given that discussions between client and legal representative is confidential? Would communications between a client and legal representative even be admissible in evidence?

In any case it is sinister in the extreme (right).
 
Let's target the legal aid lawyers trying to do good and not the magic circle/city types enabling all sorts of murky money to flow through London.
 
ThePrisoner said:
How could fraud be proven given that discussions between client and legal representative is confidential? Would communications between a client and legal representative even be admissible in evidence?

In any case it is sinister in the extreme (right).
Click to expand...
Exactly. There is nothing here to get het up about and, if anything, Labour should be backing it in full and asking why it wasn't done sooner.

Use it as something to bash the Tories with rather than misinterpreting it and giving the right an excuse to blame 'lefties' for all the 'illegals'.
 
Scrote said:
That's not what he said.

It was specifically aimed at people committing fraud, knowingly (as lawyers). Probably a good thing given the reputation they often have anyway.

Don't knowingly commit fraud and there's no issue.

As an anecdote, I was doing some IT in a solicitors office, in that there London, over 20 years ago and overheard a lawyer instructing his client, in English, that they were to claim they needed a translator in court. I accept it might be to make it easier all round but there was, even then, a whole lot of nudge, nudge; wink, wink in terms of playing the system.

I'm as left as this board gets and in and of itself I see nothing wrong with this (I know that it will suffer from scope-creep and be packaged up with a load of other bits that stink, but that's politics).

Ideally they'll apply the law to politicians who post fraudulent leaflets through doors like the one I got today from Jacob Young making dubious claims about free parking in Redcar.
Click to expand...
Yes but you are intelligent enough to assess the detail of what is being said.

How will the average Sun reader with racist tendencies absorb it?

I’m afraid it’s all part of the ‘lefty lawyers’ narrative, as if lawyers are somehow political and have political influence when the reality is that in a free country everybody is entitled to proper representation in court.

Lawyers and Labour are not responsible for the current immigration issues.
 
Call me old fashioned but if there are loop holes that can be exploited would it be better to fix them first as opposed to threatening life imprisonment? ... What about the scores of accountants who routinely advise rich people how to not pay tax ... Should we threaten them with life imprisonment too ?
 
HolgateCorner said:
Yes but you are intelligent enough to assess the detail of what is being said.

How will the average Sun reader with racist tendencies absorb it?

I’m afraid it’s all part of the ‘lefty lawyers’ narrative, as if lawyers are somehow political and have political influence when the reality is that in a free country everybody is entitled to proper representation in court.

Lawyers and Labour are not responsible for the current immigration issues.
Click to expand...
Which is why Labour should hard agree and ask why the Tories are dragging their feet.

We're on here discussing it. The misinterpretation will be headline news tomorrow. Job done as far as Tory central is concerned.

m3t4tr0n said:
Call me old fashioned but if there are loop holes that can be exploited would it be better to fix them first as opposed to threatening life imprisonment? ... What about the scores of accountants who routinely advise rich people how to not pay tax ... Should we threaten them with life imprisonment too ?
Click to expand...
If it's fraudulent then it's not explioting a loop-hole. That's the same as tax-avoidance and tax-evasion.

What he's saying is that if a lawyer commits or advises his client to commit fraud then there will be a new law specifically created to deal with this that has it's own sentencing guidelines over and above any current sanctions.
 
Scrote said:
That's not what he said.

It was specifically aimed at people committing fraud, knowingly (as lawyers). Probably a good thing given the reputation they often have anyway.

Don't knowingly commit fraud and there's no issue.

As an anecdote, I was doing some IT in a solicitors office, in that there London, over 20 years ago and overheard a lawyer instructing his client, in English, that they were to claim they needed a translator in court. I accept it might be to make it easier all round but there was, even then, a whole lot of nudge, nudge; wink, wink in terms of playing the system.

I'm as left as this board gets and in and of itself I see nothing wrong with this (I know that it will suffer from scope-creep and be packaged up with a load of other bits that stink, but that's politics).

Ideally they'll apply the law to politicians who post fraudulent leaflets through doors like the one I got today from Jacob Young making dubious claims about free parking in Redcar.
Click to expand...

Got that one as well Scrote. He is a t0sser and can't wait to be rid of him. I know you don't want to vote for Anna Turley and I would like an option but there isnt one really if we want to get rid of this man.
 
Scrote said:
That's not what he said.

It was specifically aimed at people committing fraud, knowingly (as lawyers). Probably a good thing given the reputation they often have anyway.

Don't knowingly commit fraud and there's no issue.

As an anecdote, I was doing some IT in a solicitors office, in that there London, over 20 years ago and overheard a lawyer instructing his client, in English, that they were to claim they needed a translator in court. I accept it might be to make it easier all round but there was, even then, a whole lot of nudge, nudge; wink, wink in terms of playing the system.

I'm as left as this board gets and in and of itself I see nothing wrong with this (I know that it will suffer from scope-creep and be packaged up with a load of other bits that stink, but that's politics).

Ideally they'll apply the law to politicians who post fraudulent leaflets through doors like the one I got today from Jacob Young making dubious claims about free parking in Redcar.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense on a couple of levels.

If a lawyers client lies the lawyer is under an obligation to keep it to himself. The only time he can break privelige is of his client is about to commit a crime for which he is not being charged.

What is said between a lawyer and his client is priveliged and none of the judiciary business. He can coach all be wants. A prosecuter cannot.

It's an example of escalating culture wars and that alone should be enough to "see something wrong in this"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top