dutch Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 What about epileptic people in legal trouble because of what happened during a seizure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 Why do you think that is necessary? And how would you do that? Send for Judge Judy. Seriously, I think we need something like that kind of system for minor disputes. Just a suggestion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Well I'd make the law about justice and fairness for a start. Can you give some examples because I'm pretty sure you just thought anything through and that you just started a topic that would make you sound like you was in with the times because of the barristers protest. Can you give some examples instead of vague one liners ? How can you make it fairer and more about justice than the system we already ? ---------- Post added 09-01-2014 at 23:08 ---------- Send for Judge Judy. Seriously, I think we need something like that kind of system for minor disputes. Just a suggestion... So you would like to see a mockery of our legal system then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 Can you give some examples because I'm pretty sure you just thought anything through and that you just started a topic that would make you sound like you was in with the times because of the barristers protest. Can you give some examples instead of vague one liners ? How can you make it fairer and more about justice than the system we already ? ---------- Post added 09-01-2014 at 23:08 ---------- So you would like to see a mockery of our legal system then ? Can I respectfully suggest you read posts 22 - 39 of this thread to see how I arrived at this conclusion, then get back to me, and I'll happily discuss it. Point 2. After what I've learned I think many aspects of of our system in many respects is already a mockery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Send for Judge Judy. Seriously, I think we need something like that kind of system for minor disputes. Just a suggestion... For those in the profession, we already have two of those called Mort and Babbington. God help anyone crossing their paths in the world of Civil Disputes without being nothing but perfectly prepared. On a serious note though, TBH most small claims arbitration is just what JJ does without the cameras and "personality". Sit there listen to the bickering and petty whining until you can take no more and make a (99% of the time) simple common sense judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 For those in the profession, we already have two of those called Mort and Babbington. God help anyone crossing their paths in the world of Civil Disputes without being nothing but perfectly prepared. On a serious note though, TBH most small claims arbitration is just what JJ does without the cameras and "personality". Sit there listen to the bickering and petty whining until you can take no more and make a (99% of the time) simple common sense judgment. Glad to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Put simply; get a good (expensive) lawyer and you can get away with murder. Get a rubbish (cheap) one and you'll go down for stealing a loaf of bread so to speak. In other words justice can be bought, which is surely against the whole principle of the law. I'm not saying there's anything dodgy about it, but it's about skill rather than truth. Would you represent yourself in court if you were up against a top lawyer? Serious question. And you seem to know a lot more about it than I do. I don't know much as admitted, but I do know that there have been various attempts by those that are much better informed than I, to modernise the system, so they must also think it necessary, and every time they have been thwarted by legal eagles with vested interests. Do they just enjoy dressing up? I can't see any recommendations here about how you would like to see it overhauled which I find strange as you pose the question if we should or not. If you don't know how it needs overhauling then how do you know it needs a overhaul ? You say 'after what you have learned' but even this point escapes me other than you saying if you have a better lawyer you have a better chance at justice. Isn't that the same with everything ? If I go to a decent sandwich shop then I expect a better sandwich. All you seem to be saying is you get the representation that you can afford which is the same as everything in life, hence me going on the bus instead of being in a Subaru Impreza. Surely if you pose the question you should have an idea at least what is wrong and maybe a couple of examples of how it could be improved ? All I see in your post is that you don't know anything about it which is surprising seems as you started a topic on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 For those in the profession, we already have two of those called Mort and Babbington. God help anyone crossing their paths in the world of Civil Disputes without being nothing but perfectly prepared. On a serious note though, TBH most small claims arbitration is just what JJ does without the cameras and "personality". Sit there listen to the bickering and petty whining until you can take no more and make a (99% of the time) simple common sense judgment. Pressing my imaginary like button. .. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 I can't see any recommendations here about how you would like to see it overhauled which I find strange as you pose the question if we should or not. If you don't know how it needs overhauling then how do you know it needs a overhaul ? You say 'after what you have learned' but even this point escapes me other than you saying if you have a better lawyer you have a better chance at justice. Isn't that the same with everything ? If I go to a decent sandwich shop then I expect a better sandwich. All you seem to be saying is you get the representation that you can afford which is the same as everything in life, hence me going on the bus instead of being in a Subaru Impreza. Surely if you pose the question you should have an idea at least what is wrong and maybe a couple of examples of how it could be improved ? All I see in your post is that you don't know anything about it which is surprising seems as you started a topic on it. 'You get what you pay for' certainly seems to be the new mantra for our times, but can you not see how wrong that is in certain circumstances? You are advocating the automatic supremacy of the rich, yet wars have been fought and people have died trying to secure equal rights for the poor. We are in danger of forgetting that. Some things should be above being bought, the law being one of them. 'All men are equal under the law.' is enshrined in statute, but they clearly aren't, when justice goes to the highest bidder. We are not talking about sandwiches here. Once again you are displaying that you know the price of everything, but the value of nothing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 'You get what you pay for' certainly seems to be the new mantra for our times, but can you not see how wrong that is in certain circumstances? You are advocating the automatic supremacy of the rich, yet wars have been fought and people have died trying to secure equal rights for the poor. We are in danger of forgetting that. Some things should be above being bought, the law being one of them. 'All men are equal under the law.' is enshrined in statute, but they clearly aren't, when justice goes to the highest bidder. We are not talking about sandwiches here. Once again you are displaying that you know the price of everything, but the value of nothing... There is no other way to do it, the rich will always be in a better position to defend themselves, that's a fact of life. The legal aid system is the only way some people can defend themselves and that is why people should be against cuts in this. When we talk of law courts we generally mean the state against the citizen so its not even a case of the rich being in conflict with the poor on this. The Judge Judy example you give is just for TV, the people on it will be vetted, so your never going to get someone semi literate or with mental difficulties on it to defend themselves, that's the whole reason for having the system with have now so anyone can gain council from people that have studied how the law works. Unless someone comes up with a better way, which I doubt, then we should not even be having the conversation about changing it. ---------- Post added 10-01-2014 at 13:54 ---------- We are not talking about sandwiches here. Once again you are displaying that you know the price of everything, but the value of nothing... I was giving an example of having living within the resources you have, so ok then answer my question seems as you started the topic, how would you change things ? Lets not have a cop out reply, you started the topic so you must have an idea of what you would like to see changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.