shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Fiscal · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 111 Location: Edinburgh

Firstly, Angeline you are correct we do have the right in a democracy to question decisions. I applaud you for doing so.

Secondly, in reply to your comment of the law needing to be changed that is for you and your fellow voters to help be implemented when it comes to voting for your governing party.

Your comments of there being 2000 mistakes, remember that many cases are heard by Juries who are NOT legal professionals and i assure you that they are reponsible SOME of the time for these appeals. But that is another debate entirely.

Thirdly, Big Wullie do yourself a favour buy the book "Introduction to Law and Legal Obligations" printed by Dundee University Press it's a simple puiblication designed for BA (Legal Studies) Students and students undertaking any ILLO module - it's not for Lawyers or Professional Law students so it doesn't provide too much legal detail but enough to get a basic grasp of the Scottish Legal Profession.......so NO Mrs Angiolini is not the leader of my profession. My "Profession" is Solicitor (soon to be Advocate) and my "job" is a Procurator Fiscal Depute, the leaders of the "profession" are their noble lordships and ladyships as Senators of the College of Justice, the Principal being the Lord President & Lord Justice-General, Lord Hamilton......the leader of my "organisation" is The Lord Advocate and the Crown Agent.

_________________
Mr Fiscal

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 148

"Your comment of there being some 2000 mistakes, remember that many cases are heard by Juries who are NOT legal professionals and i assure you that they are responsible SOME of the time for these appeals."

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here, Fiscal. Seems a bit like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand, you argue for the legal system, as it currently stands, as the best, and allude to their "Noble Lordships and Ladyships" being of superior importance, and leaders of their fields etc, etc, and then take a swipe at juries who, by the very nature of the system for which you argue, are not supposed to be legal professionals.

In my understanding of the appeals system (again with the proviso that I am not legally educated), if the legal professionals have done their jobs properly in the first place, how can juries be responsible for appeals? I believe the wording regarding juries in appeal processes goes something like "a reasonable jury, properly directed...would not have returned this verdict."

You seem to hold "legal knowledge" and "legal education" above all other types of knowledge and understanding, to the point where you have no qualms about labelling other posters "idiots," or referring in patronising terms to "simple" publications which won't tax our (implied) lower intelligences.

I know nothing about car mechanics, but would not expect the guy fixing my alternator to brand me an idiot if I asked a question about what he was doing.

I have pointed out elsewhere the dangers for all of us of becoming ensnared in the "box" of our own interest group, to the point where we can't even see, far less tolerate, other possibilities. Yet there is much to be learned from each other.

The elitism, snobbery and superiority evident in our legal professions represent a form of prejudice at the very core of the system. Starting with the assumption that the masses are too stupid to understand what's really going on, and need to be guided and constrained by a small group with "superior intellect," it progresses to a self-congratulatory, self perpetuating, self protecting mechanism which can easily dismiss criticisms or even corruption within its ranks, simply because it has amassed the power to do so.
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

Fiscal · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 111 Location: Edinburgh

I refer to idiots as people who show no sign of any concept of knowledge whatsoever - there is a difference between one's education and one' reading of the Daily Star, Record or other tabloid nonsense.

Lawyers are of high intellect - I do not suggest for a second people without law degree's are of lower intelligence. But like a Doctor I would expcect him/her to know more about the system of medicine than I do, and expect that people respect I know more of the law than people not in receipt of an LLB and Diploma in Legal Practice. I worked hard the short time ago to receive my Higher Results and haven't stopped working at that fast and stressful pace since - so in short I am proud of my achievements as much as everyone else is proud of theirs, I do not appologise for my high level of education.
_________________
Mr Fiscal

W.Roughead · Joined: 25 Oct 2008 Posts: 120 Location: Scotland.

Angeline, you make severa points, most of which I do not need to address.

I have no earthly idea what you or anyone else on this forum do for a living. You may be a Professional or not.

I do know that if you have a knowledge about your chosen job/career/skill/profession, then I would expect you to know an awful lot more about that job than I who may never have studied it.

I think my point is perfectly clear.

Incidentally, what we were discussing was the error the judge made. The topic title was not justice or injustice in general, as you pointed out.

Whilst we may all be part of the EU. I live in Scotland and the cases which concern me are the cases in Scotland. There are any number of websites discussing cases outside of Scotland, which I am sure everyone is aware of.
_________________
“Send not to know for whom the bell tolls – it tolls for thee.” John Donne.

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 148

Sorry WR, I seem to be having a senior moment, as I'm not actually sure what your point is.

None of us knows what any of the others do for a living, apart from fiscal, who has told us, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Your next point about having knowledge on a chosen subject is also fairly obvious.

The only thing I can take from your point is that you are suggesting that perhaps I should be deferring to the greater knowledge of others?

I'm not trying to be awkward, sincerely, I simply am at a bit of a loss to understand exactly what you are saying here.

I did apologise for going off topic in my last post - jumping from thread to thread somtimes means one subject inadvertently intrudes on another.
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

Fiscal · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 111 Location: Edinburgh

I think the point is stop passing of your opininated, unfounded and speculative rubbish (to name but a few) and listen to professionals who know what they are talking about. You say you're open to learn from other people...you certainly come accross as a closed book in that respect.

I beg your pardon if I'm wrong, perhaps WR could confirm?
_________________
Mr Fiscal

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 148

An interesting summary of my posts, fiscal. I offer my thoughts, observations and understandings on the basis that they do, indeed, differ from those by some other posters, and I am always interested in such differences of perspective.

I think you'll find that much of what I post is not, in fact, unfounded or speculative - I have been gathering data for more than 6 years now which back up much of what I post, and am closely involved with several "live" cases.

I do, indeed, listen to professionals who know what they are talking about - I could not do what I do if that were not the case. However, the same is true in reverse - the many professionals with whom I work also listen to me.

Now, it seems, I am a glass half full closed book, but that really shouldn't matter - in debating issues, personalities don't count!
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

W.Roughead · Joined: 25 Oct 2008 Posts: 120 Location: Scotland.

Angeline
I would have thought to an educated observer or poster, my point would be clear.

I think Fiscal has replied very adequately when interpreting my meaning.

Yes, we all have opinions. Some informed, balanced and very well researched ones at that.

I am surprised at your ‘senior moment.’ There are those who listen and there are those who are listened to.

Good luck in your chosen field. I am sure you do an admirable job, though I confess to not knowing what it is, or how much of an expert you are. This has never been obvious from any of your posts to date. I do not need to know of course, as we are all entitled to a degree of anonymity.

Apologies for the late reply as I did not notice your post until now.
_________________
“Send not to know for whom the bell tolls – it tolls for thee.” John Donne.

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 148

Thank you for clearing that up for me, WR.

Now, can we please get back to debating the issues, rather than using insults and derogatory remarks in an attempt to win the day?

The truth is, none of us knows anything about the others in reality - anyone can claim to have an LLB or anything else, but that doesn't make it true. It's time-wasting and wearisome to be squabbling about qualifications and "professions," when none of it can be proven anyway.

Let's debate the facts, thoughts, observations and opinions, and leave the personal stuff out of it.
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

Fiscal · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 111 Location: Edinburgh

I agree with you but when people make incorrect statements about the law....I feel a burning desire to correct it.

_________________
Mr Fiscal