Barry George.

[SteveT]

DaveR wrote:The expert evidence at the first trial has now been discredited, but that's another story.

Did that not help to convict Barry George?

Do you not think that the police were scraping the barrel when the forensic evidence was so scant or non-existent.

Miscarriages of justice happen all the time, if you include the guilty who go free.

The untypical part is that justice has been done after nine years and that he was jailed for something that was beyond his capabilities, and the only people who could not see that were those immediately involved.

Any sensible person on hearing that the killer twisted Dando's arm until her head hit the ground, the gun held to her head and the bullit entered behind the ear.

How many people on the street would hold that concept?

The hallmarks of a professional hit, which was untypical of a Barry George character who couldn't keep his one room tidy.

I feel that the judiciary use archaic language to protect their industry.

The fact that when you buy a house you have to give the solicitor the money, which he can go bankrupt with whilst in his possession.

That you need a solicitor at all to sell any of ones own properties is an outrageously unnecessary expence, all they seem to do is hold up proceedings to some how, justify there position and costs.

Lawyers are responsible for the theft of the common land, and if they can make that legal there is nothing that I can think of that they can't do.

I have never come across a solicitor that I felt I could trust.

To use a famous legal term DaveR 'this is without prejudice':)

[DaveR]

"On the topic of the defense barrister, I believe that if they are informed of a client's guilt they are unequivocally obliged either to talk them into a guilty plea or resign. Can anyone confirm?"

Not exactly. A barrister can only act in accordance with the instructions of their client. If a client says "I did it but I want to plead not guilty", you can still act for them, but you can't put forward any positive case on their behalf. For example, if you have a witness who says he saw your client commit the offence, you can't suggest to them that they are lying or mistaken - the most you could do would be to say "are you sure?".

It doesn't often get to that point.

[DaveR]

"I feel that the judiciary use archaic language to protect their industry."

Sometimes you need specialist language to describe specialist things - I don't really know what a cylinder head gasket is, but that doesn't mean the language is wrong - you just need a specialist you can trust to explain it.

"The fact that when you buy a house you have to give the solicitor the money, which he can go bankrupt with whilst in his possession.

That you need a solicitor at all to sell any of ones own properties is an outrageously unnecessary expence, all they seem to do is hold up proceedings to some how, justify there position and costs."

There's no legal requirement to have a solicitor to buy or sell a house. And there are very strict rules about where solicitors put money that's not theirs; break them and you risk getting struck off.

"Lawyers are responsible for the theft of the common land, and if they can make that legal there is nothing that I can think of that they can't do. "

??

"I have never come across a solicitor that I felt I could trust."

Isn't that really your point, SteveT? There are plenty of dodgy lawyers around, no doubt about that, and maybe you've dealt with some. But it's a shame to condemn a whole profession and a whole justice system on that basis. Particularly when some lawyers (and judges) are currently doing as much as anyone to resist the authoritarian instincts of our present government.

[mockney piers]

top post DaveR

[lordship_bod]

whilst i cannot comment on the criminal justice system (having not practised in this area of law) I do feel i am able to comment on SteveT's comments regarding property solicitors. Having worked in a number of firms from high street practices to city firms I do agree the the level of service and costs do vary greatly.

While i can personally say that the level of service i have given my clients over the years has never been dependent on "where" i've practised i.e be it in saff london or the city everyone gets the same level of commitment and service I cannot vouch for all my colleagues. Also an unhappy reality of life is that you do get what you pay for, if you go for the cheapest quote chances are you'll end up with some bucket one-stop conveyancing shop and will have to deal with a call centre, if you go for a firm thats more expensive with any luck you should get a decent solicitor who will handle your conveyance all the way through. saying that though, i sympathise with anybody who's gone for a middle of the road quote but still gets crap service - this cannot be justified. Personally i use to work very long hours just to get done what i promised people i would get done, but that was my choice. i didnt get paid overtime to do it, or indeed any benefits. I suspect that there are still some good conveyancers out there that still do this.

On the point about why you need a solicitor to buy land here are the main reasons:

1. If you have a lender the lender will require confirmation that the title your buying is mortgagable - conveyancers/solicitors are the only people who can give this confirmation cos they know what they are looking for.

2. Undertakings - solicitors are the only(?) professional body that can give an undertaking. And you need a solicitor to give at least 2 during the course of a transaction. One to the other side's solicitor regarding the deposit and one to the the lender if you are redeeming a mortgage or receiving mortgage funds. Undertakings are not to be messed with - no solicitor gives one without knowing it can comply with it, mainly because if you cant you get struck off and its game over. Without undertakings the transaction cannot complete.

With regards to the bankruptcy point all law firms are required to have insurance and therefore if they go bankrupt (or indeed are negligent) any loss should be paid out by the insurance company. Having said that i do not know if there is a cap on the amount having never worked in a firm that has gone bankrupt (luckily).

I dont practise residential conveyancing anymore because i found it soul-destroying - i use to work all hours god sent for a relatively small fixed fee (note this is the fee charge by the firm) when i was in saff london just to keep the client happy and do all the work (granted my caseload was probably too big but turning work away is a luxury most solicitors are not allowed to have). even in the city when it was a big fixed fee i was still spending too much time on each file (in relation to the fee that was charged) cos i was doing a thorough job and trying to keep up with all my clients expectations at the same time.

cleary SteveT has had quite a few bad experiences with dodgy solicitors but i would say dont paint us all with the same brush. there are a few good ones still out there. And yes for my sins I am property solicitor (hangs head in shame).

Ok sorry for the digression, i just thought someone should stick up for property solicitors. Back to Barry George.

[SteveT]

When I change property I shall call you and give you the first opportunity Lordship_bod.

DaveR perhaps that is the point, if you only meet dodgy solicitors one tends to believe they are all the same.

I am quite willing to be swayed, when I eventually hire one who is honest and decent I will keep him/her for life.

To mention much more about Barry George would in my case be gilding the lily, I am glad he is a free man, I don't expect he will be a loner for much longer either, not when he gets that payout.:))

[Jimbob]

where did the whole twisting her by the arm,until her head was on the ground and then shoot her behind the ear business come from?

[SteveT]

Libertarian Alliance website given by Marmora Man at the top of page 2

Click on the blue writing and it will magically appear, thank you MM for that.

Thinking of changing your profession Jimbob(?)

[Jimbob]

unlike your sexed up post stevie baby, he probably twisted her arm ,he probably forced her to the ground. me thinks a bit of a conspiracy theory going on there. no mention anywhere of the fibre found on dandos coat which was similar to that of a pair of georges trousers mmmmmm. I,m done on this one now, and for the record, george is still my man, but hey hes been found not guilty and thats all that matters.

[Hagrid]

My best mate lived under Barry george off the Fulham road for 5 years. Barry played Queen all the time and had kitchen foil on his windows. Every few weeks we would have to go upstairs and tell him to shut up. Also he would pester the girls visiting our flat which we would also have to tell him was unacceptable.

But, when Jill Dando was shot I said to my mate I bet they pin this on George as he was Fulhams resident nutter and they did. This was a guy deeply disturbed, but also incapable of washing his own clothes, paying bills etc., he never did it ...

[SteveT]

My sentiments entirely Hagrid.

I wouldn't want him for a neighbour, but I could not see him as Dando's perfect murderer who performed the act without leaving any forensic trace.

I felt he was more an ineffectual, inadequate victim.

[Jimbob]

Hmmmm.....

[SteveT]

It seems as if the Dando family will never get closure on their daughter's demise, as the police wasted all those months er... years, "flogging a dead horse".