Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:49 am**

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:34 am So it is lawful to avoid the police if you are wanted? Does it make a difference if the police want to just question or want to arrest you?

Totally lawful

Do speeding motorists drive immediately to police station to confess, shoplifters? drunks? hooligans? people guilty of violence, stabbings, murders etc

You are under no duty to hand yourself into the police just because they want to question or arrest you

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:09 am**

not everyone is narrow minded and vindictive as you.I
It says a lot about you and your mentality that you wish unpleasantness on someone you do not know, have never met and who was only doing his job, lawfully I may add.

Maybe not, but I do have a conscience and nothing you can say will stop me despising you for your actions.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:19 am**

one o in huntingdon wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:09 am not everyone is narrow minded and vindictive as you.I
It says a lot about you and your mentality that you wish unpleasantness on someone you do not know, have never met and who was only doing his job, lawfully I may add.

Maybe not, but I do have a conscience and nothing you can say will stop me despising you for your actions.

You don't need to emphasise for the board your narrow mindedness.

Its says a lot about you that you wish unpleasantness and now despise someone you haven't met. And why? Because they did their job lawfully and correctly in accordance with their professional duties and requirements.

A lawyers role is to advise their client. I did exactly that. I advised him of the consequences of going to police today and of going in 6 days time. If I hadn't advised that I would have been negligent and someone like UpminsterO would have correctly reported me to the SRA for not upholding my professional responsibilities.

You getting yourself so worked up that you wish unpleasantness and despise someone you have never met is not rational behaviour

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:27 am**

spen666 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:19 am
one o in huntingdon wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:09 am not everyone is narrow minded and vindictive as you.I
It says a lot about you and your mentality that you wish unpleasantness on someone you do not know, have never met and who was only doing his job, lawfully I may add.

Maybe not, but I do have a conscience and nothing you can say will stop me despising you for your actions.

You don't need to emphasise for the board your narrow mindedness.

Its says a lot about you that you wish unpleasantness and now despise someone you haven't met. And why? Because they did their job lawfully and correctly in accordance with their professional duties and requirements.

A lawyers role is to advise their client. I did exactly that. I advised him of the consequences of going to police today and of going in 6 days time. If I hadn't advised that I would have been negligent and someone like UpminsterO would have correctly reported me to the SRA for not upholding my professional responsibilities.

You getting yourself so worked up that you wish unpleasantness and despise someone you have never met is not rational behaviour

Stick to your day job, if I want psychological advice I will consult the relevant professional person.
Appears to me that you are getting a tad excited yourself, lots of words, but nothing new to say
Keep on and you might make yourself believe it, bit of trouble looking oneself in the mirror perhaps?

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:27 am**

Yes spen you acted correctly we get what your saying, but you knew the person was tanked up on drugs, how can you defend your actions?

My accountant at our very first meeting said to me "be mindful of what you say to me as I have professional standards that I must keep, I am also obliged to inform the authorities (tax) of any evasion you may want to make or have made" now i respect him greatly, how is it he can grass me up if i do wrong, yet you can defend and advise someone to evade arrest so that the drugs in their system can be removed?

An accountant has to have high standards like a law person, has to have integrity and a moral compass, yet you are turning a blind eye to wrong doing? Its so wrong.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:42 am**

Thor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:27 am Yes spen you acted correctly we get what your saying, but you knew the person was tanked up on drugs, how can you defend your actions?

Erm.........because I acted correctly, lawfully and inaccordance with my legal duties.

I advised someone on the consequences of their next action. It is what I do for a living. He then chose what to do. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be able to make informed decisions?

My accountant at our very first meeting said to me "be mindful of what you say to me as I have professional standards that I must keep, I am also obliged to inform the authorities (tax) of any evasion you may want to make or have made" now i respect him greatly, how is it he can grass me up if i do wrong, yet you can defend and advise someone to evade arrest so that the drugs in their system can be removed?

{/quote] No, you clearly haven't read my previous posts. The client did not evade anything. Evasion is a crime and not something I could as a lawyer have any part of and could not, nor would not advise a client about. There is no legal duty to hand yourself into the police, so the client is not guilty of evasion.

I advised him how he can quite lawfully avoid providing police with evidence to convict himself of a more serious offence.

to turn it back to your accountant scenario, as I said previously it is a crime to evade tax, it is not a crime to avoid tax. There are millions of ways of lawfully avoiding tax - for example opening an ISA is avoiding tax. Buying a bike on the bike to work scheme, claiming travel expenses all are avoiding tax and are legal. Under declaring your income is evading tax and is illegal

An accountant has to have high standards like a law person, has to have integrity and a moral compass, yet you are turning a blind eye to wrong doing? Its so wrong.
I am also a chartered accountant BTW and am not turning my eye to wrong doing. Indeed, I arranged for my client to hand himself into the police when the client chose to do so and even took the client to the police station for a pre-arranged arrest.

You are conflating your morals with my legal duties and responsibilities. As a solicitor my duties to the law and to my client outweigh your or anyone else's moral views

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:50 am**

one o in huntingdon wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:27 am
spen666 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:19 am
one o in huntingdon wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:09 am not everyone is narrow minded and vindictive as you.I
It says a lot about you and your mentality that you wish unpleasantness on someone you do not know, have never met and who was only doing his job, lawfully I may add.

Maybe not, but I do have a conscience and nothing you can say will stop me despising you for your actions.

You don't need to emphasise for the board your narrow mindedness.

Its says a lot about you that you wish unpleasantness and now despise someone you haven't met. And why? Because they did their job lawfully and correctly in accordance with their professional duties and requirements.

A lawyers role is to advise their client. I did exactly that. I advised him of the consequences of going to police today and of going in 6 days time. If I hadn't advised that I would have been negligent and someone like UpminsterO would have correctly reported me to the SRA for not upholding my professional responsibilities.

You getting yourself so worked up that you wish unpleasantness and despise someone you have never met is not rational behaviour
Stick to your day job, if I want psychological advice I will consult the relevant professional person.
Appears to me that you are getting a tad excited yourself, lots of words, but nothing new to say
Keep on and you might make yourself believe it, bit of trouble looking oneself in the mirror perhaps?

You are inventing things now. I have not given psychological advice to you .

I have no trouble looking in the mirror and am proud of the advice I gave that client and to many others. I am proud to say I am prepared to lawfully represent my clients to the best of my ability irrespective of the outrage of others and put my legal and professional duties first.

As a solicitor I as I have said before am bound by the SRA principles which include

Part 1: SRA Principles
1: SRA Principles
These are mandatory Principles which apply to all.

You must:

...
not allow your independence to be compromised;
act in the best interests of each client;

I have no choice in following those. If I do not I will be struck off and no longer be a solicitor.

Those principles do not say act in the best interests of your client unless it will upset someone else. The principles are clear and firm and its why everyone in the country is entitled to be represented by a lawyer when accused of criminal offences.

The fact the law may have a glaring loophole is not my responsibility. I am legally required to exploit that loophole if it is in my client's best interests.

I act for my client not for the rest of society. It is not a moral decision or one based on a referendum, its one based on my legal and professional duty

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:05 pm**

You must be very dim if you cannot see what is being said here.
Yes we know you acted within the confines of the law, but doesn't prevent anyone thinking you are morally wrong

With regards to psychological advice, you appeared to have identified my personality in the matter of a few posts.
Just assumed you had some sort of qualification alongside the others you have repeatedly made us all aware of.

Thank you I have enjoyed this conversation, passed the time whilst I waited for the washing to finish
No doubt the first and last time I will ever receive any communication for free from the legal profession
Sleep well, know I wouldn't

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:10 pm**

one o in huntingdon wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:05 pm You must be very dim if you cannot see what is being said here.
Yes we know you acted within the confines of the law, but doesn't prevent anyone thinking you are a scumbag.

I wear it as a badge of pride if my representing my client causes people who have never met me before to judge me for doing my legal and professional duties

With regards to psychological advice, you appeared to have identified my personality in the matter of a few posts.
Just assumed you had some sort of qualification alongside the others you have repeatedly made us all aware of.

you still inventing things? I know nothing about you other than your strange behaviour in wishing unpleasantness and despising someone you do not know and haven't even met. ...

Thank you I have enjoyed this conversation, passed the time whilst I waited for the washing to finish
No doubt the first and last time I will ever receive any communication for free from the legal profession
Sleep well, know I wouldn't

Out of Curiosity, Are you by any chance based in Australia? Possibly Canberra?

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:19 pm**

I tried to go against my personality and change scumbag to morally wrong, oh well wear that badge for all its worth

Will stick with the dim bit though, clue to my whereabouts is in the username, doh!!
Don't think with that level of investigative nous I would ever employ your services.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:34 pm**

Well, he's got the aimless, pedantic debate he was after. But not before revealing the moral bankruptcy of advising drink-drivers to lie low for a while so that their blood alcohol level can't be proven.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:36 pm**

UpminsterO wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:31 pm There seems to be a spen battle (again)
Usernames usually indicate a persons location
Like spen is from up north and Huntingdon is in home county not overseas

Can only assume someone else dislikes him intensely down under.
Just caught me on a bad day, guessing from your wording that this isn't an uncommon event though?

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:46 pm**

Oh well I was bored, its raining, washing day and wanted a sit down because my backs aching a bit today.
Strange behaviour and will make sure I avoid him in future, can't be very busy if he can spend time writing long posts on here

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:47 pm**

[quote=UpminsterO post_id=52998 time=1571052671 user_id=734]
There seems to be a spen battle (again)
Usernames usually indicate a persons location
Like spen is from up north and Huntingdon is in home county not [quote]

Nothing to do with a battle, merely an enquiry

The first thing you learn as an investigator is
Accept Nothing
Believe No one
Challenge Everything

It's very easy to put a location in a user name that is not where you are from.

As poster was wishing me a good night at 12 noon, it is not unreasonable to enquire if they were in Australia where it was night time.

Add this to a former user name in that location posting about working in construction as this person had.

It is not unreasonable to ask

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:49 pm**

UpminsterO wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:39 pm Yes another pendantic debate by spen an articulate person by exam qualification only ( but tiresome and insentive to the common mans view and at times illogical to others - because of his defiance to agree to a different view point ) employed as a solicitor somewhere in the country and argued too with the guy from Canberra in the past and others

As long as people keep on biting, spen will keep on wumming.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:55 pm**

Anyway washing is done and time for me tucker, nice vegemite sandwich and a few cold ones
G'day mate

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:10 pm**

Sorry Spen the law is an ass then. How can it be right that you knowingly provide advice to a client that is tanked up, would make his arrest and or conviction worse and your telling him to lie low and wait it out.

Sorry that's disgraceful.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:31 pm**

So you are not there to prove his innocence, you are there to help him get away with it.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:03 pm**

Story of O wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:31 pm So you are not there to prove his innocence, you are there to help him get away with it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50044250

Surprised this guy didn't.Where's Mr Loophole when you need him?

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:27 pm**

Thor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:10 pm Sorry Spen the law is an ass then. How can it be right that you knowingly provide advice to a client that is tanked up, would make his arrest and or conviction worse and your telling him to lie low and wait it out.

Sorry that's disgraceful.

In the point you raise, the law is not an ass. It is in other respects.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty

As per Viscount Sankey's golden thread judgement I quoted, it is for the Prosecution to prove guilt.

Everyone has a right against self discrimination.

This applies irrespective of the moral view of an offence.

My client was simply exercising his right not to incriminate himself.

To resolve this issue, the solution is not to remove peoples rights, but the following would resolve it and I have proposed it to MPs and to the Law Commission who are in denial about the problem.

The client had already fled the scene of the accident. He had failed to stop and failed to report the crime. The maximum sentence for each of these is only 6 months imprisonment. The maximum sentence for death by dangerous whilst under the influence is I believe 14 years now.

If you made the maximum sentence for failing to stop or failing to report the same as the maximum penalty for death by dangerous whilst under the influence both in law and sentencing guidelines, then there would be no benefit in leaving scene of incident.

At present in event of serious crime or seriously drunk or drugged there is an incentive to leave scene and lie lie.

Ask your MP or the Law Commission why they wont close this perverse incentive.

Whilst it exists, I must by law and by my professional duties advise client of this situation and the benefit potentially in not handing himself in

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:29 pm**

Story of O wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:31 pm So you are not there to prove his innocence, you are there to help him get away with it.

I am definitely not there to prove innocence.

A suspect does not have to prove his innocence.

You are innocent until proven guilty. It is for the prosecution to prove guilty, not the other way round.

That fundamental thread that runs through British Justice as per Viscount Sankey

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:40 pm**

spen666 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:29 pm
Story of O wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:31 pm So you are not there to prove his innocence, you are there to help him get away with it.
I am definitely not there to prove innocence.

A suspect does not have to prove his innocence.

You are innocent until proven guilty. It is for the prosecution to prove guilty, not the other way round.

That fundamental thread that runs through British Justice as per Viscount Sankey

Isn't there some mumbo jumbo tucked away in the legislation about not perverting the course of justice. A lawyer with any integrity would have advised their client to turn themself in.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:42 pm**

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:40 pm
spen666 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:29 pm
Story of O wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:31 pm So you are not there to prove his innocence, you are there to help him get away with it.
I am definitely not there to prove innocence.

A suspect does not have to prove his innocence.

You are innocent until proven guilty. It is for the prosecution to prove guilty, not the other way round.

That fundamental thread that runs through British Justice as per Viscount Sankey
Isn't there some mumbo jumbo tucked away in the legislation about not perverting the course of justice. A lawyer with any integrity would have advised their client to turn themself in.

Advising someone of what the law is and what the consequences are cannot be perverting the course of justice unless you are seriously trying to argue it is illegal to know the law or to tell someone what the law is

Innocent until proven guilty remember

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:45 pm**

spen666 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:42 pm
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:40 pm
spen666 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:29 pm

I am definitely not there to prove innocence.

A suspect does not have to prove his innocence.

You are innocent until proven guilty. It is for the prosecution to prove guilty, not the other way round.

That fundamental thread that runs through British Justice as per Viscount Sankey
Isn't there some mumbo jumbo tucked away in the legislation about not perverting the course of justice. A lawyer with any integrity would have advised their client to turn themself in.
Advising someone of what the law is and what the consequences are cannot be perverting the course of justice unless you are seriously trying to argue it is illegal to know the law or to tell someone what the law is

Innocent until proven guilty remember

Mibees but my sense is that in this case there was collusion.

Posted: **Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:56 pm**

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:40 pm A lawyer with any integrity

A what?

Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas

Re: Anne Sacoolas