Page 4 of 5
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:58 pm
by Max B Gold
RedO wrote: ↑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?
Hehe
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:19 pm
by spen666
Max B Gold wrote: ↑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
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.
Collusion?
I was 295 miles away at the time. I spoke on telephone whilst inside Stamford Bridge watching Chelsea v Newcastle and this can be confirmed by Northumbria Police Football Intelligence Officers who saw me on phone during the game!
I merely advised on his options re surrendering and consequences if he did.
No collusion, merely proper and correct legal advice in accordance with my legal and professional duties
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:34 pm
by Thor
So your on the football intelligence unit watch list, the plot thickens.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:53 pm
by spen666
Thor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:34 pm
So your on the football intelligence unit watch list, the plot thickens.
I of course never said that.
I knew them in my professional capacity as we often had mutual clients and we all had a mutual love of Newcastle United. I would drink with them and socialise with them as I used to with other officers.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:59 pm
by Thor
It's a shame you never told them where your scumbag client was so he could be nicked good and proper!
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:23 pm
by Disoriented
Thor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:59 pm
It's a shame you never told them where your scumbag client was so he could be nicked good and proper!
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:34 pm
by Max B Gold
spen666 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:19 pm
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:45 pm
spen666 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:42 pm
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.
Collusion?
I was 295 miles away at the time. I spoke on telephone whilst inside Stamford Bridge watching Chelsea v Newcastle and this can be confirmed by Northumbria Police Football Intelligence Officers who saw me on phone during the game!
I merely advised on his options re surrendering and consequences if he did.
No collusion, merely proper and correct legal advice in accordance with my legal and professional duties
Nope sorry that won't wash. I'm still sensing client lawyer collusion to pervert the course of justice.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:35 pm
by spen666
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:34 pm
spen666 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:19 pm
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:45 pm
Mibees but my sense is that in this case there was collusion.
Collusion?
I was 295 miles away at the time. I spoke on telephone whilst inside Stamford Bridge watching Chelsea v Newcastle and this can be confirmed by Northumbria Police Football Intelligence Officers who saw me on phone during the game!
I merely advised on his options re surrendering and consequences if he did.
No collusion, merely proper and correct legal advice in accordance with my legal and professional duties
Nope sorry that won't wash. I'm still sensing client lawyer collusion to pervert the course of justice.
Shame, the police, CPS and court all disagree with you
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:38 pm
by spen666
Thor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:59 pm
It's a shame you never told them where your scumbag client was so he could be nicked good and proper!
Two good reasons....firstly, I had no idea where he was
Secondly I would be struck off as a solicitor for breaching my legal and professional duties if I grassed him up.
I cant reveal information given in confidence by my client.
The solicitor client duty of confidence is wider than that of a priest and congregational member and wider than a doctor patient duty of confidentiality
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:40 pm
by Max B Gold
spen666 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:35 pm
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:34 pm
spen666 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:19 pm
Collusion?
I was 295 miles away at the time. I spoke on telephone whilst inside Stamford Bridge watching Chelsea v Newcastle and this can be confirmed by Northumbria Police Football Intelligence Officers who saw me on phone during the game!
I merely advised on his options re surrendering and consequences if he did.
No collusion, merely proper and correct legal advice in accordance with my legal and professional duties
Nope sorry that won't wash. I'm still sensing client lawyer collusion to pervert the course of justice.
Shame, the police, CPS and court all disagree with you
I doubt you even told them about the phone call where you colluded with your client to evade justice that's the only way they could possibly disagree with me.
You kept them in the dark and lied by ommission. It's an old lawyers trick they seem to have picked up from the criminal fraternity they love so much.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:41 pm
by spen666
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:40 pm
spen666 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:35 pm
Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:34 pm
Nope sorry that won't wash. I'm still sensing client lawyer collusion to pervert the course of justice.
Shame, the police, CPS and court all disagree with you
I doubt you even told them about the phone call where you colluded with your client to evade justice that's the only way they could possibly disagree with me.
You kept them in the dark and lied by ommission. It's an old lawyers trick they seem to have picked up from the criminal fraternity they love so much.
Shows how little you know.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:46 pm
by Max B Gold
The issue isnt how little i know. The issue is how little the authorities knew because you withheld information from them to cover up your collusion with some pissed up client.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:47 pm
by Thor
The White House has asked for an urgent meeting with the parents of Harry Dunn. Let’s hope Trump hands her over to face the courts in the UK.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:18 pm
by Disoriented
Thor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:47 pm
The White House has asked for an urgent meeting with the parents of Harry Dunn. Let’s hope Trump hands her over to face the courts in the UK.
Fat chance. The scumbag is America first remember.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:25 pm
by Thor
I can see him handing her over as a “token gesture” to Boris.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:44 pm
by Disoriented
Thor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:25 pm
I can see him handing her over as a “token gesture” to Boris.
Hopefully not in the same ‘token gesture’ way between Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:16 am
by Howling Mad Murdock
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-49592362
A similar case where we won't hand over to India because they have no chance of parole if convicted,methinks.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:24 am
by Thor
Disoriented wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:44 pm
Thor wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:25 pm
I can see him handing her over as a “token gesture” to Boris.
Hopefully not in the same ‘token gesture’ way between Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew.
Yep cover up central going on right before our eyes.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:32 am
by Thor
That is so sad and fills me with anger that someone could do such a thing to a young boy (or girl even). They do need to face justice.
I do believe that the USA is changing their sentence of life without parole however, for the most heinous crimes like this one, I’d far rather they never see the light of day again. Human rights or not.
What this case does highlight is the disparity in human rights across the globe.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:51 am
by Thor
It's being reported that the UK Police have now interviewed Anne in the USA, no further details have been released just now.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:09 pm
by tuffers#1
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1087429/
Trump to be sued for cover up .
Maybe the wheels are being greased.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:14 pm
by Mikero
"Ask your MP or the Law Commission why they wont close this perverse incentive."
I would have thought the answer to that is simple, MPs and Lawyers drink drive on a regular basis, Turkeys/Xmas.
Mikero
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:21 pm
by Disoriented
Can’t we do some sort of trade? The Yanks could give us this Sacoolas character and we could give them back Ruby Wax.
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 5:56 pm
by ContrifibulatoryFred
Her maiden name was Umpty
Re: Anne Sacoolas
Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:24 pm
by Disoriented
Now driving as if nothing has happened. Great to see that we have such morally strong figures like Dominic Raab fighting the cause of British citizens whose son was killed unlawfully.
One nation Tories - as long as you are Trumpist first and foremost.
