Mason Greenwood

[pushpinpussy]

if he's charged with all the allegations we have heard about then its obviously Crown Court. (rape is indictable only) if he runs a trial and loses I think he's looking at over 10 years inside depending on the circumstances.

[ClaretDiver]

Thanks for the input pushpin!

[Lowbankclaret]

Release under investigation ?

Knew it would be obvious!!

[Goddy]

I think it's perfectly OK to think someone is a rapist based on evidence even if that evidence isn't enough to send them to prison.

HI Peter - I agree with you.....and the key aspect that you mention is that it is 'based on evidence'. What concerns me is that there may be cases - and I'm not saying this or even the Goodwillie one mentioned on another thread are such cases - where a false allegation is made.

Again, I repeat, I'm no apologist for anyone who has inflicted such a horrific act on a woman (or on anyone else, for that matter) but I do worry that the 'court of public opinion' and social media may 'convict' individuals without seeing whatever evidence exists. How would you feel if you were alleged to have done something and were convicted by society/social media/the press, when you were actually innocent?

I also have read Tsar Bomba's posts and feel for him having to do a job I'd hate to do and arrest people for things such as alleged domestic abuse. I suspect, though, even he's had to arrest people who he's thought 'I'm really uncomfortable with this. From what I can see I don't think this person's committed a crime'.

[TsarBomba]

HI Peter - I agree with you.....and the key aspect that you mention is that it is 'based on evidence'. What concerns me is that there may be cases - and I'm not saying this or even the Goodwillie one mentioned on another thread are such cases - where a false allegation is made.

Again, I repeat, I'm no apologist for anyone who has inflicted such a horrific act on a woman (or on anyone else, for that matter) but I do worry that the 'court of public opinion' and social media may 'convict' individuals without seeing whatever evidence exists. How would you feel if you were alleged to have done something and were convicted by society/social media/the press, when you were actually innocent?

I also have read Tsar Bomba's posts and feel for him having to do a job I'd hate to do and arrest people for things such as alleged domestic abuse. I suspect, though, even he's had to arrest people who he's thought 'I'm really uncomfortable with this. From what I can see I don't think this person's committed a crime'.

It can be difficult, Goddy.

Ultimately, as a Police Officer, I’m impartial. My opinion doesn’t, or shouldn’t, come into it.

If I have reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed an offence, or if a crime has been committed, then I am duty bound to investigate.

I have discretion, but this boils down to the gravity of the offence. I try and apply common sense. There’s a difference between decent people who have made a mistake, and career criminals that deserve getting the book thrown at them. We all make mistakes.

One of the most difficult decisions I had to come to was 3/4 years ago at a domestic. It was a regular address. The male was a bully and he was regularly arrested for assault on his female partner. Sentencing was always weak at court, if it ever got that far.

One day we were called there because a passerby had seen a fight outside the address, and the female was seen to have allegedly stab the male.

We all turned up, and the female answered the door. She was covered in blood and admitted to stabbing him. We all knew that she had been pushed to the brink after years of abuse.

I had to arrest her for GBH. I didn’t like it one bit, but I also know that when you arrest someone, it is purely to get that persons account in interview under caution.

From what I remember, she admitted self defence, and wasn’t charged.

[Darnhill Claret]

Several anomalies on this thread. Despite inferences as to who is a qualified counsellor, you cannot be employed as a volunteer counsellor. This is a strictly regulated business these days. A Volunteer in Victim Support, possibly, I don’t have that specific knowledge. A Counsellor does not advise, despite Jakubclaret stating several times that he did advise. It’s a long process to go through, just to pad out a CV. I am guessing that he may have completed a 10 week introductory counselling course, Level 1, which is a self reflection process and a ‘taster’ of the counselling process. This would be followed by a six month Level 2 qualification. Then to become a trained counsellor a two year Diploma Course, followed by undergoing your own personal counsellor therapy sessions. This is then followed by some more jumping through hoops before some unpaid sessions that are monitored by your ‘mentor counsellors’ before you are able to consider yourself a qualified counsellor. All the time being trained and monitored, not to advise.

[Jakubclaret]

Several anomalies on this thread. Despite inferences as to who is a qualified counsellor, you cannot be employed as a volunteer counsellor. This is a strictly regulated business these days. A Volunteer in Victim Support, possibly, I don’t have that specific knowledge. A Counsellor does not advise, despite Jakubclaret stating several times that he did advise. It’s a long process to go through, just to pad out a CV. I am guessing that he may have completed a 10 week introductory counselling course, which is a self reflection process and a ‘taster’ of the counselling process. This would be followed by a six month Level 2 qualification. Then to become a trained counsellor a two year Diploma Course, followed by undergoing your own personal counsellor therapy sessions. This is then followed by some more jumping through hoops before some unpaid sessions that are monitored by your ‘mentor counsellors’ before you are able to consider yourself a qualified counsellor. All the time being trained and monitored, not to advise.

I’m going back over 20 years ago things might be like that now let me reassure back then it was completely different.

[Darnhill Claret]

I’m going back to 1995.

[Darnhill Claret]

27 years.

[Darnhill Claret]

My mentors at Accrington and Rossendale College stated that Counselling is not about advising but helping clients to find their own solutions. So that would make it 27 years and counting.

[Jakubclaret]

I honestly can’t remember the exact date it’ll be somewhere stored away in documents, quite frankly i don’t give a sh1t if you believe me or you don’t I know I was a counsellor & a damn good 1 at that, it matters very little to me what you believe.

[Darnhill Claret]

No problem then. We are both ok about what we each know.

[Darnhill Claret]

Is that a damn good advisor or a damn good counsellor?

[Jakubclaret]

Is that a damn good advisor or a damn good counsellor?

Both, I enjoyed engaging with people & speaking to them if you go back to 1 of my posts you will see I did counselling on a voluntary basis & also in a paid professional capacity, I trust no more questions, good evening.

[Darnhill Claret]

No more questions. I did only ask the one question. Goodnight Jakub, sleep well.

[TheFamilyCat]

I honestly can’t remember the exact date it’ll be somewhere stored away in documents, quite frankly i don’t give a sh1t if you believe me or you don’t I know I was a counsellor & a damn good 1 at that, it matters very little to me what you believe.

The dates will be on your CV. Should be easy enough to find

[Swizzlestick]

Never wished anybody to be a fantasist as much as I do now because, quite frankly, I would be appalled if you were ever entrusted to care for a vulnerable person.

[claretonthecoast1882]

The dates will be on your CV. Should be easy enough to find

28+ years ago has just gone massive odds on

[taio]

Self-counselling

[Devils_Advocate]

Self-counselling

[Chobulous]

I did an introductory counselling course back in 2001 that was trade union financed. Right from the word go we were told, in no uncertain terms, that passing an opinion or providing advice to clients was a complete no no. The counselling process is all about getting the client to find solutions for themselves. It’s the same with coaching, (not sports coaching), helping a person to find ways to make improvements or reach a certain objective.
Just reading the tone of Jakub’s posts, both on this thread and on others, I find it difficult to believe he has been, in the past, someone who could adopt that mindset in a professional way.

[Goddy]

Just going back to Tsar Bomba's last post - I feel for you having to deal with all that stuff. It's also a good example of how things need to be investigated before taking sides, so to speak. The example you talked of could easily have had 'mad woman stabs partner in murder attempt' published by the media and we (the general public) might just make our own theories up and be very unsympathetic to that woman. It's only knowing more detail and evidence that it turns out the sympathy we should be showing is towards the woman in question.

As for the counsellor debate currently raging - shish. I had 3 sessions with a counsellor a few years ago. For me it seemed a very transactional experience...a bit like that Monty Python 'argument sketch' (see 1:56 in particular here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ). Before anyone gets upset, I'm just saying it's my experience which wasn't great and I'm sure there's lots of people who benefit greatly from it.......

[bobinho]

Anyway, the lads out for now. Can only imagine the conversations that are taking place between people who have an interest in this.

Every chance this won’t make it to court after these conversations.

If it does actually get to court, be lucky to find anyone to sit on the jury who hasn’t seen and heard the fotos and recording of the event. I have and believe me it’s harrowing and upsetting and I have formed an opinion based on that. Suffice to say if it was my daughter involved, it probably wouldn’t be getting to trial.

[pushpinpussy]

It makes me laugh when in police interview (and ive done thousands) the officer states they are independent investigators and they will investigate anything my client is willing to say. Rarely, and i mean rarely, have the police ever investigated any account my clients give. all they are looking for is for them to incriminate themselves. They are not independent at all. The CPS are the Police forces lawyers. How is that independent.

[bobinho]

Why do they need to be independent? You aren’t. I couldn’t care less what tricks or mind games they employ in order to get the right people prosecuted and jailed. I don’t mean fitting someone up, I mean making sure the right person is charged.

Generally speaking, the police want to catch the bad guys, and they want to put them away. They see evidence and put it all together to form a case.

Solicitors want to win the case increasing their own profile and their coffers. They aren’t interested in justice, or fairness, or making sure the right person goes to jail and that’s probably why they are poorly regarded in society. They KNOW whether their client is guilty, but they don’t care. They will knowingly get off a guilty client. I get that people have the right to a fair trial, that’s absolutely right, but there’s something inherently wrong when someone knowingly does what they can to get the guilty off.

[Spiral]

I despair at some of the tosh I read on this board. You think there's a solicitor in the world who actually enjoys defending alleged rapists? They aren't advocating for a friend, their job is to uphold a standard of justice. They're there to ensure the process is sound. They're there so you don't get a bogus murder charge slapped on you by a corrupt police/prosecutor when you're in the clink for nothing more than, I don't know, super-gluing yourself to a road in protest of some thing or other. A solicitor defending their client has a duty primarily to the process of law. It might look to an ignoramus like they're defending the accused out of a sense of obligation or fealty to the accused, but in reality they're doing so only in the capacity of a cog in a sober justice system. And some of those accused are actually innocent. You'll be thankful for these solicitors who "want to win the case increasing their own profile and their coffers" if an accusation made against you which you know to be false is ever brought to trial. If a prosecutor cannot succeed in getting a conviction against a monster like the one named in this thread's title when the evidence seems so harrowingly clear, then the party most to shoulder the blame for justice not being done is the prosecution. A sharp defence lawyer keeps the prosecutor alert. It makes for a better justice system producing better results. To think that the vocation of public defence consists solely of grift, pure self-advancement at the expense of justice being done, is beyond ignorant, and I could, to say it again, despair at what I read on here at times. I'm genuinely amazed that some of the people who post on here are able to tie their own shoes.

[Stanbill05]

Absolutely right. The guilty must be convicted properly. Upholding standards cannot be reserved for the innocent. Still must be **** successfully defending somebody you think is guilty. For some crimes more than others...

[pushpinpussy]

Why do they need to be independent? You aren’t. I couldn’t care less what tricks or mind games they employ in order to get the right people prosecuted and jailed. I don’t mean fitting someone up, I mean making sure the right person is charged.

Generally speaking, the police want to catch the bad guys, and they want to put them away. They see evidence and put it all together to form a case.

Solicitors want to win the case increasing their own profile and their coffers. They aren’t interested in justice, or fairness, or making sure the right person goes to jail and that’s probably why they are poorly regarded in society. They KNOW whether their client is guilty, but they don’t care. They will knowingly get off a guilty client. I get that people have the right to a fair trial, that’s absolutely right, but there’s something inherently wrong when someone knowingly does what they can to get the guilty off.

Ive read some utter drivel on this board, but this is the biggest pile ever. I wasn't going to rise to it. Thank god someone like spiral understands the system. The police claim to be independent investigators. THEY say that. We all know they are not. And I can 100 percent maintain that I and my colleagues have never defended anyone who tell us they are guilty then runs a defence. Never and I never will. They might want to put the Crown to proof which is totally different as the defendant then doesn’t give evidence and that’s his right set out in law.
Nearly every day we have the Crown discontinuing prosecutions against our clients due to the fact they have no realistic prospect of conviction. On a daily basis we have people arrested at the police station and released no further action due to malicious and false allegations.
To say we are not interested in justice is in fact outrageous and shows how small minded you are. We are officers of the court, and we want justice. Both for our client and the victims. We follow the instructions what we are given from our client. Do you think we are foolish enough to change those instructions or tell them to say different things, because believe me if anything goes wrong they would be the first in the queue to tell the court we told them to lie. You’ve been watching too much TV.
Finally, if you or your family or are ever unfortunate enough to be arrested, please go and defend yourself. I can guarantee you will be on the phone to a lawyer within 5 minutes scared stiff at the task facing you. Trust me I see it every day. It’s a scary situation to be in (especially if it’s a malicious allegation) and to scandalously insult my peers is beyond belief.

[lakedistrictclaret]

Until I retired I was a solicitor appearing daily in the Magistrates' courts for thirty eight years, for both prosecution and defence.
I fully endorse what Spiral and pushpinpussy have said above.

[fatboy47]

Why do they need to be independent? You aren’t. I couldn’t care less what tricks or mind games they employ in order to get the right people prosecuted and jailed. I don’t mean fitting someone up, I mean making sure the right person is charged.

Generally speaking, the police want to catch the bad guys, and they want to put them away. They see evidence and put it all together to form a case.

Solicitors want to win the case increasing their own profile and their coffers. They aren’t interested in justice, or fairness, or making sure the right person goes to jail and that’s probably why they are poorly regarded in society. They KNOW whether their client is guilty, but they don’t care. They will knowingly get off a guilty client. I get that people have the right to a fair trial, that’s absolutely right, but there’s something inherently wrong when someone knowingly does what they can to get the guilty off.

Those TV dramas you've clearly been watching too many of....they're not real life.. Honestly.

[Goddy]

Two points from me;

1. Knowing someone who had a false accusation made against them, I know how relieved they were that the system 'worked'. Some serious damage still done to that person....hasn't got over it....and is in quite a bad way but at least wasn't prosecuted (and actually not even arrested but still had to undergo full investigation). (That person wasn't me, by the way, in case you were wondering)

2. A good pal of mine is a criminal lawyer. I asked him many years ago, 'how can you defend people who you think have committed a serious (or any) crime?'. He responded by saying, 'everyone's entitled to a defence and, quite frankly, it's up to the prosecution to do their job. If they're any good and the evidence is there I (the defence lawyer) won't win'. Kind of reiterates/supports spiral (and others') points.

[Jakubclaret]

Why do they need to be independent? You aren’t. I couldn’t care less what tricks or mind games they employ in order to get the right people prosecuted and jailed. I don’t mean fitting someone up, I mean making sure the right person is charged.

Generally speaking, the police want to catch the bad guys, and they want to put them away. They see evidence and put it all together to form a case.

Solicitors want to win the case increasing their own profile and their coffers. They aren’t interested in justice, or fairness, or making sure the right person goes to jail and that’s probably why they are poorly regarded in society. They KNOW whether their client is guilty, but they don’t care. They will knowingly get off a guilty client. I get that people have the right to a fair trial, that’s absolutely right, but there’s something inherently wrong when someone knowingly does what they can to get the guilty off.

That’s true unfortunately, solicitors with a high win percentage can command a higher rate & will always be in demand, solicitors/lawyers will know themselves or have a pretty damn good idea of their clients guilt before agreeing to represent them & carry on ahead with it, you may get some that feel uneasy & refuse to do it but I’m not believing 100%, it’s a job & all in a days work, some will specialise in fighting hard battles against compelling evidence & triumph in a no guilty verdict, what some people are naively forgetting is that you couldn’t find a more keenly contested battleground than a courtroom if you tried, the rivalry between solicitors & lawyers in terms of pitching themselves against each other cannot be understated, it’s a very result orientated industry.

[Silkyskills1]

'it's a very result orientated industry'

Is there one that isn't in the 21st century?

[ŽižkovClaret]

NGL i'm surprised a thread on an ongoing legal case survives yet what i would see as reasonable political discussion gets nixed

[ŽižkovClaret]

'it's a very result orientated industry'

Is there one that isn't in the 21st century?

UK Government?

[Jakubclaret]

'it's a very result orientated industry'

Is there one that isn't in the 21st century?

Just dismissing some ludicrous notions, it’s 1 of them jobs somebody has to do & I’m not against the solicitors/lawyers representing the likes of Peter sutcliffe ect, because people need a trial & a fair hearing it’s the sentencing when guilts been established I’m opposed to I’d hand it over to the general public to decide.

[TheFamilyCat]

Oh FFS

[claretonthecoast1882]

I can picture jakubs wheel of guidance he spun while a counsellor.

All 9 sections with "she deserved it" written in

[Inchy]

I have spent easily as much time studying police documentary programmes as some flashy lawyer spent studying at University.


Essentially just say "no comment"

[ClaretDiver]

And the last number of posts on this thread is why this board is going rapidly downhill....

[Inchy]

And the last number of posts on this thread is why this board is going rapidly downhill....

No comment

[TsarBomba]

Ive read some utter drivel on this board, but this is the biggest pile ever. I wasn't going to rise to it. Thank god someone like spiral understands the system. The police claim to be independent investigators. THEY say that. We all know they are not. And I can 100 percent maintain that I and my colleagues have never defended anyone who tell us they are guilty then runs a defence. Never and I never will. They might want to put the Crown to proof which is totally different as the defendant then doesn’t give evidence and that’s his right set out in law.
Nearly every day we have the Crown discontinuing prosecutions against our clients due to the fact they have no realistic prospect of conviction. On a daily basis we have people arrested at the police station and released no further action due to malicious and false allegations.
To say we are not interested in justice is in fact outrageous and shows how small minded you are. We are officers of the court, and we want justice. Both for our client and the victims. We follow the instructions what we are given from our client. Do you think we are foolish enough to change those instructions or tell them to say different things, because believe me if anything goes wrong they would be the first in the queue to tell the court we told them to lie. You’ve been watching too much TV.
Finally, if you or your family or are ever unfortunate enough to be arrested, please go and defend yourself. I can guarantee you will be on the phone to a lawyer within 5 minutes scared stiff at the task facing you. Trust me I see it every day. It’s a scary situation to be in (especially if it’s a malicious allegation) and to scandalously insult my peers is beyond belief.

Just a few observations-

Police aren’t independent. I haven’t said that, and Police Officers don’t claim to be. We are Crown Servants. What I did say is that Police are impartial. So if a crime is alleged, we investigate without fear or favour.

And fwiw, I’ve met some superb defence lawyers over the years. The vast, vast majority I’ve got on well with, they just happen to be sat across the table from me. There’s no animosity whatsoever.

[PeterWilton]

Criminal defence lawyers deserve way more respect and admiration than they get. They choose to do a job that makes everyone think they're ****, in the service of our justice system, and without them there wouldn't be a "justice" system.

[pushpinpussy]

Just a few observations-

Police aren’t independent. I haven’t said that, and Police Officers don’t claim to be. We are Crown Servants. What I did say is that Police are impartial. So if a crime is alleged, we investigate without fear or favour.

And fwiw, I’ve met some superb defence lawyers over the years. The vast, vast majority I’ve got on well with, they just happen to be sat across the table from me. There’s no animosity whatsoever.

please check your post at Wed Feb 02, 2022 5:48 pm. in black and white

[TsarBomba]

please check your post at Wed Feb 02, 2022 5:48 pm. in black and white

Yes, I said I’m impartial.

There’s a difference between being independent and being impartial.

[Lowbankclaret]

No comment

I did Jury service 3 years ago and very unusually sat on 4 cases. Can I suggest in light of my experience, the No Comment will get you found guilty.

[Longsider]

Ive read some utter drivel on this board, but this is the biggest pile ever. I wasn't going to rise to it. Thank god someone like spiral understands the system. The police claim to be independent investigators. THEY say that. We all know they are not. And I can 100 percent maintain that I and my colleagues have never defended anyone who tell us they are guilty then runs a defence. Never and I never will. They might want to put the Crown to proof which is totally different as the defendant then doesn’t give evidence and that’s his right set out in law.
Nearly every day we have the Crown discontinuing prosecutions against our clients due to the fact they have no realistic prospect of conviction. On a daily basis we have people arrested at the police station and released no further action due to malicious and false allegations.
To say we are not interested in justice is in fact outrageous and shows how small minded you are. We are officers of the court, and we want justice. Both for our client and the victims. We follow the instructions what we are given from our client. Do you think we are foolish enough to change those instructions or tell them to say different things, because believe me if anything goes wrong they would be the first in the queue to tell the court we told them to lie. You’ve been watching too much TV.
Finally, if you or your family or are ever unfortunate enough to be arrested, please go and defend yourself. I can guarantee you will be on the phone to a lawyer within 5 minutes scared stiff at the task facing you. Trust me I see it every day. It’s a scary situation to be in (especially if it’s a malicious allegation) and to scandalously insult my peers is beyond belief.

My wife is retraining as a lawyer. She has just written a long essay on ethics with the title. "Can a good lawyer be a good person'.. She could have footnoted this post.

[Inchy]

My wife is retraining as a lawyer. She has just written a long essay on ethics with the title. "Can a good lawyer be a good person'.. She could have footnoted this post.

Funnily enough my wife is retraining as a psychologist. Her theist is “is suggesting someone is a good person or not based on what they post on a football message board a sign of a maniac?”

[Longsider]

Funnily enough my wife is retraining as a psychologist. Her theist is “is suggesting someone is a good person or not based on what they post on a football message board a sign of a maniac?”

I was merely trying to highlight the common conundrum of how does a lawyer defend the the socially abhorrent crimes. As PPP points out in his post a good lawyer can do this and should do this to ensure our legal system works.
BTW good luck to your wife in her studies.

[Jakubclaret]

Criminal defence lawyers deserve way more respect and admiration than they get. They choose to do a job that makes everyone think they're ****, in the service of our justice system, and without them there wouldn't be a "justice" system.

That’s definitely disingenuous without the criminals the criminal defence lawyers wouldn’t have a job surely they should receive some credit.