https://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
https://uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67254
Or we could all help society by living by the spirit the law intended, instead of constantly finding loopholes?pushpinpussy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 7:05 amIve had this argument on this board previously. I will challenge every aspect of a drug or drink drive matter or in this instance driving whilst disqualified.
I could list 15-20 things I would challenge but I will not put them on a public forum.
Does he have a defence? What I would start by doing in this matter is put the burden on the Crown by saying he was not driving on a public road. (if these are my instructions btw). The Crown then need to prove their case.
The law distinguishes a road as being ‘any highway and any other road that is accessible to the public’
So the question that needs to be answered is “do the public have access to it” , it is a confusing law as the same road or place could be deemed ‘private’ or ‘public’ subject on the people using it or the time of day it is in use
There is a lot of new case law on this matter (thank God for Wilkinson’s 30th Edition)
Hope that helps but my advice is challenge, challenge, challenge.
Whilst I agree with the sentiments there are instances for example the day after when you think you are and feelVenkys4eva wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 8:30 amAnyone caught drink/drug driving should face an automatic 10 year ban.
About 40 years ago I used to kip in my car in Skipton (Saturday night Rock Do's at "The Yorkshireman") my mate who had a studio flat used to take my keys so I hadn't got keys with me... I was woken on consecutive Saturdays (for around 5 weeks) by the police and searched for my keys ... each time I could prove I didn't have the keys ... eventually they left me alone. The fact I was in a sleeping bag must have told them something
Billy no mates!Bosscat wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:36 pmAbout 40 years ago I used to kip in my car in Skipton (Saturday night Rock Do's at "The Yorkshireman") my mate who had a studio flat used to take my keys so I hadn't got keys with me... I was woken on consecutive Saturdays (for around 5 weeks) by the police and searched for my keys ... each time I could prove I didn't have the keys ... eventually they left me alone. The fact I was in a sleeping bag must have told them something
Awayfromburnley wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 7:52 amOr we could all help society by living by the spirit the law intended, instead of constantly finding loopholes?
Just maybe.....
You appear to be talking about being drunk whilst in charge of a motor vehicle. These are the easiest cases to win. The Crown need to prove, not only that you were in fact “in charge” of the vehicle (with the definition of this not being as straight forward as you may think) but also that you were over the limit. Proving both elements of this offence can be a difficult task.
pushpinpussy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:41 pmIve had this discussion a thousand times. Law and morals don't mix. You remind me of certain people who criticise us and what we do, but when an issue arises you are on the phone in a matter of seconds. Ill keep your license. I will save your marriage. I will save your job.
I remember those days Bosscat. Did you do the Town Hall dances as well, they’d be before the Yorkshireman opened I think. Afterwards we used to go down to the Tomato Dip on Keighley Road ( remember that?)Bosscat wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:36 pmAbout 40 years ago I used to kip in my car in Skipton (Saturday night Rock Do's at "The Yorkshireman") my mate who had a studio flat used to take my keys so I hadn't got keys with me... I was woken on consecutive Saturdays (for around 5 weeks) by the police and searched for my keys ... each time I could prove I didn't have the keys ... eventually they left me alone. The fact I was in a sleeping bag must have told them something
Ill take Superman. Thank youAwayfromburnley wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:50 pmNah, I just wouldn't drive if banned. It's really that simple.
I take absolute accountability and responsibility for my actions
If for a bizarre reason I did, I'd accept the punishment.
I can't work out if you're superman /superwoman, or a half qualified solicitor with the ego of superman /superwoman.
We were at the Yorkshireman that night "The Satan Slaves" lot came to get some retribution for something from someone ... watched most of it from under a table (safest place to be
) The fact that you use the term "win" suggests to me that you see it as a bit of a game.pushpinpussy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:47 pmYou appear to be talking about being drunk whilst in charge of a motor vehicle. These are the easiest cases to win. The Crown need to prove, not only that you were in fact “in charge” of the vehicle (with the definition of this not being as straight forward as you may think) but also that you were over the limit. Proving both elements of this offence can be a difficult task.
Credit when credit is due. This is probably PPP’s most impressive post to datepushpinpussy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 7:05 amIve had this argument on this board previously. I will challenge every aspect of a drug or drink drive matter or in this instance driving whilst disqualified.
I could list 15-20 things I would challenge but I will not put them on a public forum.
Does he have a defence? What I would start by doing in this matter is put the burden on the Crown by saying he was not driving on a public road. (if these are my instructions btw). The Crown then need to prove their case.
The law distinguishes a road as being ‘any highway and any other road that is accessible to the public’
So the question that needs to be answered is “do the public have access to it” , it is a confusing law as the same road or place could be deemed ‘private’ or ‘public’ subject on the people using it or the time of day it is in use
There is a lot of new case law on this matter (thank God for Wilkinson’s 30th Edition)
Hope that helps but my advice is challenge, challenge, challenge.
My thoughts exactlyboatshed bill wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 5:22 pmThe fact that you use the term "win" suggests to me that you see it as a bit of a game.
Surely, if you are a lawyer your first duty is to see that justice is upheld, not trying to find loopholes for criminals.
Your thoughts exactly but you would effectively be making yourself redundant albeit with an admirable moral stance in doing that. It's just a money making exercise from start to finish our judicial system with money being more important than justice.
I’ve not that name since my school days - one of the “mosher” type lads always reckoned he was “well in with Satans Slaves”. Right bell end he was!Bosscat wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 5:19 pmWe were at the Yorkshireman that night "The Satan Slaves" lot came to get some retribution for something from someone ... watched most of it from under a table (safest place to be)
The Town hall ones were possibly before my time going out in Skipton (late 70's early 80's) and the Tomato dip had become a club in the evenings by then ...
He is currently banned. That could be increased, although he has numerous priors, it seems. Probably nothing, as you suggest!
Anyone who reckoned "they were well in with the Slaves" most likely wasn't ... I used to know a couple of chaps in Bradford and Shipley who were and you would not mess with them
...Nope, you have been around weasels and criminals too long. Most people are decent and law abiding and would take their medicine if they happen to screw up. Ironically, my missus would be more likely to leave, if some slimy solicitor got my off something I'd done on a technicality.pushpinpussy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:41 pmIve had this discussion a thousand times. Law and morals don't mix. You remind me of certain people who criticise us and what we do, but when an issue arises you are on the phone in a matter of seconds. Ill keep your license. I will save your marriage. I will save your job.
Of course that goes without saying. I have never and never will mislead a court.boatshed bill wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 5:22 pmThe fact that you use the term "win" suggests to me that you see it as a bit of a game.
Surely, if you are a lawyer your first duty is to see that justice is upheld, not trying to find loopholes for criminals.
I (regrettably) saw the Bay City Rollers in Skipton Town Hall when I lived down there, also frequented the Yorkshireman and t’Dip
Most people are decent & law abiding but people are human & make mistakes, you get people with no criminal convictions previously doing things wrong & not thinking straight & then trying to cover their tracks it happens even more when people have intact reputations they are even more desperate to protect. I don't agree with pushpinpussys methods but i also understand the guys got to earn his crust & doing everything by the book & being squeaky clean simply does not pay the bills, I think some people are naively thinking that defence solicitors are some sort of samaritans on a crusade mission, they are just as bent as the crooks their are defending.Stanbill05 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 7:03 pmNope, you have been around weasels and criminals too long. Most people are decent and law abiding and would take their medicine if they happen to screw up. Ironically, my missus would be more likely to leave, if some slimy solicitor got my off something I'd done on a technicality.
Can’t say that lawyers/solicitors have ever been interested in seeing justice upheld. Their interest starts and ends in increasing their reputation as a winner in order to charge higher fees. And finding loopholes is their stock in trade. Otherwise why would an obviously guilty person ever get any representation (and occasionally there are some obviously guilty people). To be honest my dad, who was a law abiding person, used to call lawyers ‘the **** of the earth’.boatshed bill wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 5:22 pmThe fact that you use the term "win" suggests to me that you see it as a bit of a game.
Surely, if you are a lawyer your first duty is to see that justice is upheld, not trying to find loopholes for criminals.
You've been watching too much television.houseboy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 9:04 pmCan’t say that lawyers/solicitors have ever been interested in seeing justice upheld. Their interest starts and ends in increasing their reputation as a winner in order to charge higher fees. And finding loopholes is their stock in trade. Otherwise why would an obviously guilty person ever get any representation (and occasionally there are some obviously guilty people). To be honest my dad, who was a law abiding person, used to call lawyers ‘the **** of the earth’.
Propose a better system than one we have.houseboy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 9:04 pmCan’t say that lawyers/solicitors have ever been interested in seeing justice upheld. Their interest starts and ends in increasing their reputation as a winner in order to charge higher fees. And finding loopholes is their stock in trade. Otherwise why would an obviously guilty person ever get any representation (and occasionally there are some obviously guilty people). To be honest my dad, who was a law abiding person, used to call lawyers ‘the **** of the earth’.
I can’t. But the system isn’t the problem, the system is great. It’s the people working in it that leave much to be desired and it can’t be changed because the only ones who can change it are the ones running it essentially. It’s like the political system, not just here but in many countries, the system is fine but the ones working in it need fixing.
Surely, your mate in his studio flat, had a 6ft by 3ft space on his floor for you to kip on in aforementioned sleeping bag?Bosscat wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 1:36 pmAbout 40 years ago I used to kip in my car in Skipton (Saturday night Rock Do's at "The Yorkshireman") my mate who had a studio flat used to take my keys so I hadn't got keys with me... I was woken on consecutive Saturdays (for around 5 weeks) by the police and searched for my keys ... each time I could prove I didn't have the keys ... eventually they left me alone. The fact I was in a sleeping bag must have told them something
Hahaha. No, solicitors want to win and yes they often see it as a “game”.boatshed bill wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 5:22 pmThe fact that you use the term "win" suggests to me that you see it as a bit of a game.
Surely, if you are a lawyer your first duty is to see that justice is upheld, not trying to find loopholes for criminals.
