Posts by Mrs Skin
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Also, generalising madly, gay men have high standards. Would Muldoon would meet them, d'yer think?
-
But that doesn't mean it can't be discussed or made better.
Discussion and improvement is a vital part of the institution. For a time, jurors were in the unfortunate situation of being in danger of being imprisoned until they returned the result the judge wanted.
-
I wonder if it was the same girl.
If it was I'm pretty sure she'd have mentioned the letter, possibly by pointing to it and saying "This here framed letter is the one I got when..."
I wouldn't expect them to go around informing strangers that it'd all be over real quick, no.
In my view it's poor form, certainly.
Looks to me like a situation where a rule has remained unwritten because it was blindingly obvious to the interpretive community that one simply wouldn't. Which is fine as long as the interpretive community doesn't change. But we have. I don't believe that things like this are taken for granted anymore.
-
Gak! I hope my subconscious has better things to do than give me dreams about 'that creature', as your relative so accurately put it.
As a child a dear friend of mine had a massive crush on the man. Apparently she used to come over all funny when he was on the telly. And not the kind of coming over all funny that my family used to do either. Their kind involved a lot of swearing.
-
False memory Mrs Skin - until you give us the reference.
No chance. I was 10 when Muldoon got the arse. I wouldn't have a clue what it might relate to - if it even happened.
-
Van Beynan lost me at the point where he said
...next time Karam maintains Bain is innocent, he should be asked why this innocent man, who had nothing to hide, decided not to give evidence.
I'm a bit over the "innocent people have nothing to fear" line. (It might be a false memory of mine, but I can hear Muldoon's voice croaking it over the radio).
-
It means that, as a rule, one shouldn't make public comments on cases currently before the court so as not to interfere with due process.
There's a summary of Parliament's position as at February this year here. The Privileges Committee reported back on it recently but I don't know how to find the report - or even if it's publicly available.
-
Mine take up the whole living room leaving just shy of a square metre in which to disco.
You know how you throw everything out after an exam? Yeah...
-
No role should be immune from public criticism. What would we talk about here?
Hey thanks everyone for making my exam revision SOOO much more relevant and enjoyable!
-
Scott - I agree in a general sense with your observations, except that you seem to be implying that Comesky is morally culpable for taking on this client in the first place, never mind the defence he ran.
I certainly agree the 'only doing his job' line only goes so far. But I think there's a lack of understanding in the community, including here, about what a lawyer's job is.* So I don't think there's much point in making the argument. In this case it looks to be (at best) a marginal call anyway.
*It took me until 2nd year to understand how very narrow the role is - contrary to general opinion. Perceptions of what lawyers do are really misleading, and considering the role they have I reckon that's not good. But I accept that I'm a bit of a nerd about it.