Mr Loophole

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by crabby, Mar 1, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BBC

    While procedure may not have been followed, she got done good and proper, admitted it and expected to lose her licence - why should our justice system have to let her off and the police pay legalcosts?

    "Mr Loophole" has no morals by encouraging those who break the law (abliet normally in a minor way - that can have major consequences mind) to "get off scot free" instead of paying their debt to society for breaking the law.

    What has it come to when you can so brazenly get away with committing a crime? Are they taking the lead from our government?

    Pre-empt - Sven, bugger off, don't want to hear it
  2. Presumably, the police still have the evidence. What's to stop the charge sheet being filled in by a proper copper and the case being brought back to court? Double jeopardy, if it actually applies to an "invalid charge" anyway, has been revoked, hasn't it?

    In an honest world, Freeman ought to have advised the prosecution that the paperwork was incorrect at the start of the proceedings, allowing a fair trial to follow. Sadly, courts and solicitors care little for justice but make their money splitting hairs in defence of "the law."

    Nevertheless, it would be nice to see someone pay for the wasted court costs out of his wages, rather than the costs be dumped yet again on the taxpayer.
  3. Sixty

    Sixty LE Moderator Book Reviewer
    1. ARRSE Cyclists and Triathletes

    Sorry. She wasn't actually charged by anyone who had the authority to do so. Should I have been allowed to charge her?

    No. Nor would you Crabs.

    I don't condone it but this loophole should never have arisen. Incompetence, nothing more.
  4. No, you're quite right and I wouldn't argue with that - but I object to the morals displayed by the "Mr Loophole" (read none) and by the defendant. In that situation it should be "sorry m'lord, caught me, hard time at home, won't do it again, accept full responsibility and everything coming my way"

    And instantly I've adopted the morals of an 8 year old
  5. Sixty

    Sixty LE Moderator Book Reviewer
    1. ARRSE Cyclists and Triathletes

    Aye, fair point mate. Not sure I wouldn't have played it the same in her situation though.
  6. We need loopholes so the scumbag politicians have a way out of sticky situations, they just havent worked out a way of keeping the loopholes closed to the proles that vote them in.
  7. This character appears to have cornered the market in this area. Are there no other competent advocates out there? He appears to be a self-centered, self-publicising git with no morals
  8. He is useful in highlighting loopsholes which canbe later closed off, i fthe Police don't do their job properly, then it is right and proper that the case should be thrown out.

    Mr Freeman himself siad "The only way to beat him is to train the police properly"
  9. No,he may be a self centred,self publicist,but he is a lawer doing his this case defending his client by any means within the law;morals have nothing to do with it.His job is to get his client off,which he did.
  10. Fair one, he did. How much does he charge I wonder?
  11. Ask the taxpayer - as we seem to be footing the bill most of the time...
  12. I thought if a lawyer knew you were guilty they're bound to try for a lighter sentence, but not allowed to try and get you off?
  13. I think that applies to Barristers rather than solicitors
  14. I think if you are guilty (and you and the lawyer know it) you can still contest if there is no case to answer (such as wrong charge, suspect evidence). This is to stop incomplete and unsafe try ons by the police and CPS. The idea may be to stop an overturn in the court of appeal (which I believe overturns mainly on points of law).