Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Solicitor = Selfish & Unfeeling ?
https:/
[Synopsis: Solicitor refuses to unlock Ian Brady's briefcases]
Why not release the papers - they might just have a clue to the lad's burial place. And the owner is dead, so who is he "protecting" ?
Self-important solicitor ought to be defrocked by his peers (or whatever they do) but no doubt they will close ranks as usual.
[Synopsis: Solicitor refuses to unlock Ian Brady's briefcases]
Why not release the papers - they might just have a clue to the lad's burial place. And the owner is dead, so who is he "protecting" ?
Self-important solicitor ought to be defrocked by his peers (or whatever they do) but no doubt they will close ranks as usual.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ludwig - // Required to or not, as I said it would cost him nothing, and that is what makes him selfish and unfeeling. //
You are making your judgement based on your perception that the solicitor is able to reveal the information, but simply chooses not to, for reasons of his own selfish and nasty nature.
But in fact, you have no basis whatsoever for this conclusion, other than using emotional reaction.
I have said already, and repeat, we don't know what legal constraints are being placed on him in terms of action or inaction, and he is required to maintain client confidentiality.
You are making an emotional judgement based on no evidence, and maligning a stranger's character in doing so - that's not nice.
You are making your judgement based on your perception that the solicitor is able to reveal the information, but simply chooses not to, for reasons of his own selfish and nasty nature.
But in fact, you have no basis whatsoever for this conclusion, other than using emotional reaction.
I have said already, and repeat, we don't know what legal constraints are being placed on him in terms of action or inaction, and he is required to maintain client confidentiality.
You are making an emotional judgement based on no evidence, and maligning a stranger's character in doing so - that's not nice.
//You are making your judgement based on your perception that the solicitor is able to reveal the information, but simply chooses not to, for reasons of his own selfish and nasty nature. //
You are completely wrong andy. I am in fact making my judgement based on my perception that the solicitor IS NOT able to reveal the information because of legal requirements.
What I am saying is that rather than simply ignore requests to disclose the information and remain silent, he should clearly state that this is the case, thus clarifying the matter for all concerned.
You need to read what I'm actually saying rather than just assuming everyone on the thread that's not you is making the same point.
You are completely wrong andy. I am in fact making my judgement based on my perception that the solicitor IS NOT able to reveal the information because of legal requirements.
What I am saying is that rather than simply ignore requests to disclose the information and remain silent, he should clearly state that this is the case, thus clarifying the matter for all concerned.
You need to read what I'm actually saying rather than just assuming everyone on the thread that's not you is making the same point.
ludwig - // What I am saying is that rather than simply ignore requests to disclose the information and remain silent, he should clearly state that this is the case, thus clarifying the matter for all concerned. //
The soilicitor is acting for his client, that does not include giving regular updates to the media because of the ceberity interest attracted by his former client.
It's another case of the media confusing the public interest with with what interests the public.
If I were in his position, I would not feel the need to offer comment to the public about a legal issue which does not concern them.
The soilicitor is acting for his client, that does not include giving regular updates to the media because of the ceberity interest attracted by his former client.
It's another case of the media confusing the public interest with with what interests the public.
If I were in his position, I would not feel the need to offer comment to the public about a legal issue which does not concern them.
// If I were in his position, I would not feel the need to offer comment to the public about a legal issue which does not concern them. //
Presumably then, like the solicitor in question, you'd also simply ignore requests from the relatives of your client's victims instead of issuing a simple response to state that you're unable to do what they want.
Presumably then, like the solicitor in question, you'd also simply ignore requests from the relatives of your client's victims instead of issuing a simple response to state that you're unable to do what they want.
// If it is a matter of legal restrictions, he should just say so. //
Exactly. It's a matter of common courtesy in my opinion, that would do nothing to breach any moral or legal duty incumbent on his position.
But then I suppose one could always argue that he's not actually obliged to be courteous, so why should be?
Exactly. It's a matter of common courtesy in my opinion, that would do nothing to breach any moral or legal duty incumbent on his position.
But then I suppose one could always argue that he's not actually obliged to be courteous, so why should be?
Ludwig - // Presumably then, like the solicitor in question, you'd also simply ignore requests from the relatives of your client's victims instead of issuing a simple response to state that you're unable to do what they want. //
Like the solicitor in question, I would follow the instructions of the police and the courts involved, and if that meant I was prevented from advising the relatives for the reasons of my lack of action, then I would reluctantly have to comply. I would be unhappy about it, but I am constrained by legal process.
I would be far less concerned about the condemnation of complete strangers who know nothing of the case other than what the media tells them, with its own personal spin to whip up fury and sell papers.
Like the solicitor in question, I would follow the instructions of the police and the courts involved, and if that meant I was prevented from advising the relatives for the reasons of my lack of action, then I would reluctantly have to comply. I would be unhappy about it, but I am constrained by legal process.
I would be far less concerned about the condemnation of complete strangers who know nothing of the case other than what the media tells them, with its own personal spin to whip up fury and sell papers.
Andy-hughes, //Like the solicitor in question, I would follow the instructions of the police and the courts involved//
According to the report he's refused requests from the police to reveal the contents of the briefcases so has he had instructions from them, are there any courts involved, and has he had instructions from them also? Finally, are you one of the strangers you’re talking about who knows nothing of the case - or do you know more than the rest of us?
According to the report he's refused requests from the police to reveal the contents of the briefcases so has he had instructions from them, are there any courts involved, and has he had instructions from them also? Finally, are you one of the strangers you’re talking about who knows nothing of the case - or do you know more than the rest of us?
I would ignore ANY instruction from the police since they have absolutely no standing to instruct anyone to do anything in these circumstances.
The Court has been involved several times. Firstly a Court refused the police's request for a "Court Order" for the contents to be revealed.
Secondly, an injunctive relief hearing was heard where newspapers were found to be in breach (albeit inadvertantly) of disclosing details they had undertaken not to disclose.
The Court has also been involved in this matter for other reasons too.
As I said, I do not necessarily agree with him refusing to answer - however, I absolutely do see the legal aspects. Although I do not think this matter is necessarily over since I think there are actions that lawyers on behalf of the family may well consider taking.
The Court has been involved several times. Firstly a Court refused the police's request for a "Court Order" for the contents to be revealed.
Secondly, an injunctive relief hearing was heard where newspapers were found to be in breach (albeit inadvertantly) of disclosing details they had undertaken not to disclose.
The Court has also been involved in this matter for other reasons too.
As I said, I do not necessarily agree with him refusing to answer - however, I absolutely do see the legal aspects. Although I do not think this matter is necessarily over since I think there are actions that lawyers on behalf of the family may well consider taking.
Naomi - // According to the report he's refused requests from the police to reveal the contents of the briefcases so has he had instructions from them, are there any courts involved, and has he had instructions from them also? //
I have absolutely no idea - why would I?
Finally, are you one of the strangers you’re talking about who knows nothing of the case - or do you know more than the rest of us? //
Obviously I am one of the strangers - the only difference in approach from mine to some others, is that I am not willing to hang this man out to dry for perceived selfish and peevish behaviour when I don't know anything about the facts - and of course, neither do they.
Some are willing to simply assume that this man is being difficult because of his personal nature - and how nasty he is.
I am willing to assume that I have no idea why he is being difficult, but since advising legal restraint is the obvious response, perhaps he is constrained for other reasons - but of course, I have no idea which is why I don't want to condemn him without good reason.
I have absolutely no idea - why would I?
Finally, are you one of the strangers you’re talking about who knows nothing of the case - or do you know more than the rest of us? //
Obviously I am one of the strangers - the only difference in approach from mine to some others, is that I am not willing to hang this man out to dry for perceived selfish and peevish behaviour when I don't know anything about the facts - and of course, neither do they.
Some are willing to simply assume that this man is being difficult because of his personal nature - and how nasty he is.
I am willing to assume that I have no idea why he is being difficult, but since advising legal restraint is the obvious response, perhaps he is constrained for other reasons - but of course, I have no idea which is why I don't want to condemn him without good reason.
// at least one application for injunctive relief to stop the press publishing details,//
application- blappication
was one granted - ? and if not we can blaart away....
anyway since it is obviously slash a selfish and unfeeling solicitor week - what about Shuh-meemz lawyer?
"The right of the child to be in England are paramount" but hold it lawyer-man - the child is unborn as yet, and so has very few rights at all!
arent lawyers paid to know this sort of thing?
and - the British govt should go fetch - - hey hold on - if Shuh - meem presents at a border they have have to let her in as a right but no one has a right to be fetched at public expense....
so - - - solicitors not doing too well this week - IMHO
application- blappication
was one granted - ? and if not we can blaart away....
anyway since it is obviously slash a selfish and unfeeling solicitor week - what about Shuh-meemz lawyer?
"The right of the child to be in England are paramount" but hold it lawyer-man - the child is unborn as yet, and so has very few rights at all!
arent lawyers paid to know this sort of thing?
and - the British govt should go fetch - - hey hold on - if Shuh - meem presents at a border they have have to let her in as a right but no one has a right to be fetched at public expense....
so - - - solicitors not doing too well this week - IMHO
// are there any courts involved, and has he had instructions from them also?// (Makin)
erm yes we do know the answer to that if we read the Times. An application was made to a court ( so yes court involved tick) and the judge declined to make an order ( so no order made out by judge).
Makin is being a bit coy about all this: he could have shut all this down by saying - my client told me not to talk about it ....
erm yes we do know the answer to that if we read the Times. An application was made to a court ( so yes court involved tick) and the judge declined to make an order ( so no order made out by judge).
Makin is being a bit coy about all this: he could have shut all this down by saying - my client told me not to talk about it ....
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles49 mins ago
Crosswords167 mins ago
News185 mins ago
'Abuse' What Does It Mean To You?
Society & Culture196 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.