Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - bennydorano

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 320
GAA Discussion / Re: Ulster Colleges
« on: March 23, 2018, 05:43:22 PM »
Good stuff, he must be near 90 now?

GAA Discussion / Re: Ulster Colleges
« on: March 22, 2018, 11:23:31 PM »
Is Brother Ennis still alive does anyone know? Always had plenty of time for him, lovely man.

General discussion / Re: Ulster Rugby Trial - Poll
« on: March 22, 2018, 10:23:28 PM »
There should be a Schrodinger's Cat option.

GAA Discussion / Re: Ulster Colleges
« on: March 21, 2018, 11:29:41 PM »
MacRory football is fantastic, over 25 years since I left St Pats Armagh and I was fooking gutted when St Ronan's chinned us with a stoppage time goal in the semi. It was always serious stuff, I remember Br Ennis having us in training for the Rannafast  Cup in mid August before school was  back from Summer holidays.

General discussion / Re: Columnists you like to read
« on: March 21, 2018, 10:09:23 PM »
David Aaronovitch
Paul Kimmage
Caitlin Moran
Michael Hutchinson  (Dr Hutch) is very funny - Cycling related

General discussion / Re: The ulster rugby trial
« on: March 21, 2018, 09:18:39 PM »
I don't get how some of these barristers can act in criminal cases where they must sometimes know that they are acting on behalf of clients who are guilty. I get the fact that it is a profession and that their remit is to defend their client at all costs, but it must take a special breed to act for lowlifes who they know are guilty yet for whom their job is to convince a jury otherwise.

On this particular case, I simply cannot definitevely make my mind up based on the evidence reported by the media, there are so many inconsistencies and grey areas and I struggle to get 'beyond reasonable doubt' and on that basis would find it difficult to convict. That is not to say that they are not guilty. Whatever decision the jury decide then it has to be accepted. It is bemusing to see so many on here take certain excerpts of the evidence presented yet ignore other pieces simply in order to fit their pre conceived notions guilt or innocence. On both sides.     

Barrister's act in cases to ensure the evidence is tested to the fullest and in our system to try as far as possible to ensure that the decision arrived at is the correct one. It is not a counsel's role to decide on the guilt or innoncence of a defendant or to act less well for those they suspect may be guilty. Similarly it is not a barristers role to ensure their client gets acquitted at all costs. Their primary duty at all times is to the court.

Oh come on David - that is applying the letter of the law over the murky reality and you must know that. If a defence solicitor is being paid thousands upon thousands of pounds by his client his de facto duty is bloody well obvious.

I'm not a solicitor but I would refute that in its entirety. For a start it would be counter productive. You behave like that you get a reputation for it, your job becomes more difficult it gets harder to get future work.

If you get rich fcks off the hook more times than not you will be a very wealthy man and one with no shortage of clients. The difference between de facto and de jure is what we're talking about. And there most certainly is a difference.

As someone who was a defence solicitor for a number of years, and worked in numerous trials of this nature, and got some fcks off as you say I take great exception to your opinion. I have never done anything outside of the law nor do I know of any one personally who did. I know a number of Solicitors who did over step the mark in terms of what they did to get clients off and they got what they deserved. You work within the law to give your client the best defence that they can. If you know the law better than the other guy or if you have a better way of building your case with you strategies etc in terms of expert witnesses then you build the reputation. I personally know 2 of the QCs involved in this case and they are the straightest, most honourable men youd ever find. I know the Solicitors involved and they are very good at their jobs. Unlike some people they take clients at face value and dont make judgements. If you think they got their name by a hoodwink and a nod then that shows you for the imbecile you are.

For what its worth it is very rare for an innocent man to be convicted or for a guilty man to be acquitted. It does happen but the percentages are very low. The reason why is that the system we have is a robust system and the evidence is generally tested to its absolute maximum and the reason this is the case is because of defence Solicitors and counsel who have gone through years of training and gained years of experience unlike some gobshite fireside lawyers like you.

Excellently put

Thank you and conveniently always.
I'm amazed you think you know more than Syferus on any subject ever tbh

Class... that and Friday I'm in Love transport me to an instant happy place

Flat out listening to The Cure atm, they were such a great band.

General discussion / Re: UK v Russia
« on: March 20, 2018, 09:53:30 PM »
The Anti Russian Alliance is a bit inconsistent. Hardball last week, ball licking this week. It's all theatre.

Russia election: Trump congratulates Putin over victory -

General discussion / Re: TV Show recommendations
« on: March 20, 2018, 01:17:32 PM »
SMILF on Sky Atlantic, fairly good comedy.

General discussion / Re: UK v Russia
« on: March 20, 2018, 01:13:32 PM »
Thank God there are good moral upstanding people in politics outside if Russia
Cambridge Analytica were used by Trump, who is used by Putin, and the campaigners for Brexit, which benefits Putin.

It's another branch of the internet-driven mass propaganda approach that the Russians specialise in.

Putin kidnapped Shergar too I heard. Well Trump did but Putin told him to. A spook in MI5 told me.

A rather pathetic response.

Putin is as white as the snow in Siberia if you're to believe some posters here.

This discussion about Russia is proving a very interesting thought experiment, I must say.

Point out where anyone 9n this thread said or inferred he was white as snow. You are just making that up. That's pathetic
On this thread we've had copious amounts of whataboutery, deflection, sarcasm and excuse making for Russia. False equivalence, the tool of the reality denier, has, predictably, been invoked more than once.

We've been asked "what is the Brits' end game?"

Not "what is Russia's end game?", which is a far, far more pertinent question.

And all the horrid shit Putin has got up to over the years is simply ignored by yourself and others.

All this amounts to defence of Russia, in other words. These are the exact tactics the Russians themselves use. It's almost like yourself and some other posters had read a list of Russian talking points and decided to try and keep the conversation limited to such.

So you'll forgive me if I think it's rather obvious that some people's true motives are not what they say they are.
I framed the opening post very deliberately to avoid a Putin / Russia shit fest, I would have though it was not that hard to grasp, it's you who has went off down a rabbit hole. Read what's written and not what you think is written might be a good starting point.

General discussion / Re: UK v Russia
« on: March 19, 2018, 04:47:59 PM »
Hitchen's article does reflect the point I've been making (that Putin is a nasty piece of work point is neither here nor there), What is the point of the UK's actions? The hastiness of it? what is their endgame? Hitchens doesn't go into that territory but I do think there's an element of Brexit deflection, teeing up Corbyn for a self-implosion & May hoping it might be the thing that saves her personally - her Falklands.

General discussion / Re: The IRISH RUGBY thread
« on: March 18, 2018, 12:36:05 PM »
I think Ireland have to sacrafice notions of a GS at next year's 6 Nations to give the World Cup a proper go.

General discussion / Re: UK v Russia
« on: March 17, 2018, 03:01:30 PM »
Funny enough if you follow UK politics on this board you'd know I'm not in anyway a fan of Corbyn, so barking up the wrong tree again.

Also, if you read my opening post you'd realise I haven't in anyway said Russia are innocent, it's the UK Government's actions / reactions that I'm questioning. It's like a PR war being hastily waged by a flailing & failing Government and dissenting voices are being demonised.

General discussion / Re: UK v Russia
« on: March 17, 2018, 02:34:51 PM »
I was waiting for someone to come along and say this is bullshit, but apparently not. Trivial enough in the grand scheme but wtf

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 320