[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm impressed that you can come to a 'contempt of court' conclusion from the information available. I couldn't do that and I've been working in the law for years...

Next time some hate preachers are burning poppies on Remembrance Sunday let's hope the police deem that worthy of a breach of the peace. Because it's inconsistencies like that that make people angry.

The livestream wasn't removed until Saturday night. I'm sure you can find it online still if you look hard enough.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Withano

The livestream wasn't removed until Saturday night. I'm sure you can find it online still if you look hard enough.

Deft footwork there, Withano the way you swerved answering Livia's points.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Deft footwork there, Withano the way you swerved answering Livia's points.

Her first paragraph was a sarcy comment which doesn't hold up too well with my response. I agree with her second paragraph. Let's not try to score weird points Kirk. This isn't a game.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Withano

Her first paragraph was a sarcy comment which doesn't hold up too well with my response. I agree with her second paragraph. Let's not try to score weird points Kirk. This isn't a game.

I'm not point scoring, Withano so stop being disingenuous in trying to make out that I am.

I am making a valid comment that you responded to a post without addressing the points raised in it.

And if you "agree with her second paragraph" then how is it that you have criticised my post because Liv and I are saying the same thing?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I'm not point scoring, Withano so stop being disingenuous in trying to make out that I am.

I am making a valid comment that you responded to a post without addressing the points raised in it.

And if you "agree with her second paragraph" then how is it that you have criticised my post because Liv and I are saying the same thing?

Your point seems to be Tommy shouldnt have been arrested because x, y, and z but these people should have been arrested because x, y and z

Me and livia agree that if tommy was arrested for x, then other people should be arrested for x?

They should either all be arrested or none of them should? You seem to be fencehopping based on whether theyre tommy or not.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Withano

Your point seems to be Tommy shouldnt have been arrested because x, y, and z but these people should have been arrested because x, y and z

Me and livia agree that if tommy was arrested for x, then other people should be arrested for x?

They should either all be arrested or none of them should? You seem to be fencehopping based on whether theyre tommy or not.

WHAT??

[Withano]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

WHAT??

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

And if you "agree with her second paragraph" then how is it that you have criticised my post because Liv and I are saying the same thing?

I didnt think you and livia were on the same lines at all.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

The livestream wasn't removed until Saturday night. I'm sure you can find it online still if you look hard enough.

And then I can make a solid legal judgement of contempt of court? From a livestream?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

And then I can make a solid legal judgement of contempt of court? From a livestream?

Give it a go.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

Give it a go.

I'm a lawyer, Withano. It's not how it works.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm a lawyer, Withano. It's not how it works.

Well you can continue making sarcy comments, or you can choose to contribute.

You're kind of just saying 'I haven't bothered with the information but I have a monopoly on this because I'm me'

Not impressed.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Withano

Well you can continue making sarcy comments, or you can choose to contribute.

You're kind of just saying 'I haven't bothered with the information but I have a monopoly on this because I'm me'

Not impressed.

Misrepresentation. Deflection. Creating a diversionary smokescreen to enable a quick exit to be found out of a discussion which has raised questions you have no relevant answers to and which makes statements of fact which destroys your argument but which you can not contest.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Misrepresentation. Deflection. Creating a diversionary smokescreen to enable a quick exit to be found out of a discussion which has raised questions you have no relevant answers to and which makes statements of fact which destroys your argument but which you can not contest.

‘I’m a Lawyer’ isn’t an argument kirk. Even Livia knows that deep down. Not everything everybody says needs commenting on. Some things are silly and can be bypassed.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

Well you can continue making sarcy comments, or you can choose to contribute.

You're kind of just saying 'I haven't bothered with the information but I have a monopoly on this because I'm me'

Not impressed.

Hang on... you said it was a clear case of contempt of court? I questioned you.... that isn't a sarky comment. It was a challenge. Because you were wrong.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

Hang on... you said it was a clear case of contempt of court? I questioned you.... that isn't a sarky comment. It was a challenge. Because you were wrong.

How would you know? You haven’t seen the livestream. How would we go about discussing that in a mutual way. This conversation cant go any further without a bit of effort on your end.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Withano

Well you can continue making sarcy comments, or you can choose to contribute.

You're kind of just saying 'I haven't bothered with the information but I have a monopoly on this because I'm me'

Not impressed.

It is remarks such as these which seriously pee me off on here; Livia comments on erroneous statements on law made by non-lawyer 'laymen' and instead of deferring to the fact that she is a vastly experienced top-flight lawyer who KNOWS her subject, we are instead treated to disingenuous, unfair, thinly veiled or even naked insinuations that she is commenting through ego or conceit.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

It is remarks such as these which seriously pee me off on here; Livia comments on erroneous statements on law made by non-lawyer 'laymen' and instead of deferring to the fact that she is a vastly experienced top-flight lawyer who KNOWS her subject, we are instead treated to disingenuous, unfair, thinly veiled or even naked insinuations that she is commenting through ego or conceit.

It's fine, Kirk. It's how it works in here.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

It is remarks such as these which seriously pee me off on here; Livia comments on erroneous statements on law made by non-lawyer 'laymen' and instead of deferring to the fact that she is a vastly experienced top-flight lawyer who KNOWS her subject, we are instead treated to disingenuous, unfair, thinly veiled or even naked insinuations that she is commenting through ego or conceit.

I can't agree with that Kirk; it IS a bad idea to "take people's word for it" (for anything) without further explanation on the basis that they have studies or experience in the area. It's still perfectly reasonable to expect someone to explain their stance. For example, would any of us "laypeople" citizens of the UK be OK with the government making sweeping changes to the economy, stating "I don't have to explain my stance - I'm the Chancellor of the Exchequer! Come back when you're a Chancellor of the Exchequer".

Or in other words... I do think it's reasonable to say that people should pay more attention to the explanations and opinions of people who have training or experience, that's just sensible... but it's not sensible to say "I just flat out accept that you are probably right about this so you don't need to bother explaining your reasoning".

Or to be more blunt; if someone is not interested in even attempting to explain the reasoning behind their opinions - no matter what their education level or career choice - then I am not interested in listening to those opinions.

Also, not to "start anything" here but...

The only evidence I have that Livia is a "vastly experienced top-flight lawyer" is her own say so, and as Livia herself pointed out in a thread recently, it would be foolish to believe that anonymous people on an anonymous forum are always exactly what they claim to be.