hearthammer Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 Whilst i believe Pannick is giving a compelling appeal, notwithstanding the paper/references balls up, i have found over the years of observing that it aint over till its over. Tomorrow's counter arguments will look to negate the points made and, where precedent is cited, to pick holes in these. Many court cases are won or lost based on the abilities of the prosecution/defence teams to present a coherent case on behalf of their respective clients. Sometimes the facts, even if they're staring you in the face, are argued out of court - literally. Just an observation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 15 minutes ago, hearthammer said: Whilst i believe Pannick is giving a compelling appeal, notwithstanding the paper/references balls up, i have found over the years of observing that it aint over till its over. Tomorrow's counter arguments will look to negate the points made and, where precedent is cited, to pick holes in these. Many court cases are won or lost based on the abilities of the prosecution/defence teams to present a coherent case on behalf of their respective clients. Sometimes the facts, even if they're staring you in the face, are argued out of court - literally. Just an observation. Trenchant insight into our adversarial legal system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 10 minutes ago, hearthammer said: Whilst i believe Pannick is giving a compelling appeal, notwithstanding the paper/references balls up, i have found over the years of observing that it aint over till its over. Tomorrow's counter arguments will look to negate the points made and, where precedent is cited, to pick holes in these. Many court cases are won or lost based on the abilities of the prosecution/defence teams to present a coherent case on behalf of their respective clients. Sometimes the facts, even if they're staring you in the face, are argued out of court - literally. Just an observation. To make a precedence to set a precedent that is the question 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 21 minutes ago, hearthammer said: Whilst i believe Pannick is giving a compelling appeal, notwithstanding the paper/references balls up, i have found over the years of observing that it aint over till its over. Tomorrow's counter arguments will look to negate the points made and, where precedent is cited, to pick holes in these. Many court cases are won or lost based on the abilities of the prosecution/defence teams to present a coherent case on behalf of their respective clients. Sometimes the facts, even if they're staring you in the face, are argued out of court - literally. Just an observation. Thought the other side were having their go after lunch, seeing as Pannick seemed to be covering both cases? Anyway, there's no jury here, just professional judges whom I'd hope would be less influenced by deflection of the facts by appealing to emotion as in a jury trial. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 1 hour ago, hearthammer said: I was referring to the commencement. Its over 3 days ya fanny. Of course you were. That’s why you said “judgement imminent”. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 Screaming for a no deal then somebody must have actually had a wee thinkhttps://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/westminster/1841863/exclusive-industry-leaders-warn-no-deal-brexit-would-break-the-backbone-of-scottish-fishing/amp/?__twitter_impression=true 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearthammer Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: Of course you were. That’s why you said “judgement imminent”. "I was aware the proceedings were over 3 days. My terminology i accept suggested it was "noo"." Others understood, but i forgot the "others" out there draped in their union jacks #cannygetthroughtaefannies 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, hearthammer said: "I was aware the proceedings were over 3 days. My terminology i accept suggested it was "noo"." Others understood, but i forgot the "others" out there draped in their union jacks #cannygetthroughtaefannies For somebody who has just been shown to be lying, that’s a crap apology. But nevertheless, your apology is accepted with good grace. Ya fanny. Edited September 17, 2019 by Pet Jeden 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted September 17, 2019 Author Share Posted September 17, 2019 Would be brilliant if the two Scottish judges returned a 'not proven' verdict 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearthammer Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: For somebody who has just been shown to be lying, that’s a crap apology. But nevertheless, your apology is accepted. Fanny. I will leave you to wallow in the land of smug and self-satisfaction in your wee world. Cho now 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, doulikefish said: Screaming for a no deal then somebody must have actually had a wee think https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/westminster/1841863/exclusive-industry-leaders-warn-no-deal-brexit-would-break-the-backbone-of-scottish-fishing/amp/?__twitter_impression=true Jimmy Buchan was on tv last week with Johnson in Peterhead kissing his ring and showing him around the fish market as all the other clowns were posing for selfies with the buffoon. Edited September 17, 2019 by dirty dingus 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperDee Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 1 minute ago, John Lambies Doos said: Would be brilliant if the two Scottish judges returned a 'not proven' verdict The sheer confusion this would cause (on both sides) would be hilarious to view. Unfortunately tis but a fantasy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearthammer Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 Just now, dirty dingus said: Jimmy Buchan was on tv last week with Johnson in Peterhead kissing his ring and showing him around the fish market as all the other clowns were posing for selfies with the buffon. Whit ??? The Italy goalie was in Aberdeen fish market ???? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 1 hour ago, ICTJohnboy said: Not sure what statement you might be referring to here, but whatever it is, I totally agree with you. Reckons we won't need IndyRef2 if the Lib Dems stop Brexit. Because obviously it's going to be best for Scotland to be tied to a shower of raging gammon b*****ds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, carpetmonster said: Reckons we won't need IndyRef2 if the Lib Dems stop Brexit. Because obviously it's going to be best for Scotland to be tied to a shower of raging gammon b*****ds. We won’t need IndyRef2 if we adopt the same position on Independence that the LibDems are applying to Brexit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 21 minutes ago, SweeperDee said: The sheer confusion this would cause (on both sides) would be hilarious to view. Unfortunately tis but a fantasy. Yeah because it’s a civil case not a criminal one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 Do the Judges get a summary of each side's arguments and then just dip into the bundles to check sources and look at the cases and opinions? They couldn't read all the thousands of pages over a few days and properly evaluate everything. Also I noticed they were getting fed up of hearing the thoughts of academics and retired judges' commentaries in the journals and the press, and wanted the nitty gritty from actual court judgements. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperDee Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 Just now, Granny Danger said: Yeah because it’s a civil case not a criminal one. I know, that's why I said it was a fantasy. Keep up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperDee Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 (edited) Government's Advocate is looking a bit down in the dumps. ETA: He's also doing a great job in saying a lot of words, but not actually saying anything of note. Edited September 17, 2019 by SweeperDee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweeperDee Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 "Lord Keen, it's a difficult concept to grasp, it is unlawful, but still valid" Ooft... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.