Rats deserting a sinking ship.....

[newcastle]

Oh....please don't Hepzibah. Let the secondary-modern schoolyard bully have his rant. Most.........revealing.

P.S. I must ask my coloured family......Ooops! There I go again. Mea Culpa. ....my 'family of colour' how they feel about having taken a "repugnant racist" to their bosom.

[Major Thom]

Dat wood tayk tu muk tyme epsi, spesialy on mi posts

[Dusak]

The hinted at innuendo seems to be getting a tad colourfull on here lately.

[Mad Dilys]

Having seen a lot of the world and lived with people of all shades of coloured hair, eyes and skin in places which have strong beliefs and traditions or none at all. I have found that people as communities have one thing in common - Prejudice - although the individual prejudices may vary, and may or may not be obvious.

For example my Uncle moved to a tiny village in Dorset when he left the Navy. More than 60 years later his daughters are still known as the Newcomers, thus not a "real" part of the community.

No matter what country I am in I have never found any community less than very helpful with the possible exception of cities, where there are usually a lot of people living together, rather than a community as such.

In Egypt I love how, away from the cities and big towns the country villages are clean and tidy, and there is a strong community spirit and a welcome to strangers in need.

Large towns and cities anywhere are pretty demoralising places.

[Who2]

Quote:In Egypt I love how, away from the cities and big towns the country villages are clean and tidy, and there is a strong community spirit and a welcome to strangers in need.

They would be if they all used the ruddy bins provide, free of charge, nix, nienti, nada.
It's like the magic tooth fairy, Who do they think pays to get them emptied ? baba Gorge....

[Dusak]

I've never liked cities for that very reason. They may come across to the casual observer as having a good 'vibe' but they seem to lack soul. Living in the UK most of my life was within a relatively small village, and when it eventually widened its borders due to natural expansion and altered long past standing boundaries to become part of a bigger ''local authority'' concern, it too lost its soul.That's why I enjoy living in Karnak against Luxor, two totally different environments and ways of life.

[Mad Dilys]

Quote:In Egypt I love how, away from the cities and big towns the country villages are clean and tidy, and there is a strong community spirit and a welcome to strangers in need.

They would be if they all used the ruddy bins provide, free of charge, nix, nienti, nada.
It's like the magic tooth fairy, Who do they think pays to get them emptied ? baba Gorge....

Your London Roots are showing, Bless you. You don't live in the country, you live in Luxor equivalent of the suburbs.

I don't think Hadadine is in the country either - you'll know when you get there because there are no plastic bags in the canal, because there are no shops selling goods that need a plastic bag.

[Hafiz]

FairleyFlowers. You say Polanski was not convicted. He WAS.

The problem for him was that he agreed to a deal with the prosecutor which was overturned by the Judge. This happens when judges believe that the prosecutor's deal is not in the public interest or just - in this case the judges view was that the deal was too soft and (probably) reflected the power and wealth of the guilty - not impartial justice.

At the time Polanksi accepted the deal his lawyers, some of the most expensive in the world, would have been under a duty to advise him that it was subject to the judge - and therefore could be overturned. He therefore knew the risk, took the risk but wouldn't face the consequences when it turned out bad for him.

Thank god we have judges who can sit back and publicly consider in open court the public interest and not just rely on ambitious young prosecutors to do a deal in secret with defense lawyers. The alternative of leaving it to secret deals would be awful.

[Who2]

Rats deserting a sinking ship.....and the Band played on...'bysie bye...
Why she wants a 'pergola ? who knows ? another coffee shop perhaps ?
For 600le @ only £25 quid she's as happy as a 'jamosa in sh*t!
So tara then, I'm quite happy to sail this ship alone...

'just me and perhaps a few archaeologists....

Ps: Once again I post in the wrong place.
Pss: But at least Harvey wasn't into young boys just tasty 'wimmin who wanted to be famous.
Mind you masturbating into flower pots is pretty damn weird in my book!
A Gardeners Question Time question springs to my mind on this, listen in next Sunday R4 2pm gmt...

[FarleyFlavors]

FairleyFlowers. You say Polanski was not convicted. He WAS.

"Polanski was convicted" makes it sound like either (a) he confessed to all the charges against him and was sentenced as a result or (b) he pled not guilty and was found guilty at trial.

That's not what happened. He pled not guilty to all five charges but the case never went to trial.

The problem for him was that he agreed to a deal with the prosecutor which was overturned by the Judge. This happens when judges believe that the prosecutor's deal is not in the public interest or just - in this case the judges view was that the deal was too soft and (probably) reflected the power and wealth of the guilty - not impartial justice.

No, he agreed to a deal which was drawn up by the victim's attorney and which was accepted by the prosecution. As a result the judge sentenced him to prison for psychiatric evaluation.

After the jail term everyone involved in the prosecution - the victim, the victim's attorney, the prosecution, the probation department, the examing psychiatrists - wanted Polanski to be released subject to probation.

Except for the judge, who decided to renege on the deal while Polanski was incarcerated.

At the time Polanksi accepted the deal his lawyers, some of the most expensive in the world, would have been under a duty to advise him that it was subject to the judge - and therefore could be overturned. He therefore knew the risk, took the risk but wouldn't face the consequences when it turned out bad for him.

Thank god we have judges who can sit back and publicly consider in open court the public interest and not just rely on ambitious young prosecutors to do a deal in secret with defense lawyers. The alternative of leaving it to secret deals would be awful.

There is no question that in this case the presiding judge violated the code of ethics. Nobody disputes this.

Whether you believe that the sentence passed was too lenient - and I personally think it was - is irrelevant. Polanski only changed his not guilty plea as a result of the plea bargain presented to him. If he had subsequently been subjected to a different sentence it would have been a massive miscarriage of justice.

[Hafiz]

Ok there is less that I disagree in with what you have written than you might think.

Several points. You assert the judge 'violated the code of ethics'. There is no proof of this and it has been open to P's lawyers to take legal action to prove that over the last 30 years. They have not done that. Therefore I suggest that P's lawyers had no legal or evidenciary case. You may have a belief - but his lawyers - and their very rich client - have never tried to prove your assertion.I f they thought the judge was wrong they have done nothing to prove this.

The judge always had the power to reject the proposed deal - it was always subject to his final approval - and it often happens.

In any case what ethical rule did he break? Please be specific.

You assert that 'no one disputes' that the judge violated ethics. Well, no appeal judge decided he behaved 'unethically' because there was no appeal. If P thought there was unethical behavior then why didn't he take action - from a distance to prove this?

If you can find a single article written by a legal academic/judge in a respected journal - not some screaming journalist who didn't attend the trial - that says the judge behaved unethically then I will read it carefully. Otherwise I will assume that your assertion is wrong.

Second, Judges often intervene to reject deals between the victim, defence and prosecution - particularly where there may be 'issues' of payment/abuse of process or it just violates basic law. Give you an example. A deal is done where a victim concedes/withdraws accusations/supports the accused. A judge will say this is outside precedent and the normal practice of the law and overide the 'private' deal, This is not unusual - particularly where the accused is very rich or giving evidence by the child is embarrassing.

There is nothing unusual in what was done in this case in any English speaking legal jurisdiction. If you left it to individual private deals the 'decisions' would be all over the place and not reflect the predictability people expect of the law.

In simple terms if you are middle aged rich and famous and you give an illegal drug to a 13 year old child from a poor background and then penetrate her 3 orifices the offense is serious and probably requires substantial jail. It seems simple.

Let me make it very clear. People may want to do private deals. Islamic law is full of it. English law is generally public and says that whatever the personal circumstances nevertheless 'objective' and public rules, conducted and debated in public, dominate. The alternative of private deals and low judge power means the rich win and those who are embarrassed or don't want humiliation loose. Deals also favor those who spend millions on lawyers (and their superb negotiation/intimidation skills) or have access to the media over those on legal aid and whom the media ignores.

My guess is that his high powered/good negotiation lawyers did what they were paid millions to do. They seduced some young prosecutors, none of whom had been to Harvard and got a good deal for their client. The judge kept an eye on this and adopted the view that the prosecutors had been seduced, that the deal was out of line with normal sentence practice and decided to act to reject their deal - a power he always had.

If he misused that power he knew he would be subject to appeal and over-ruling - which never happened. If he was overruled on a high profile case he would have known his career prospects would have been compromised not to mention the media humiliation. In this case he would have known that he would have been subject to media attack for rejecting the deal. He would have also have known that detailed legal and media attention, including from hired Hollywood PR firms, would have been given to any 'mistake' he made in his decision. Therefore the decision he took involved substantial personal and career risk. I imagine he took it after careful consideration.

On a related note where we might agree. The President of France, along with the academy, wants to strip W - in the French case of his Legion. He hasn't been convicted and its a sign of the times that media hysteria jumps to conclusions to extract 'justice' (on some popular theme) before the matter has been carefully considered. I think its more likely than not that he is guilty - but that is not the issue - he is innocent until proved guilty. Alas such views are unfashionable at the moment. The President of France needs to consider stripping convicted felons - I can think of one. As is usual consistency is not a strong part of French public policy - nor is moral integrity/due process/justice.

[FarleyFlavors]

You assert the judge 'violated the code of ethics'. There is no proof of this and it has been open to P's lawyers to take legal action to prove that over the last 30 years. They have not done that.

You're correct in saying that the judge's actions have never been fully examined in court.

Therefore I suggest that P's lawyers had no legal or evidenciary case. You may have a belief - but his lawyers - and their very rich client - have never tried to prove your assertion. If they thought the judge was wrong they have done nothing to prove this.

Wrong. Polanski had sufficient evidence of the judge's inappropriate actions at the time. Shortly after he fled, his attorney filed disqualification papers on the judge. The judge denied the allegations but excused himself from the case, thus preventing the details being heard in court.

In any case what ethical rule did he break? Please be specific.

Multiple ex parte communications, illegal use of a diagnostic study as an incarceration sentence, an attempt to force both prosecution and defence into a mock hearing with a pre-ordained result, refusal to allow a defence hearing before sentencing.

You assert that 'no one disputes' that the judge violated ethics. Well, no appeal judge decided he behaved 'unethically' because there was no appeal. If P thought there was unethical behavior then why didn't he take action - from a distance to prove this?

If you can find a single article written by a legal academic/judge in a respected journal - not some screaming journalist who didn't attend the trial - that says the judge behaved unethically then I will read it carefully. Otherwise I will assume that your assertion is wrong.

Here's probably more than you bargained for - the Court of Appeal ruling from 2009: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of- ... 00003.html

A couple of quotes:
"At the time Polanski fled he already had reason to know, and evidence to demonstrate, that the process of negotiating his punishment for the offense to which he had pleaded guilty had veered constitutionally off course."

"To the extent that these allegations are true-and from the documentary evidence filed with this court, it appears to this court that there is a substantial probability that a court conducting an evidentiary hearing would conclude that many, if not all, are true-they demonstrate malfeasance, improper contact with the media concerning a pending case, and unethical conduct."

Second, Judges often intervene to reject deals between the victim, defence and prosecution - particularly where there may be 'issues' of payment/abuse of process or it just violates basic law. [...] There is nothing unusual in what was done in this case in any English speaking legal jurisdiction. If you left it to individual private deals the 'decisions' would be all over the place and not reflect the predictability people expect of the law.

You're completely missing the point. The time for the judge to intervene and reject the deal is obviously before he himself accepts the deal.

Judge: "You're denying that you've committed murder. Here's the deal offered by the prosecution - plead guilty and I'll give you a one year sentence."
Defendant: "Okay then."
Judge: "Right, now that you've pleaded guilty, you're getting 20 years."

In 1997, a Superior Court Judge was tasked with reviewing the case. He concluded that "he believed that a commitment made by a Judge of the Court should be fulfilled." He told Polanski that if he returned to California, he would "allow Mr. Polanski to be booked and immediately released on bail, require Mr. Polanski to meet with the probation department, order a probation report, conduct a hearing, and terminate probation without Mr. Polanski having to serve any additional time in custody."

The only fly in the ointment was that the judge stipulated that the hearing be televised. Polanski refused to allow such a media circus.

As I say, you will have trouble finding anyone involved in the case who doesn't believe that Polanski was facing a miscarriage of justice when he fled.

[FarleyFlavors]

My guess is that his high powered/good negotiation lawyers did what they were paid millions to do. They seduced some young prosecutors, none of whom had been to Harvard and got a good deal for their client. The judge kept an eye on this and adopted the view that the prosecutors had been seduced, that the deal was out of line with normal sentence practice and decided to act to reject their deal - a power he always had.

Well, your guess would be wrong.

You appear to have missed a crucial part of my previous reply, despite me putting it in italics. Polanski's lawyers didn't come up with the deal. It was drawn up by the victim's own attorney, with the agreement of her and her family.

[Major Thom]

"In Egypt I love how, away from the cities and big towns the country villages are clean and tidy, and there is a strong community spirit and a welcome to strangers in need"


Wish I had come across some of these villages MD the only ones I come across were the ones that needed your help and would not give back with out money being involved. You obviously did not get across to the West Bank too much to see the rubbish, dead animals in the canal's, or listen to the horror stories of how the village's made you feel one of them to squeeze cash from you. Most of the West Bank Villages are filthy and no matter how you try to improve things they let them go back to filth again because many have no pride or to lazy to do anything. Ourselves and neighbours tried to improve the village but to no avail, it was like 6 steps forward and 64 steps backward. We laid new surfaces through the village, out come the hosepipes to was it away. 2 women lived in a lean to shelter with no privacy just a few bushes, we built a wall around the corner to give them privacy a a shelter against the cold winter nights. It was not appreciated and withing weeks it had got cardboard stuck all over the entry door and window.

We had three big bins put in strategic places around the village, the first Ramadan no one emptied them so the villagers emptied both the rubbish and the bin into the canals. Most of the West Bank Villages were like this. So if this is clean and tidy, it would be interesting to know what village or town you live in the UK.
The problem is no one has had any form of education to show cleanliness and tidiness, and how it can prevent illness and disease spreading. I gathered too that because life is so cheap so is most other things.

[HEPZIBAH]

"In Egypt I love how, away from the cities and big towns the country villages are clean and tidy, and there is a strong community spirit and a welcome to strangers in need"


Wish I had come across some of these villages MD the only ones I come across were the ones that needed your help and would not give back with out money being involved. You obviously did not get across to the West Bank too much ....

I look forward to MadDilys' response.

[newcastle]

"In Egypt I love how, away from the cities and big towns the country villages are clean and tidy, and there is a strong community spirit and a welcome to strangers in need"


Wish I had come across some of these villages MD the only ones I come across were the ones that needed your help and would not give back with out money being involved. You obviously did not get across to the West Bank too much ....

I look forward to MadDilys' response.

I hope she has more sense than to bother

[Mad Dilys]

I always wore a blindfold when I was in the retrieve vehicle chasing balloons anything up to 15 miles or more from take off point.

When driving in Egypt for well over 20 years I just shut my eyes of course.

[Mad Dilys]

Quote:In Egypt I love how, away from the cities and big towns the country villages are clean and tidy, and there is a strong community spirit and a welcome to strangers in need.

They would be if they all used the ruddy bins provide, free of charge, nix, nienti, nada.
It's like the magic tooth fairy, Who do they think pays to get them emptied ? baba Gorge....

Your London Roots are showing, Bless you. You don't live in the country, you live in Luxor equivalent of the suburbs.

I don't think Hadadine is in the country either - you'll know when you get there because there are no plastic bags in the canal, because there are no shops selling goods that need a plastic bag.

MT do you ever read before you comment? You are not talking about Country Areas, you are talking about suburbs and slums as I mentioned to the good Doctor. I am talking about knowing when you are in the country because.......... there are no plastic bags in the canal, because there are no shops selling goods that need a plastic bag.