5 ms·

I promise you he did - it wasn't to denounce him for refusing the gig, rather to denounce him as part of the retaliatory smear. Here's a pertinent link. If you

I promise you he did - it wasn't to denounce him for refusing the gig, rather to denounce him as part of the retaliatory smear. Here's a pertinent link. If you read the court transcripts, none of the things ascribed to him were said by him - it was just another fairly average day in court. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2386556/Lawyer-Robert-Colover-called-girl-13-predator-barred-sex-cases-condemned-Cameron.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2386556/Lawyer-Rober... Here's an equanimous piece by a barrister befuddled by what happened to him, as the subtext is all sorts of secret. http://barristerblogger.com/2013/08/29/criticism-robert-colover-unfair/?fdx_switcher=true http://barristerblogger.com/2013/08/29/criticism-robert-colo...

foldr 10y ago
The outrage had nothing to do with a refusal to preside over a secret hearing, as the links you provided show. Whether or not the Daily Mail article was fair is a separate issue. It may have misquoted him, but what he actually said was stil pretty bad. >Yes, your Honour. Very much so, and she is undoubtedly it is fair to say very experienced, and one hesitates to use the word, but it is a word that has been used in other cases, I think the officer would agree that she may well be what is described as predatory in respect of her activities. (Said of a 13 year old.)
- icebraining 10y ago
  I think madaxe_again's argument is that similar things are said every day without a frenzy being raised, pointing to some other motivation behind it. That said, considering that he specifically chose that word, I agree that it's pretty bad, and find it hard to believe that it's a common occurrence for barristers to call 13-year-olds' actions "predatory".
  - madaxe_again 10y ago
    In mitigation such things are pretty normal - particularly coming from the prosecution under direct questioning, which this was. You don't mince words when asked for a direct opinion by a judge. Of course the press pieces don't address the context, as the context was and is a state secret. Bob is a Rabbi, a youth worker, a kite festival organiser, and a stand-up bloke and father of three very well adjusted adults I've known since I became a conscious entity.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Fair enough, but in any case, the argument wasn't on whether what he said was fair or correct, or whether the reaction was appropriate, but whether the (over)reaction was because of some unrelated case. I mean, it's not exactly uncommon for anything involving pedophilia, often even when there's no actual evidence of such, to explode in Think Of The Children hysteria, and a man in an official position calling a 13-year-old a "predator" sounds exactly the kind of thing that can trigger it. So the question is: are barristers often referring to 13-year-old as predators, and the media just specifically picked up on this case?
      - madaxe_again 10y ago
        The answer to that query is a pretty sound yes - mitigation looks at the precise circumstances and behaviours of surrounding that which is being sentenced over, and this is the sort of thing that is raised.
        foldr 10y ago
        I think what people find difficult to understand is how this could be construed as mitigating. No-one can seriously think that a 13 year old girl is in a position of powerto "predate" on an adult man. What the defence really seems to be doing is trying to blame the victim by saying it was her fault for being horny rather than the perpetrator's fault for failing to exercise any self restraint.
        madaxe_again 10y ago
        Bob was the prosecution, responding to a query on a defence mitigation statement by the judge - honestly, if you read the transcript, the context is clear.
        foldr 10y ago
        Surely the fact that the prosecution said it makes it worse.
- madaxe_again 10y ago
  The entire furore was in response to his refusal to participate - what was said was pretty normal for the variety of case being heard - mitigation prior to sentencing tends to be a rather "cards on the table" affair, and the press focus was raised solely as a result of his refusal to engage in secret courts. That said, believe what you will - I trust a man I've known over thirty years over the tabloid press.
  - foldr 10y ago
    >The entire furore was in response to his refusal to participate Ok, but it seems we only have your word for this? I reiterate that the normal response to a barrister not wanting to do a particular job would be to get another barrister to do it instead. (He is not in fact a QC, by the way, as the blog post you linked to notes.) The furore surrounding his comments in court seems eminently explicable given the nature of the comments, so I'm not inclined to believe that there's any more to it than that unless there's evidence to that effect. >I trust a man I've known over thirty years over the tabloid press. I'm not trusting the tabloid press. I'm looking at the transcript of what he said in court. If it's "normal" to describe thirteen year old girls as sexual predators in court then that is a scandal in itself -- and probably the reason the PM weighed in.

foldr 10y ago

The outrage had nothing to do with a refusal to preside over a secret hearing, as the links you provided show. Whether or not the Daily Mail article was fair is a separate issue. It may have misquoted him, but what he actually said was stil pretty bad. >Yes, your Honour. Very much so, and she is undoubtedly it is fair to say very experienced, and one hesitates to use the word, but it is a word that has been used in other cases, I think the officer would agree that she may well be what is described as predatory in respect of her activities. (Said of a 13 year old.)

icebraining 10y ago
I think madaxe_again's argument is that similar things are said every day without a frenzy being raised, pointing to some other motivation behind it. That said, considering that he specifically chose that word, I agree that it's pretty bad, and find it hard to believe that it's a common occurrence for barristers to call 13-year-olds' actions "predatory".
- madaxe_again 10y ago
  In mitigation such things are pretty normal - particularly coming from the prosecution under direct questioning, which this was. You don't mince words when asked for a direct opinion by a judge. Of course the press pieces don't address the context, as the context was and is a state secret. Bob is a Rabbi, a youth worker, a kite festival organiser, and a stand-up bloke and father of three very well adjusted adults I've known since I became a conscious entity.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Fair enough, but in any case, the argument wasn't on whether what he said was fair or correct, or whether the reaction was appropriate, but whether the (over)reaction was because of some unrelated case. I mean, it's not exactly uncommon for anything involving pedophilia, often even when there's no actual evidence of such, to explode in Think Of The Children hysteria, and a man in an official position calling a 13-year-old a "predator" sounds exactly the kind of thing that can trigger it. So the question is: are barristers often referring to 13-year-old as predators, and the media just specifically picked up on this case?
    - madaxe_again 10y ago
      The answer to that query is a pretty sound yes - mitigation looks at the precise circumstances and behaviours of surrounding that which is being sentenced over, and this is the sort of thing that is raised.
      - foldr 10y ago
        I think what people find difficult to understand is how this could be construed as mitigating. No-one can seriously think that a 13 year old girl is in a position of powerto "predate" on an adult man. What the defence really seems to be doing is trying to blame the victim by saying it was her fault for being horny rather than the perpetrator's fault for failing to exercise any self restraint.
        madaxe_again 10y ago
        Bob was the prosecution, responding to a query on a defence mitigation statement by the judge - honestly, if you read the transcript, the context is clear.
        foldr 10y ago
        Surely the fact that the prosecution said it makes it worse.
madaxe_again 10y ago
The entire furore was in response to his refusal to participate - what was said was pretty normal for the variety of case being heard - mitigation prior to sentencing tends to be a rather "cards on the table" affair, and the press focus was raised solely as a result of his refusal to engage in secret courts. That said, believe what you will - I trust a man I've known over thirty years over the tabloid press.
- foldr 10y ago
  >The entire furore was in response to his refusal to participate Ok, but it seems we only have your word for this? I reiterate that the normal response to a barrister not wanting to do a particular job would be to get another barrister to do it instead. (He is not in fact a QC, by the way, as the blog post you linked to notes.) The furore surrounding his comments in court seems eminently explicable given the nature of the comments, so I'm not inclined to believe that there's any more to it than that unless there's evidence to that effect. >I trust a man I've known over thirty years over the tabloid press. I'm not trusting the tabloid press. I'm looking at the transcript of what he said in court. If it's "normal" to describe thirteen year old girls as sexual predators in court then that is a scandal in itself -- and probably the reason the PM weighed in.