4 ms·
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 sent
by 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.