Orangey

9 Jul 2010

Quote by awayman
can anyone tell me if so many women that have been fantasize about it why do we lock rapists up

So you really expect us believe that you can`t tell the difference between fantasy and reality ?
That`s a big thing to admit on an open forum !! :shock:
it might be worth reading the whole tread it actually helps me ol flower
kas seems to think that 39% of women have fantasy`s
well sorry but here is the medical ugly truth

From the bottom of the page you quote
The author is not a psychiatrist or physician / medical doctor or legal attorney of any sort.
Kenty will be along in a while to disclaim your 'evidence' as 'just something you can find with Google.'
(Actually it's not bad, but it's incomplete, not peer reviewed and an entirely secondary source, but you don't appear to have recognised that.)
nor is it a blog flipa

Neither is this a blog.

It is self published on the same platform you cited as evidence though.
Some people really are gullible.
i did a google search
editor of that post comes up as a know nothing under achiver
who `d argue that
:giggle::giggle:

9 Jul 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
can anyone tell me if so many women that have been fantasize about it why do we lock rapists up

So you really expect us believe that you can`t tell the difference between fantasy and reality ?
That`s a big thing to admit on an open forum !! :shock:
it might be worth reading the whole tread it actually helps me ol flower
kas seems to think that 39% of women have fantasy`s
well sorry but here is the medical ugly truth

From the bottom of the page you quote
The author is not a psychiatrist or physician / medical doctor or legal attorney of any sort.
Kenty will be along in a while to disclaim your 'evidence' as 'just something you can find with Google.'
(Actually it's not bad, but it's incomplete, not peer reviewed and an entirely secondary source, but you don't appear to have recognised that.)
nor is it a blog flipa

Neither is this a blog.

It is self published on the same platform you cited as evidence though.
Some people really are gullible.
while were talking eggs and chins you might like this its informative and shows you know nothing if which you are writing
sorry for the delay but i find this sort of thing a better impact when some one believes they know all when like stated before you know nothing and plenty of it
enjoy

i do believe this is a real link not a blog etc
maybe we can all join the op and get away from the child stuff
sorry for the away pun none intended wink

You really are intent on slapping yourself in the face with this aren't you? Is it some kind of masochism thing you're doing?
I've already pointed you to the section of the code of conduct for barristers that would prevent a barrister from being directly instructed in a complex criminal case. You chose not to respond then, and now you come back as if you've not already had your errors pointed out to you. In case you hadn't looked, here's the relevant bits explained to you.

603. A barrister must not accept any instructions if to do so would cause him to be professionally embarrassed and for this purpose a barrister will be professionally embarrassed:...
h) If the barrister is instructed by or on behalf of a lay client who has not also instructed a solicitor or other professional client, and if the barrister is satisfied that it is in the interests of the client or in the interests of justice for the lay client to instruct a solicitor or other professional client.
Annex F2 (3) & (4) of the code of conduct also apply.
Why does it matter?
The rules in Section 4 of the code make clear who a barrister may deal with and may not - he can't instruct expert witnesses or agree to pay them for instance. Therefore in any case where an expert witness may be required he has to advise his clients to instruct a solicitor.
Anyone accused of a serious criminal offence is going to need advice at the police station; 401A (b) (vi) is going to mean a barrister has to step down from the case unless he believes that nothing he said, did or saw is likely to be challenged in court.
Now, you tried this bollock earlier because you know someone who works in the Temple, but we were talking about serious criminal offences - I made this point, you ran away, and now you come back with a link to the front page that leads to the detail you're too thick to understand. Why do you bother?

9 Jul 2010

Quote by awayman
can anyone tell me if so many women that have been fantasize about it why do we lock rapists up

So you really expect us believe that you can`t tell the difference between fantasy and reality ?
That`s a big thing to admit on an open forum !! :shock:
it might be worth reading the whole tread it actually helps me ol flower
kas seems to think that 39% of women have fantasy`s
well sorry but here is the medical ugly truth

From the bottom of the page you quote
The author is not a psychiatrist or physician / medical doctor or legal attorney of any sort.
Kenty will be along in a while to disclaim your 'evidence' as 'just something you can find with Google.'
(Actually it's not bad, but it's incomplete, not peer reviewed and an entirely secondary source, but you don't appear to have recognised that.)
nor is it a blog flipa

Neither is this a blog.

It is self published on the same platform you cited as evidence though.
Some people really are gullible.
while were talking eggs and chins you might like this its informative and shows you know nothing if which you are writing
sorry for the delay but i find this sort of thing a better impact when some one believes they know all when like stated before you know nothing and plenty of it
enjoy

i do believe this is a real link not a blog etc
maybe we can all join the op and get away from the child stuff
sorry for the away pun none intended wink

You really are intent on slapping yourself in the face with this aren't you? Is it some kind of masochism thing you're doing?
I've already pointed you to the section of the code of conduct for barristers that would prevent a barrister from being directly instructed in a complex criminal case. You chose not to respond then, and now you come back as if you've not already had your errors pointed out to you. In case you hadn't looked, here's the relevant bits explained to you.

603. A barrister must not accept any instructions if to do so would cause him to be professionally embarrassed and for this purpose a barrister will be professionally embarrassed:...
h) If the barrister is instructed by or on behalf of a lay client who has not also instructed a solicitor or other professional client, and if the barrister is satisfied that it is in the interests of the client or in the interests of justice for the lay client to instruct a solicitor or other professional client.
Annex F2 (3) & (4) of the code of conduct also apply.
Why does it matter?
The rules in Section 4 of the code make clear who a barrister may deal with and may not - he can't instruct expert witnesses or agree to pay them for instance. Therefore in any case where an expert witness may be required he has to advise his clients to instruct a solicitor.
Anyone accused of a serious criminal offence is going to need advice at the police station; 401A (b) (vi) is going to mean a barrister has to step down from the case unless he believes that nothing he said, did or saw is likely to be challenged in court.
Now, you tried this bollock earlier because you know someone who works in the Temple, but we were talking about serious criminal offences - I made this point, you ran away, and now you come back with a link to the front page that leads to the detail you're too thick to understand. Why do you bother?
its called direct access barristers get a grown up to google it for you
like i said i have a relative working in chambers you have your own self belief i have used the system you have errrrrrr no idea

:banghead:
try to keep up with new thangled modern ideas of working its called progress

9 Jul 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
are we talking as part of a fantasy or real life
but the quote states had and not were had, being past tense and were, being past/present /future
36% were written by women who had been .

if i`ve got it wrong then so has quite a few others judging by a mail or two in my pm box dunno

I have already explained that you are using the last part of the post. If you put the rest of the sentance in then it will make sense.
If the people who have PM'd you have made the same mistake then I can see why they have confused themselves too.
Dave_Notts

9 Jul 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
its called direct access barristers get a grown up to google it for you
like i said i have a relative working in chambers you have your own self belief i have used the system you have errrrrrr no idea :banghead:
try to keep up with new thangled modern ideas of working its called progress

I googled it and it states:
"Members of the Public, and commercial and non-commercial organisations are now able to instruct barristers directly on most civil matters. The Public Access page provides information on instructing members of the Bar directly."
The main point there is civil matters and not criminal matters.
Are you and Away actually arguing over two seperate things? One arguing about civil actions and one about criminal actions? If you are then you are both right. If you are arguing over civil actions then Rob is right. If you are arguing over crimal actions then Away is right.
You both need to set your stall out over this debate and decide what you are discussing.
Dave_Notts

10 Jul 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

its called direct access barristers get a grown up to google it for you
like i said i have a relative working in chambers you have your own self belief i have used the system you have errrrrrr no idea :banghead:
try to keep up with new thangled modern ideas of working its called progress

I googled it and it states:
"Members of the Public, and commercial and non-commercial organisations are now able to instruct barristers directly on most civil matters. The Public Access page provides information on instructing members of the Bar directly."
The main point there is civil matters and not criminal matters.
Are you and Away actually arguing over two seperate things? One arguing about civil actions and one about criminal actions? If you are then you are both right. If you are arguing over civil actions then Rob is right. If you are arguing over crimal actions then Away is right.
You both need to set your stall out over this debate and decide what you are discussing.
Dave_Notts
thnks dave now were are the oranges
:thumbup:

10 Jul 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

its called direct access barristers get a grown up to google it for you
like i said i have a relative working in chambers you have your own self belief i have used the system you have errrrrrr no idea :banghead:
try to keep up with new thangled modern ideas of working its called progress

I googled it and it states:
"Members of the Public, and commercial and non-commercial organisations are now able to instruct barristers directly on most civil matters. The Public Access page provides information on instructing members of the Bar directly."
The main point there is civil matters and not criminal matters.
Are you and Away actually arguing over two seperate things? One arguing about civil actions and one about criminal actions? If you are then you are both right. If you are arguing over civil actions then Rob is right. If you are arguing over crimal actions then Away is right.
You both need to set your stall out over this debate and decide what you are discussing.
Dave_Notts
With respect Dave, I have made my point clear. The context is clear throughout the thread. That's why my last post refers to a complex criminal case, the kind that would arise from, say, a allegation or a criminal charge arising from asphyxiation. It isn't much of a debate really, except in the context of a thread where people appear proud to say they will disregard evidence that doesn't suit their prejudices, and appear to be proud of that level of almost primeval ignorance..

10 Jul 2010

Quote by awayman

stuff

stuff
Dave_Notts
With respect Dave, I have made my point clear. The context is clear throughout the thread. That's why my last post refers to a complex criminal case, the kind that would arise from, say, a allegation or a criminal charge arising from asphyxiation. It isn't much of a debate really, except in the context of a thread where people appear proud to say they will disregard evidence that doesn't suit their prejudices, and appear to be proud of that level of almost primeval ignorance..
its does seen that an orange would not be big enough for some :giggle:
bolt

10 Jul 2010

Liz and Away - stop your bickering or take it to PM. This thread is not about you two point scoring. If you can't play nicely, don't play at all.
Mal

10 Jul 2010

Quote by Islandcpl1
Liz and Away - stop your bickering or take it to PM. This thread is not about you two point scoring. If you can't play nicely, don't play at all.
Mal

May I make a suggestion? Well I'm going to wether peeps like it or not. If people want to discuss, neh bicker about and all its legal and or moral manifistations and or ramifications please open another thread and not hijack someone elses that is about a seperate matter alltogether? Or is it a matter of course that a few narrow minded people spoil it for others?
Just a suggestion.
does that mean you`ll swap me an orange for some popcorn lol

:lol:

10 Jul 2010

Quote by Islandcpl1
Liz and Away - stop your bickering or take it to PM. This thread is not about you two point scoring. If you can't play nicely, don't play at all.
Mal

May I make a suggestion? Well I'm going to wether peeps like it or not. If people want to discuss, neh bicker about and all its legal and or moral manifistations and or ramifications please open another thread and not hijack someone elses that is about a seperate matter alltogether? Or is it a matter of course that a few narrow minded people spoil it for others?
Just a suggestion.
does that mean you`ll swap me an orange for some popcorn lol

:lol:
Yup,,,,, got any sweaties?
only the missus but id need your vodka then innocent

10 Jul 2010

I don't know how anyone could use an orange, the peel tastes disgusting :crazy:

10 Jul 2010

Quote by Dawnie
I don't know how anyone could use an orange, the peel tastes disgusting :crazy:

is that an admittance to trying it then dawnie lol

:lol:

10 Jul 2010

Quote by Islandcpl1
Liz and Away - stop your bickering or take it to PM. This thread is not about you two point scoring. If you can't play nicely, don't play at all.
Mal

May I make a suggestion? Well I'm going to wether peeps like it or not. If people want to discuss, neh bicker about and all its legal and or moral manifistations and or ramifications please open another thread and not hijack someone elses that is about a seperate matter alltogether? Or is it a matter of course that a few narrow minded people spoil it for others?
Just a suggestion.
does that mean you`ll swap me an orange for some popcorn lol

:lol:
Yup,,,,, got any sweaties?
only the missus but id need your vodka then innocent

Done
You could always follow your own advice... you know, just a suggestion! wink

10 Jul 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
I don't know how anyone could use an orange, the peel tastes disgusting :crazy:

is that an admittance to trying it then dawnie lol

:lol:

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo :lol2:
Although................. hands round a throat in a time of passion from someone you trust isn't bad, or so I've heard innocent

11 Jul 2010

Quote by Islandcpl1
Liz and Away - stop your bickering or take it to PM. This thread is not about you two point scoring. If you can't play nicely, don't play at all.
Mal

May I make a suggestion? Well I'm going to wether peeps like it or not. If people want to discuss, neh bicker about and all its legal and or moral manifistations and or ramifications please open another thread and not hijack someone elses that is about a seperate matter alltogether? Or is it a matter of course that a few narrow minded people spoil it for others?
Just a suggestion.
I may have many faults but narrow mindedness isn't one of them. Pedantry possibly is.