Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Phoenix

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DeV
    replied
    MOD: I think this thread has run its course

    Leave a comment:

  • luchi
    Cut backs

  • luchi
    replied
    I still don't understand you.
    One can have the formal qualifications to be a medical practioner. If they decide to join the army does that mean they are no longer qualified because they are no longer a GP.

    Originally posted by hedgehog View Post
    I dont know about solicitors and how they operate;

    but I will defer to your greater knowledge in this area.
    What greater knowledge?

    You portray your boss as a superman type-
    Where do I say that?
    I've worked here for 11 years, you tend to get to know a bit about poeple.
    He is doing a job. Like many other MDs in SMEs

    I don't know why he moved job but he is not the first person that decided law was not for them.

    People like Vincent Brown and I think there is a couple FF TDs etc. All of whom can go straight back to it at any time.

    sounds like someone has a crush
    TBH its the money..............................

    Leave a comment:


  • hedgehog
    replied
    Not detracting at all Luchi

    however when you said Legal Quals I expected that your source was a practicing Solicitor or Barrister

    not a lad who did the degree etc.


    But even I cant argue with a lad who is a qualified barrister- I would reckon they more than anyone (Judges excluded) know the ins and outs of the law.

    as for formal qualifications:

    from what I read on barcouncil.ie and various similar sites- the degree of Barrister is merely a degree and a pre requisite to actually being a practicing Barrister.

    however to be an actual practicing barrister you must also be a member of the law library and have done certain things like take an oath etc

    I dont know about solicitors and how they operate;

    but I will defer to your greater knowledge in this area.



    You portray your boss as a superman type- sounds like someone has a crush
    Last edited by hedgehog; 3 September 2010, 09:16.

    Leave a comment:

  • luchi
    Cut backs

  • luchi
    replied
    Originally posted by hedgehog View Post
    Having a law degree and having a formal legal qualification are 2 different things- your Boss is an Accountant

    who runs a food company
    I checked, he was interning as a barrister (he had completed his training in Kings Inns) when he decided he didn't want to practice law and became a CPA. I don't see how this how this detracts from his law degree??

    Do you have some special definition of "formal qualifications"? because as far as I was concerned a formal qualification is one which is recognised by the governing body of the dicipline.

    And technically he doesn't run the company. He is an MD with responsibility of the companies legal, financial and marketing affairs. His brother runs the company.
    luchi
    Cut backs
    Last edited by luchi; 3 September 2010, 08:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • hedgehog
    replied
    (re my MDs qualification - his first degree was in law. He was practicing, but I do not know as what, when he decided his future lay as a CPA and eventually ending up in business with his brother as MD of a food company)
    Having a law degree and having a formal legal qualification are 2 different things- your Boss is an Accountant

    who runs a food company

    Leave a comment:

  • danno
    Major General

  • danno
    replied
    Originally posted by paul g View Post
    Somebody on the outside pays the staff member when then does the deed. There are always going to be relationships between staff and prisoners, and some staff members will seek to profit from it. Female staff members are manipulated by prisoners, who do tend to be liars and cheats.

    A couple of grand for a 15 minute fumble would tempt a lot of women.
    They dont refer to P/Os as screws for no reason.

    Leave a comment:

  • luchi
    Cut backs

  • luchi
    replied
    Originally posted by hedgehog View Post
    the way everybody views the law is highly relevant- laws affect us all- we all have a say in it- I dont think Judges just make decisions on a whim- I would imagine its because someone said something like I dont agreee with that or that affects me in X way therefore I am bringing it before a Judge.
    I think he was more refering to current conversation as opposed to on a grander scale of moral obligation but still you can only argue. it is the supreme court that rules on that arguement. it is their opinion that is the ultimate decider.

    Wrong- my argument is right and in your next sentence you 10000% agree with me- "insurbordination is NOT
    ( my capitals)
    Is not agreeing with you
    and if something is not set in law then
    Jumping the gun there.
    The point was that lack of definition in itself does not make the conviction unsafe.
    Being set in Law just means that regardless of any other definition, including that written in the statute book, is the definition that the supreme court compels all lesser courts to adopt.

    also I do not if insubordination is defined in DFRs. I must accept that it is not defined as you say so.

    (re my MDs qualification - his first degree was in law. He was practicing, but I do not know as what, when he decided his future lay as a CPA and eventually ending up in business with his brother as MD of a food company)
    luchi
    Cut backs
    Last edited by luchi; 2 September 2010, 22:42.

    Leave a comment:


  • hedgehog
    replied
    As an amateur I have to bow to your bosses superior knowledge

    I disagree with him when he says:

    The way both of us view the law is irrelevant.
    the way everybody views the law is highly relevant- laws affect us all- we all have a say in it- I dont think Judges just make decisions on a whim- I would imagine its because someone said something like I dont agreee with that or that affects me in X way therefore I am bringing it before a Judge.

    I was going to ignore everything else your Bosses said - but-

    It is the duty of the Judge in his court to interpret the law as it applies to the case before him. Should this application/ interpretation of the law be questioned (appealed) it is the Duty of the Higher court to make said interpretation. When, finally, the Supreme court makes an interpretation then that is the interpretation set in law. This interpretation can then be changed by an act defining a different interpretation. However this new interpretation is not "set in law" until it has been to the supreme court and can be found by the supreme court to be an "un-safe" interpretation, in which case the act has to be changed.
    I agree with that and if you go back and look atConway v Independent you will realise thats what happened;



    So your and my arguements are nit right but not necessarily wrong.
    The case has not been before the supreme court and thus regardless of what we think it (insubordination) is not set in law.
    Wrong- my argument is right and in your next sentence you 10000% agree with me- "insurbordination is NOT
    ( my capitals)


    and if something is not set in law then

    However it may be defined in military regulations which would then make it a whole new ball game.
    makes it irrelevant because we know that the term insurbordination is NOT defined in any regulations

    and even it it were - the definition could only be argued and not wholly relied upon.

    Thank the Lord your Boss has a formal legal qualification- whats his qualification.

    Leave a comment:


  • paul g
    replied
    Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Who pays who?
    Somebody on the outside pays the staff member when then does the deed. There are always going to be relationships between staff and prisoners, and some staff members will seek to profit from it. Female staff members are manipulated by prisoners, who do tend to be liars and cheats.

    A couple of grand for a 15 minute fumble would tempt a lot of women.
    Last edited by paul g; 2 September 2010, 14:49.

    Leave a comment:

  • hptmurphy
    Commander in Chief

  • hptmurphy
    replied
    having sex with prisoners for money
    Who pays who?

    Leave a comment:


  • paul g
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post



    Depends on what they mean by "illegal activity" - eg speeding, not filing a correct tax return etc
    they mean selling drugs and phones to prisoners, having sex with prisoners for money, jointly running criminal enterprises with prisoners, to give a few examples from my own time.

    Customs officers also have problems with corruption.

    Leave a comment:

  • luchi
    Cut backs

  • luchi
    replied
    Originally posted by hedgehog View Post
    I havent a clue what you just said there Luchi;

    but there is no crime of statutory- your point there eludes me-


    and whereas parking is not defined- illegal parking is I am sure defined- but thats a transport
    The point is that not all things are defined under the definitions and interpretations.
    Did I mis understand?
    Were you not saying it can't be an offence if it is not defined in the statute?

    Insubordinate behavior is set out in the section.
    Just like "Illegal Parking" (or more precicely parking contary to....)

    But putting all that aside for a moment.
    As I was reading your reply my boss was loooking over my shoulder.

    As someone with a formal legal qualification he gave this opinion.
    The way both of us view the law is irrelevant. It is the duty of the Judge in his court to interpret the law as it applies to the case before him. Should this application/ interpretation of the law be questioned (appealed) it is the Duty of the Higher court to make said interpretation. When, finally, the Supreme court makes an interpretation then that is the interpretation set in law. This interpretation can then be changed by an act defining a different interpretation. However this new interpretation is not "set in law" until it has been to the supreme court and can be found by the supreme court to be an "un-safe" interpretation, in which case the act has to be changed.
    So your and my arguements are nit right but not necessarily wrong.
    The case has not been before the supreme court and thus regardless of what we think it (insubordination) is not set in law.
    However it may be defined in military regulations which would then make it a whole new ball game.

    Leave a comment:


  • hedgehog
    replied
    I havent a clue what you just said there Luchi;

    but there is no crime of statutory- your point there eludes me-


    and whereas parking is not defined- illegal parking is I am sure defined- but thats a transport

    matter and your the resident expert on all things that move etc- whereas I can hardly parallel park

    Leave a comment:

  • luchi
    Cut backs

  • luchi
    replied
    Well it is because you are know for your directness one was lead to believe that when you asked for a definition of insubordination i thought that was what you wanted.

    But now you have totally lost me.

    blasphemy?
    Is that not set out in the deformation act 2009 section 36?

    "statutory" is not defined in the statute either, so does that mean that nothing can be according to statute or statutory in irish law?

    asking 10 people for a definition is not defining as a definition is (by definition) a concise explanation of the meaning.

    AFIK even in Ireland that concise definition is taken from the dictionary, possibly a specific dictionary, and not from legal statute.

    BTW You don't drive drunk because that is not possible for most people.

    The offence of drunk driving is where you are so intoxicated you cannot drive.

    As for striking down the conviction because it has no statutory definition that is a point of law. if the case inquestion was being appealed on those grounds it would be going to the Supreme Court.

    Now if I follow the way of your argument since there is no definition in irish statute of parking. Does this mean we can all leave our Motor vehicles anywhere without worry of fine, towing or clamping as since there is no definition of parking there could be law prohibiting it?
    And so everyone can now go to the courts and claim compensation for the pain and suffering caused by Gardai, parking wardens and clampers.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by luchi View Post
    " felt.

    Remember the case with the "General" (Martin Cahill) where the case was dismissed because the "victim" wouldn't say she felt her life was threatened.
    Or the "reasonable man"

    Is the appeal of the "prick" case going to the CMAC or the Supreme court?
    To the best of my knowledge it can only go to the CMAC or the Minister, Supreme Court isn't mentioned by it would have to follow CMAC.

    Originally posted by paul g View Post
    The met police in London reckon one in ten screws in the UK engage in illegal activity, bout the same here I reckon.
    Depends on what they mean by "illegal activity" - eg speeding, not filing a correct tax return etc

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X