Orangey

Dave__Notts wrote:



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

awayman wrote:



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 rape 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..

Mal wrote:

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

Lizaleanrob wrote:



does that mean you`ll swap me an orange for some popcorn

Lizaleanrob wrote:



only the missus but id need your vodka then

Dawnie wrote:

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

Lizaleanrob wrote:



is that an admittance to trying it then dawnie