[News] Southport Murderer Pleads Guilty

sydney said:

absolutely ....soft., not severe enough. I am well aware of what barristers are paid , my nieces father in law is one , he's polluted with money and is moving to America when he retires.

Click to expand...

ROSM said:

The average salary for a barrister is 89k. Starting salary is 40k which usually requires 5 years training before reaching this status.

Given Barristers are self employed the range depends on the work they do. Legal aid or junior criminal defence Barristers will be at the lower end c50k after 9 years experience.

That's a good salary but not 'polluted' by any means

Click to expand...

GT49er said:

Barristers usually charge by the hour, or they do round here anyway. Several hundred £pounds per hour for the self employed is a bloody good wage!

Click to expand...

ROSM said:

As I said there are many different types and levels of barrister. Charging by the hour doesn't mean full income to the barrister either. The cab rank rule also impacts their income too.

There is a perception that all lawyers and solicitors and barristers are rolling on cash. With the state of the English judicial system at the moment that isn't correct. Add the abuse they get from the daily mail et al and centre right to far right politicians, many are wondering if it's worth it.

Click to expand...

clapham_gull said:

I was in London at the time, but for reasons not for here, I've been living a few miles from Southport on and off for over a year.

Talk to locals, drink in their pubs. Haven't detected the deranged fury on social media about what happened.

Just sadness and pain about the complete randomness of a terrible terrible attack in a very small town on the coast.

Itself very let down and in places crumbling, but the people are lovely.

I watched the judge today and in places it was almost impossible to listen to. The families have asked the media that the finer details aren't repeated just yet.

But still, the usual "New Media" suspects are declaring another cover up.

Of course, the whole case needs looking into. How "Prevent" is geared to stop ideological extremism and basically let a psychopath fell through the cracks.

But those looking for a cover up care nothing for the victims or the families. They are using it to advance their careers, whether commercially or politically and have radicalised thousands of conspiracy theory suspectable individuals to do the same.

Scum.

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

There are different barristers but then you knew that. Some do criminal work, others make a mint.

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

It has been explained several times. The murderer was a minor when he committed the crimes. His name couldn’t be revealed until a judge ruled it could.
That is the law, and nothing to do with the government. Likewise a minor wouldn’t be hung either.

Click to expand...

Jackthelad said:

I would like him to have only solitary confinement. His food to be the bare basics and no perks whatsoever. Never let him outside or see daylight. No light in his room just darkness until he dies. That would be worse than death.

Click to expand...

rippleman said:

Except that the law is made by the government! If it was minded to do so the government could get rid of the archaic protection of killers under 18 TODAY!

Click to expand...

British Bulldog said:

I agree he should have no perks what so ever, In my mind the rest of his life should be a basic cell with nothing more than a basic bed, mattress blanket and pillow, A bare toilet with no seat and a basic single table and chair. 3 basic meals and a quick shower each day. He gave up his right to a life so from now on he should get nothing more than a basic existence.

Click to expand...

Sorrel said:

I will treat your sincerity with sincerity back - though I don't wish to get involved in a long argument.

In cases like this - when there is mass murder and no doubt to the perpetrator - then I'm absolutely in favour of the punishment being death. There are plenty of people who have principled views against killing, pacifists who would never condone violence in any form. That would be a perfectly respectable moral position.

However, generally those against the death penalty are not pacifists and are prepared to see killing done in the name of the state when the military is involved. I find this a hypocritical position: one adopted to show how "civilised" we are as a nation, but the reality is they are in favour of the state organising death, just under different conditions. Saying "I hope he gets hurt/killed in prison" is also an abrogation of responsibility. That makes those who say that sound like they prefer random prison violence over the rule of law - not a good moral position IMO.

The argument of "would you be prepared to do it?" is a bit pointless if we are talking about the state rather than random individual violence. I also am unlikely to be in the Royal Signals, or an artillery officer but that doesn't mean other people shouldn't or won't do those tasks. I don't think there are any countries worldwide that stopped capital punishment because they were unable to organise it.

The best argument against the death penalty for me is the "slippery slope". If we accept it for this, then maybe a less pleasant government could arrive who demand the death penalty for drug-dealing, or murder on its own, or - as we had in this country in the 1700s - for stealing. Where to draw the line is the best argument to not do it at all.

I was against the death penalty myself until I talked to friends of those affected by the Oklahoma bombings in 1995 (I talked to them in 1996). Their argument was that the murderer should be given no treatment, not kept alive as a prisoner, not solitary confinement to protect him from others, no cruel punishment. Instead, he should be erased from the planet and those he had hurt could be free to move on knowing he was no longer around. Maybe it's an American attitude, but I find it more convincing than people saying "this almost makes me change my mind on the death penalty" and then asking for the prisoner in this case to be kept alive with state care for 50 more years.

Click to expand...

cunning fergus said:

That’s all very well, however it will never be basic enough that he won’t be denied some pleasures, or at least pleasures relative for someone in prison.

Sitting outside on a sunny day, smoking a fag, jam roly-poly for dessert, access to a library etc. These are just examples of how once conditioned to a life in basic prison the corresponding pleasures are simply realigned to that existence.

Lock him in a cell with some wire and a hook on the ceiling, no one returns for a month and see how he is.

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

Sigh. I’ve already tried to explain this to sydney, but the great and the good think they know better.
Some of us have worked in the Criminal Justice System.

Click to expand...

The Antikythera Mechanism said:

This is very true. I have a friend who is a Solicitor and Partner in a practice specialising in Construction Law and his fees and the fees of the Barristers he uses are eye watering.

Click to expand...

ROSM said:

And yet people baulk at giving the vote to 17 year olds, letting u18s drink in pubs, and being allowed to marry without their parents permission.

There is a lot more to this than one law

Click to expand...

GT49er said:

Mate of mine from Uni is a solicitor in a provincial practice - not even a barrister. He's on £200 per hour. To be fair, he doesn't complain about the legal profession being underpaid and struggling to make ends meet!

Click to expand...

dazzer6666 said:

Yep. City lawyers we used on complex cases were typically on charge-out rates of 500-750/hour. Barristers far more.

Click to expand...