A couple of people took exception to yesterday's blog (though many more agreed), but I want to make it clear that I was not saying that lawyers should not defend people who've done horrible things, nor that they have to necessarily consider the feelings of the victims when creating their defence - just that I wouldn't like to have to do that job in some cases (and wouldn't do it) and that in this particular case the line of enquiry seemed (from press reports) unnecessarily offensive and pointless, both in the fact that I don't think any jury would have bought the argument and also because whether they got him off or not, the defendant was going back to prison for life. There are times when lawyers have to be cunts (which is lucky for them) but I was more proposing a brave new world where maybe they might decide not to be. We have to let the legal process take its course and a lawyer can't let the fact that he might know his client is guilty from stopping him from defending him in whatever way seems appropriate, but I was just positing a fantasy that they might. In this one case.
But it's true the judge didn't stop the line of enquiry and it is up to him or her. Someone brought up the case of Frankie Boyle's disability jokes saying it was hypocritical of me to think that only comedians could be offensive. But as you may know I actually think Frankie crossed a line on that occasion and was offensive without good enough reason and picked on an innocent party. So it turns out to be quite a good comparison. There are points where the line can get crossed and I don't think it's a bad thing that people debate when that is the case. Even if in Frankie's case it was more Channel 4's fault that they let the joke go out and in this case it was maybe down to the judge. They have a judge because there is a line that can be crossed and just as with comedy, it's worth a debate if the line is in the wrong place.
Neil Downey who originally got annoyed by my blog, but I think ultimately realised what point I was attemping to make made the good point -" I'm annoyed that media focusing on perceived flaws of defence lawyer while press has thwarted verdict on other charge."
And I agree that is awful.
But good to provoke debate and obviously there were parts of yesterday's blog that were deliberately provocative and offensive to lawyers. But not really to specific lawyers. Least not ones that had had their children murdered.
In more fun news I started preparations for my Half Marathon today, which is just over 100 days away. My girlfriend and me headed off to do a two mile run to test our stamina, but both us were finding it relatively easy and managed about three and a half miles in 35 minutes. Just another ten miles on top of that and we're there. It was an encouraging start and without wanting to tempt fate everything is holding together pretty well for a man of almost 44 years of age. Because of work I've been neglecting my exercise and this bracing run did make me feel a lot better. At my age you've got to lose it or use it. I am looking forward to the challenge of the longer run and if I fuck up my knees or disable myself in the process then I might at least end up benefiting from any money raised! So if you fancy funding this one last dash to fitness I have now set up a page at Virgin Money (apparently they take no commission unlike my Justgiving.com)
for my Half Marathon in October. Be lovely if you fancied chucking a few quid in my direction (if you haven't done so already). It all goes to SCOPE who are doing some terrific work in fighting for equal rights for the disabled and providing schools
brilliant kids like these tykes.
And poor old Besse Cooper must be fuming. After all her work bumping off her old age rivals (allegedly - alleged by me), suddenly
another Brazilian has turned up to steal her crown. To be the oldest woman twice is some achievement, but if somehow this new record holder meets with "an accident" then Besse could be going for the treble.
