Exactly, that's why it is "beyond reasonable doubt" and not the civil standard ("on the balance of probabilities").
@JamDrop pointed out the very good reason for only trying on the evidence presented. (although, as has been mentioned, that law has changed a bit since the 90’s) But I’d like to point you towards legal Twitter, where you’ll discover that junior barristers on legal aid cases can easily be earning less than NMW as they’re self employed and the fixed fee system is critically underfunded.
I don't think you should ever compare a Football match to the holocaust. https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/bristol-rovers-joey-barton-holocaust-6106487
He says "a" holocaust, not "the" holocaust. That's the route he and his very experienced legal team will no doubt go down. Sh it analogy though.
No one goes into criminal law to get rich thats for sure, my daughter is going down family law route for that very reason - there's no money in criminal, and whilst you might think its mercenary at the end of the day we all want to be compensated for renting our time out in whatever job we do, including the law.
He is just a bit thick,amazing how many people, especially managers who try to use big words end up looking a bit thick, when the word does not fit,in this case I can not get really upset ,unlike his assault on Stendel as that was thuggish behaviour while this is just thickness
One of the definitions of the word Holocaust is mass destruction or slaughter, especially by fire. That’s with a small h. The Holocaust is a name for that specific historical event, with a capital H. I can’t stand the bloke, and anybody with any sensitivity would have just said the defence capitulated or something. He should apologise for any unintended offence, but he probably won’t. Personally and unfortunately I think he’s used a word that does cover what he meant - that’s probably why he added the other words to describe it, to avoid anybody misconstruing it. Unlucky, Joseph!
I don't think that's the case. I think he knows exactly what he's doing. He likes to shock and he likes controversy. I'm not really sure what he hopes to achieve besides adding to his rap sheet. He doesn't particularly anger me, I just see him as a child, a clown, with a big ego. I don't think he cares what people think of him (as long as they are shocked or annoyed by him). It must be quite a sad existence, to always be in that frame of mind. I hope he gets help eventually.
You think he beat his wife up just for the ‘controversy’? And all the other violence? Just to shock people? I would suggest that would take a level of self control he clearly hasn’t got.
If he did the violent stuff for attention, then in my opinion I'd be locking him away. Textbook sociopathic tendencies, which only get worse the more an individual is provided a grander stage to perform on.
I think he's out of control. I think these latest comments and things like the tunnel incident are feeding his ego, it's like child's play to him. The violence against his wife/stubbing cigars out in people's eyes etc is because he's out of control and a nasty *******. I don't think he does everything for the controversy, I think sometimes he just acts out and doesn't see the subsequent controversy as a bad thing necessarily.