Thread: Richard Lincoln

Originally Posted by kotuku

sidney old chap -I often dont seem to agree with you ver often -but in this case you alone make this crystal clear,and thanks so much -at least to me .could you please(if able)tell me about the part of this cowboys&indians saga where the boys in blue attempted to detain lincoln under the ?auspices of the mental health act.
IIRC I did read about it at the time along with a lot of the other you hint at, but my memory sometimes gets overloaded.
the Justice Mallon judgement I did down load (all33pages of it)and i found her verbal arsekick of the blue brigade quite blunt and plain leaving all legal component in no doubt whatsoever as to where their roles lay.
Mind you Gundoc gave a performance even Rumpole of the Bailey would raise a glass of port to in salute ,and even more so given the crown couldnt rebbut!

What do you do when you realise that you have overplayed your hand, behaved unlawfully and need to discredit your potential accuser?

Allegations were made in the hearing of a lack of mental stability, but without any actual evidence being presented and was treated as such by the Judge.

Generally this stuff is considered corruption, but instead the disaffected are not allowed to proceed against the police because "he was using the law for revenge."

What?

Originally Posted by Sidney

What do you do when you realise that you have overplayed your hand, behaved unlawfully and need to discredit your potential accuser?

Allegations were made in the hearing of a lack of mental stability, but without any actual evidence being presented and was treated as such by the Judge.

Generally this stuff is considered corruption, but instead the disaffected are not allowed to proceed against the police because "he was using the law for revenge."

What?

if as you state then law were or are using"allegations "as fact is that not very dangerous and shifty ground to be dancing on?

Do any of the forum members know this guy personally and can vouch for him.
We all can "read" up on what happened but really for me to support him would need a few on here to back him.

Originally Posted by erniec

Do any of the forum members know this guy personally and can vouch for him.
We all can "read" up on what happened but really for me to support him would need a few on here to back him.

Really - ? a few on here have already vouched for him. I have laid out fairly clearly most of what happened and clearly I don't count - If I vouch for him - who will vouch for me? When would you become happy do you think?

Most of this stuff is public record. Media can't be trusted to illuminate without bias so I wouldn't start there. The cases are available for both the incident in question, and the High Court denial of the application to the bar.

My summaries are reasonably accurate for what its worth.

My impression of Richard are that he is focussed, intense and basically honest. He will do a great job for you if you engaged his services. He has the dog with a bone quality that a good lawyer needs. That appears to be evident without my vouching for him.

I also believe that he understands that his response in social media was a lapse, unproductive and a result of some frustration with outcomes that seemed inequitable. I doubt whether that will be a problem again in the future.

Sidney not trying to get into an argument but OP by my count/take on things is the only one to vouch for Richard Lincoln.
Now I am all for supporting those who question things and push issues when others sit on there hands.

There has been a lot of commentary but not a lot of "I know him personally and he deserves our support".

Originally Posted by Sidney

My summaries are reasonably accurate for what its worth.

Ok, so just coz you say so that makes it the truth

Originally Posted by Sidney

My impression of Richardare that he is focussed, intense and basically honest..

He stood up in front of a select committee in parliament and told lies with a straight face... When he was confronted about it on this and other forums he became abusive and was banned...

Originally Posted by ebf

He stood up in front of a select committee in parliament and told lies with a straight face... When he was confronted about it on this and other forums he became abusive and was banned...

Tell us more gnome. Much better when it's specific. What were RLs straight-faced lies to the select committee?

Originally Posted by kotuku

if as you state then law were or are using"allegations "as fact is that not very dangerous and shifty ground to be dancing on?

Yep - except of course if you can be protected by the court in spite of your dodgy behaviour...