Asbestos Julie liar

[***super_nova***]

'Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesperson Julie Bishop has given a misleading account of her meeting with Tamil representatives during her visit to Sri Lanka, according to a Tamil MP who spoke to her at length.

http://www.tamilnet.com/img/publish/2013/02/AUBishopTrip.pdf

[***super_nova***]

monman12 wrote:

SN, I suppose you feel  the same "supposed  outrage" whenever a criminal defence lawyer acts on behalf of a murderer,  rapist,  or paedophile?.

---

No, actually I believe that every person should be considered innocent until proved guilty, and each deserves legal representation to act on their behalf. 
However there was no doubt about asbestos, it was known back in 1930s that it can be deadly . 

That company tried to drag the case for compensation as long as they could, hoping that the people suffering from asbestos diseases would die before they have to pay out, and then moved abroad to avoid paying the people who were dying slow painful death, which was immoral in extreme.  Anybody who can look at person dying in these circumstances and do their utmost to deny them payout, which could make their last few months of life little bit more comfortable, and give them the peace of mind knowing that their kids and wife will be taken care of, is just lowest of the low.  And lawyers do not need to take cases.

[monman12]

SN:  "..... However there was no doubt about asbestos, it was known back in 1930s that it can be deadly .......  And lawyers do not need to take cases....."

So why have a legal system then SN,   if people like yourself with little appreciation of practicing ethics have decided the outcome of a case where Bishop was an instructing solicitor for "the firm's clients: CSR Limited and the state government insurance office."?

Robert Vojakovic of WA-based Asbestos Diseases Society says Bishop "had a take-no-prisoners approach". then added Of course, solicitors don't choose their clients."

They don't SN, and would be up before  their State Law Society Ethics Committee if they attempted to do so.

I thought I would post some past remarks from a couple of jurists:

"A lawyer may not substitute his own moral standards for those of his clients.Every Counsel has a duty to his client fearlessly to raise every issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however distasteful, which he thinks
will help his client’s case."

"The duty to the client is often described as paramount. This obviously means that in conducting a matter for a client your primary  consideration is the client’s best interests, not those of the opposing party or anyone else including yourself."

[topsidesoul]

This is why Tamils and Sri Lankens are coming here on boats.

The UK are standing upto this, Canada and NZ are not going to a heads of  Commonwealth Government meeeting in Sri lanka...

The LNP are aware of this and   do not care......while complaining about the people trying to escape it.

You do not want people escaping things like this to turn up on boats, do something about it Tony and Scott, a head in the sand is not doing something.

WARNING VERY GRAPHIC IMAGES OF DEAD AND TORTURED.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbl-Elax9uo

[topsidesoul]

---

@monman12 wrote:

SN:  "..... However there was no doubt about asbestos, it was known back in 1930s that it can be deadly .......  And lawyers do not need to take cases....."

So why have a legal system then SN,   if people like yourself with little appreciation of practicing ethics have decided the outcome of a case where Bishop was an instructing solicitor for "the firm's clients: CSR Limited and the state government insurance office."?

Robert Vojakovic of WA-based Asbestos Diseases Society says Bishop "had a take-no-prisoners approach". then added Of course, solicitors don't choose their clients."

They don't SN, and would be up before  their State Law Society Ethics Committee if they attempted to do so.

I thought I would post some past remarks from a couple of jurists:

"A lawyer may not substitute his own moral standards for those of his clients.Every Counsel has a duty to his client fearlessly to raise every issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however distasteful, which he thinks
will help his client’s case."

"The duty to the client is often described as paramount. This obviously means that in conducting a matter for a client your primary  consideration is the client’s best interests, not those of the opposing party or anyone else including yourself."

---

Atleast you do not dispute  the effects of asbestos like Nero_wolf did.

[topsidesoul]

Of wait, Tony is doing a swap deal with Sri Lanka, who the UK and Canada are questioning about 'war crimes' and citizens going missing.

One would assume David Cameron would not put his head on a block unless he was sure something is wrong with that countries ruling government.

I bet  Tony will do a deal with the devil to stop those darn boats.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-16/abbott-to-sign-deal-on-people-smuggling-with-sri-lanka/5097132

Australia and Sri Lanka will sign a deal on people smuggling at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) later today that will expand cooperation between the nations' navies.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott is due to meet Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa tonight as part of the CHOGM talks, where he will offer the nation increased financial support.

The deal will see the Australian and Sri Lankan navies step up cooperation in an attempt to stop asylum seeker boats.

Mr Abbott has downplayed concerns the Sri Lankan government may have engaged in war crimes at the end of the country's ethnic war, and talked up the country's economic potential.

That is in contrast to British prime minister David Cameron, who says he is determined to shine an international spotlight on Sri Lanka's human rights issues during CHOGM.

Mr Cameron said he would push for an international investigation through the UN human rights council unless the government acts by March to credibly address claims of abuses at the end of the war.

Bloody history, uncertain future
 

The Rajapakse regime is carrying out its own more limited investigation, but has consistently denied any civilians were killed in the last stages of the war when government troops routed Tamil Tiger rebels in their last stronghold.

However, the UN and rights groups have said as many as 40,000 civilians may have been killed in the onslaught.

The British prime minister yesterday infuriated the government in Colombo by travelling to the war-torn Jaffna region, only hours after a Commonwealth summit began in the capital.

It was the first time a foreign leader visited Jaffna since the former British colony gained independence in 1948.

Mr Cameron agrees that talking about the country's development is important, but he says human rights issues should not be overlooked.

"It's important that we talk up the potential of this country. I'm very keen to do that. I think there's immense potential here in Sri Lanka," he said.

"But I think we do that not by gliding over the difficult issues. I think it's right to confront and discuss the difficult issues - the human rights issues, journalistic freedom issues."

Sri Lanka rejects calls for inquiry

A top Sri Lanka minister has rejected pressure for an international probe, saying the government would "definitely" not allow one.

"Why should we have an international inquiry? We will object to it ... Definitely, we are not going to allow it," said Basil Rajapakse, Sri Lanka's economic development minister and brother to the president.

 
Some four years after the end of its brutal civil war Sri Lanka is a country in limbo, mired in its violent past as a future of economic prosperity beckons, writes Tom Iggulden.

"It is not new, it is not the first time they are saying it," he said of the pressure for an international inquiry.

Asked about the March deadline for the Sri Lankans to complete their own inquiry, the minister rejected any talk of a timetable being imposed from outside.

"They can't give dates. It is not fair. Even Cameron has said we need time. Even in Northern Ireland it took a lot of time," Basil Rajapakse said.

"We understand some of the things he said were aimed at his home constituency. He was addressing the journalists who travelled with him."

The prime ministers of Canada, India and Mauritius all stayed away from Colombo over Sri Lanka's human rights record.

[***super_nova***]

---

@monman12 wrote:

SN:  "..... However there was no doubt about asbestos, it was known back in 1930s that it can be deadly .......  And lawyers do not need to take cases....."

So why have a legal system then SN,   if people like yourself with little appreciation of practicing ethics have decided the outcome of a case where Bishop was an instructing solicitor for "the firm's clients: CSR Limited and the state government insurance office."?

Robert Vojakovic of WA-based Asbestos Diseases Society says Bishop "had a take-no-prisoners approach". then added Of course, solicitors don't choose their clients."

They don't SN, and would be up before  their State Law Society Ethics Committee if they attempted to do so.

I thought I would post some past remarks from a couple of jurists:

"A lawyer may not substitute his own moral standards for those of his clients.Every Counsel has a duty to his client fearlessly to raise every issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however distasteful, which he thinks
will help his client’s case."

"The duty to the client is often described as paramount. This obviously means that in conducting a matter for a client your primary  consideration is the client’s best interests, not those of the opposing party or anyone else including yourself."

---

Yes, if they accept the case they have to act in the client's best interest,  BUT unless ordered to represent the defendant by the court, any attorney typically can refuse to represent any client.
In much the same way that a client can pick a lawyer that they feel comfortable with, the attorney can refuse to represent a client. There is no obligation for a client to hire a particular attorney or an attorney to represent a particular client.

[topsidesoul]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

---

@monman12 wrote:

SN:  "..... However there was no doubt about asbestos, it was known back in 1930s that it can be deadly .......  And lawyers do not need to take cases....."

So why have a legal system then SN,   if people like yourself with little appreciation of practicing ethics have decided the outcome of a case where Bishop was an instructing solicitor for "the firm's clients: CSR Limited and the state government insurance office."?

Robert Vojakovic of WA-based Asbestos Diseases Society says Bishop "had a take-no-prisoners approach". then added Of course, solicitors don't choose their clients."

They don't SN, and would be up before  their State Law Society Ethics Committee if they attempted to do so.

I thought I would post some past remarks from a couple of jurists:

"A lawyer may not substitute his own moral standards for those of his clients.Every Counsel has a duty to his client fearlessly to raise every issue, advance every argument and ask every question, however distasteful, which he thinks
will help his client’s case."

"The duty to the client is often described as paramount. This obviously means that in conducting a matter for a client your primary  consideration is the client’s best interests, not those of the opposing party or anyone else including yourself."

---

Yes, if they accept the case they have to act in the client's best interest,  BUT unless ordered to represent the defendant by the court, any attorney typically can refuse to represent any client.
In much the same way that a client can pick a lawyer that they feel comfortable with, the attorney can refuse to represent a client. There is no obligation for a client to hire a particular attorney or an attorney to represent a particular client.

---

nice try monman...