esselle wrote:

No, I am not related to, in the pay of, in any way connected with, your man Crompton.

Rather, I am someone interested in craftsmanship, aesthetics, style and luxury. From time to time, I read for example FNB, or LL, or ASW, or Permanent Style, or Jeremy Clarkson writing about Astons, Lambos or Masers. Or authors on fine wines and watches.

I am not a regular contributor, but I found the preceeding posts fascinating. A defence lawyer gets well paid, but does not blance a client's guilt with innocence, nor does an advertising agency promote the weaknesses in a client's product along with its virtues.

If the names that have appeared in this particular blog are prepared to offer freebies, then perhaps they are the ones you ought to be ridiculing?

Your defence of Crompton and the lawyer and advertising analogies are ludicrous.

Would you trust a test report on an Aston Martin by Jeremy Clarkson if you knew he was getting a free car from the company?

Would you trust a wine recommendation in the Spectator if you knew that the journalist received free cases from the distributor?

esselle wrote:

Crumbs.

I wasn't defending your man. How often do you read a review of a wine, for example, when the journo says it was horrible?

If this is the level of debate, then I now realise why I don't spend much time on it. Try defending a villain against overwhelming evidence.

I have read many reviews where the journalist says that a particular wine was poor. I have also read countless negative reports of test drives. We must read different newspapers and magazines.

I would not defend a villain when there was overwhelming evidence of his guilt. My contempt for defence lawyers who do is marginally lower than that of estate agents and journalists.

Last edited by Bishop of Briggs (2010-11-05 13:14:02)

Bishop of Briggs wrote:

esselle wrote:

Crumbs.

I wasn't defending your man. How often do you read a review of a wine, for example, when the journo says it was horrible?

If this is the level of debate, then I now realise why I don't spend much time on it. Try defending a villain against overwhelming evidence.

I have read many reviews where the journalist says that a particular wine was poor. I have also read countless negative reports of test drives. We must read different newspapers and magazines.

I would not defend a villain when there was overwhelming evidence of his guilt. My contempt for defence lawyers who do is marginally lower than that of estate agents and journalists.

Is a lawyer actually allowed to turn down a client?

Silkie, NJS...

Sorry, if I may, just one last response to the Bishop. I would only ever read a review by Clarkson if I found it amusing, freebie Aston or not. If it did not amuse me, I would stop reading. In stopping reading, I doubt if I would find the energy to then go onto a public board and say I thought he was of dubious or cynical character.

NJS wrote:

Bishop, it's not quite as straight-forward as that. Apparently 'overwhelming' evidence might have been planted or manufactured. Moreover, there are very strict rules on what the defence may do if a defendant privately admits guilt (it seldom happens) and, although the prosecution evidence may still be tested as to reliability, no positive case of innocence may be adduced.

On esselle: I wonder why, when there are all those 'victims' ridiculed on this site that he/she chose to wonder about Cromps. Strange. Still, TTFN, esselle.

That's a fair point NJS but I know of lawyers who advise clients to plead not guilty to ramp up the legal aid fees. They are as sordid as their clients.

Crompton only admitted to his commercial relationships after I started this thread. Then "esselle" comes on here with the sole purpose of attacking those of us who have been critical of him. He/she claims not to have any connection with Crompton but leaves after 5 posts (all defending or making excuses for him). It is bizarre that he/she puts amusement above ethical standards. A fellow journalist perhaps?

My guess is that, logically, there is a connection between esselle and Crompton. Perhaps he is getting flak from his clients or is suffering the professional consequences of failing to declare his interests. Esselle could be Crompton as they appear to have similar low journalistic standards.

Last edited by Bishop of Briggs (2010-11-05 14:18:43)

esselle wrote:

Oh grief!!!

I give in. I am not defending Crompton; I have no idea who he is, and care even less. I simply, as I have tried to make clear, look for logic but here find only lack of it, or, even, jealousy. If you don't like his stuff, or mine for that matter, don't read it, let alone write about it.

So explain why you registered here, limited yourself to posting on this particular thread and then announced your departure.

NJS wrote:

Bishop, it's not quite as straight-forward as that. Apparently 'overwhelming' evidence might have been planted or manufactured. Moreover, there are very strict rules on what the defence may do if a defendant privately admits guilt (it seldom happens) and, although the prosecution evidence may still be tested as to reliability, no positive case of innocence may be adduced.

On esselle: I wonder why, when there are all those 'victims' ridiculed on this site that he/she chose to wonder about Cromps. Strange. Still, TTFN, esselle.

I agree the analogy is ludicrous. And I agree that ramping fees is immoral and illegal.

However, my feelings about my client's guilt are irrelevant. The law - and opinion polls show overwhelming support for this, which is why successive governments have not dared do anything - is that the jury decides guilt and innocence. If I get all self-righteous and opinionated and refuse to defend people because I think they're guilty then the jury never get to decide. Or you get what happens in America and parts of the Caribbean and inexperienced lawyers who lack the necessary skills do the job and the jury convicts when it perhaps ought not.

It really isn't for lawyers to arrogate to themselves the right to decide matters which the jury ought to decide. Lawyers and journalists (and politicians shitting themselves about the Daily Mail) are the people most likely to think someone is guilty.

Is it the Bros Barclay who own the DT nowadays? I stopped reading The Spectator recently after the Dear Bill nonsense: twisters.

Bishop of Briggs wrote:

NJS wrote:

Is it the Bros Barclay who own the DT nowadays? I stopped reading The Spectator recently after the Dear Bill nonsense: twisters.

You are correct about the DT owners. "Dear Bill" was in Private Eye so what's Speccie done?

I just meant to refer to Bill Deedes. The Spectator ran a piece suggesting that, towards the end, Bill Deedes had run down his colleagues on the DT when in fact he had run down the new owners who, as you say are the Bros Barclay - I bet that they are just like Del and Rodders but with much more wonga. The Bros Barclay had 'brought their influence to bear' to hide the truth. When the trickery was exposed, the Speccie tried to set the record straight. Too little, too late. Another edifice falls flat on its face. Anyway, Cromps should take heart from this and, once he has Bowned-out the Row and Jermyn Street, he can always spin some copy for the Speccie.

Here's what the manipulative Pair of Pigs got up to over the Sark elections: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ … talks.html

"Vote for our guys or we'll sack you" sounds really, really progressive. What on earth were they knighted for??

Last edited by NJS (2010-11-07 05:50:39)

Film Noir Buff wrote:

I like Saxby too! We see eye to eye on many things. Would be nice if he posted here.

Who says he doesn't?
Seriously though, he's not much of an internet person- he does have a shop (several, in fact) to run.

Last edited by zuckermandl (2010-11-07 19:03:48)

Is Simon Crompton the next Francis Bown? Answer: not dressed like this he's not. November 2008 - just before he got into his stride asBaron Sartorius of East Sheen:

http://www.iflr.com/Article/2046556/The … event.html

Day job (spilling over into the evenings): meister smozer. What would he now have to say about that shirt peeping through the coat; indeed what would he now have to say about that shirt and tie (inspired by Frasier and Niles) and is that an Oxfammed Yves St Laurent velveteen jacket circa 1976? Or is it just his very first A&S?

Last edited by Reckless Reggie (2010-11-10 03:50:41)

NJS wrote:

Reckless Reggie wrote:

Is Simon Crompton the next Francis Bown? Answer: not dressed like this he's not. November 2008 - just before he got into his stride asBaron Sartorius of East Sheen:

http://www.iflr.com/Article/2046556/The … event.html

Day job (spilling over into the evenings): meister smozer. What would he now have to say about that shirt peeping through the coat; indeed what would he now have to say about that shirt and tie (inspired by Frasier and Niles) and is that an Oxfammed Yves St Laurent velveteen jacket circa 1976? Or is it just his very first A&S?

That's what I call a cheese and whine party. Do they rent those smiles with the DJs from Moss Bros and Lipsons? If not their faces must ache at the end of the evening.

Oh I don't know. Surely seeing some tit dressed in a way that makes you look good even if you came in an ill-fitting hired DJ would be enough to bring a smile to anyone's lips...