Constance Briscoe(85 Posts)
I've left it a couple of hours for someone else to start a thread because I'm a bit of a shy one but I can resist no more.
I don't know what to say. I am flabbergasted by her poor judgement.
I'm going to be beside myself tomorrow waiting for her sentencing and Max Clifford's.
I've always thought she was a bit of an attention seeker. Lots of people put themselves out there for a cause but for her it all seemed a bit self indulgent without any real point. I really wouldn't be surprised if it turned out she had a personality disorder of some kind. Some of her behaviour is frankly bizarre.
That said, I do feel sorry she has to go to prison - it's going to be particularly horrendous because of her profile and former career. The circumstances of her conviction suggest she got herself into a situation she couldn't handle and it just spiralled out of control.
That said, I do feel sorry she has to go to prison - it's going to be particularly horrendous because of her profile and former career. The circumstances of her conviction suggest she got herself into a situation she couldn't handle and it just spiralled out of control
Eh? I'm not a hanger and flogger - but she's a judge who handed down sentences for others.
She is deserving of the most severe of sentences.
I didn't say she didn't deserve it. I can feel sorry for her for making such a hash of things and having to go to prison and think it is a fair punishment. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I think it's been clear for a while that she is not really of sound judgement and yet she was appointed to the bench. That's quite worrying. She didn't appoint herself....
Who requested her appointment and why?
Mind you, there are plenty of other judges who seem, frankly, even more unhinged.
1. I feel sorry for her.
2. However she has only herself to blame. I tell clients almost every day of the year never lie at all, not even one tiny tiny thing that may seem unimportant. She should not have lied to the police.
3. I do believe she was abused as a child and I liked her two books - worth reading is anyone has not read them.
4. Perhaps a difficult childhood can cause implications when you're older. This applies across all classes. I am sure posh white male lawyers who were abused at boarding school in later life can have similar difficulties and issues. people from her background.
5. There has been an investigation into why so very many ethnic minority law firms breached solicitor professional conduct rules compared with whites and a report issued. It's a very hot topic at present. it is a huge pity she let everyone down so much as she was a very very very rare example of a black woman who was also from a terribly working class deprived background who actually was successful in law.
"There has been an investigation into why so very many ethnic minority law firms breached solicitor professional conduct rules compared with whites and a report issued. It's a very hot topic at present."
Has that been reported at all? That's quite shocking. And surprising.
With Briscoe, I'm grasping at straws here, but I wonder if she's one of those people who just tells lies out of habit, and gets so used to not being caught she assumes she's invincible. It's difficult to understand otherwise why someone would risk so much for so little.
Here is an article summarising the issues hackmum.
I think the common denominator here is that everyone involved in the case operated as though they were above the law. I'm sure others have taken speeding points for spouses, bent the facts, and not landed themselves in jail because they've had the good sense to keep quiet. This bunch weren't stupid people - far from it - so you have to conclude that they thought they were entitled to be as indiscreet & dishonest as they like and there would be no consequences
Agree, Cogito. But what a shower.
I said they weren't stupid people and I may have to backtrack a little. Huhne could probably have put a stop to all of this early on if he'd owned up to the deception rather than fight it through the courts as he chose to do. But I get the feeling that once he decided to make it a battle of principle the others involved had the spotlight turned on them and made exactly the same mistake.... lying rather than coming clean. A very big example of 'when in a hole, stop digging'.
I still blame Chris H the most, though. If he had not decided that his lust for the lesbian in the civil partnership was more important than his children, family and wife and instead if he had marital troubles had counselling and ultimately divorced and only after that to get his leg over as it were none of this would have happened.
Yes, that link is what I meant. It is presumably a topic we aren't allowed to talk about in the UK today - whether some cultures or people of certain backgrounds lie more than others so we'd better not get on to it on this thread.
No statement from Vicky Pryce yet? I suspect now she's rebuilt her 'brand' she will be distancing herself from this one. They are all arrogant and self serving.
I was waiting for your thread on this Limited .
I just don't understand how someone with so much to lose can be drawn into something so stupid.
I also want AngelaDaviesHair to appear on this thread, so I can ask her a shallow question about weaves.
Jessica - If you read the excellent link Thrillseeker provided you would see the issue is not if some cultures lie more than others.
Are you possibly the sort of person who thinks being challenged on bigoted views is the same as not being allowed to talk about something?
I also want AngelaDaviesHair to appear on this thread, so I can ask her a shallow question about weaves
gosh Try as I did to stick to high-brow matters, one of the questions that wouldn't go away yesterday was: 'Who was the poster who slagged off Constance's weave? She was dead right.'
16 months? The disaster that has been inflicted on so many lives through one man's attempt to avoid 3 penalty points...
The thing is what if she is also found guilty of forging the doctor's letters in the failed civil case against her ?
Not only would there be a second jail term, because of the modus operandi, they'd have to review virtually every case she's worked on as a barrister or judge.
That will take years.
very disappointed with Constance. As a fellow professional black woman it is damn hard getting to the top of your field, let alone becoming famous / recognised on the way, that nothing could be worth risking your credibility to the degree that you can no longer practice in your field. My heart aches at the knock on effect in my community, as I know of a few young ladies who looked to her as a role model.
Erm... to the poster who said that some cultures lie more than others, what?! People are people wherever they originate from.
I think that you need to work abroad for a bit and hear what people say about the Brits!
Snow, I see it rather more as a very fortuitous and very partial revelation of lying cunts arranging their lives around lying cuntiness.
Their lives are a sham.
Disaster has not been inflicted on them, they are criminals.
That's an interesting link about the BME law firms, but having read it I don't think Constance Briscoe's story has any bearing on the issues there.
The media suggest that those convicted in trials in which she was the prosecutor will already to be reviewing their cases for any grounds of appeal. It looks as though the issue is already live in her mother's case also.
Ta daaah! You asked, I came.
There has been an investigation into why so very many ethnic minority law firms breached solicitor professional conduct rules compared with whites and a report issued
Well, yee-es, that's one slanted way of putting it. If you're going to say that, you might in fairness add, there has also had to be pointed consideration of why 'ethnic minority law firms' are disproportionately investigated, and disproportionately disciplined and punished following investigation. Are they 'worse' than white firms, or subject to more scrutiny and punishment? Not saying that transgressors of any stripe should not be punished, but don't draw fucking lazy conclusions about racially-based propensity and standards from a biased system. And then be coy about it.
Constance gets into trouble in Hughne/Price trial.
Constance is prosecuted, jury can't agree so they are discharged.
Constance is tried all over again (retrial) and found guilty on 3 counts-
1. Giving police 2 untrue statements;
2. passing off false statement (2) as false statement (1) to confuse police;
3. giving the wrong statement to a document expert (who was presumably examining it re allegations of alteration).
Constance is under new investigation after allegations come to light she either obtained evidence by false pretences when defending the civil libel trial brought against her by her mother.
Why did she do it? Limelight addiction, throwing herself into another unhappy break-up after her own relationship ended very bitterly (witness the horrendously mean Daily Mail article on the new girlfriend of her former partner Anthony Arlidge QC-did CB have a hand in it?), wanting to show off about how she, a relative insider, could play the system? Dunno. My legal sources didn't have a kind word.
More importantly, what is the weave question?
Basically, what fox said.
A set of friends/partners all colluding to serve their own interests. Id wonder how they found each other, but shit finds it's own level.
Weave is presumably something to do with her hair, I would imagine.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.