![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mandragoraHave just turned over from Heroes and have watched a mere 5 (count 'em, 5) minutes of LAW & Order UK.
So far, the CPS have invited a couple of defendants and the solicitor into the CPS offices for a plea bargain, with a certainty of the sentence to be served if they plead guilty. Which is just... No!
And Freema's been running round the streets of London interviewing a witness, in the street! Words fail me.
5 minutes, that's all. And that 5 minutes is enough to establish that it bears no resemblance to the actual practice of law.
Oh, they've just got one of the defendants in with the same solicitor who represented both defendants earlier but not with the other defendant and are offering him (one of the defendants) a bargain if he'll testify against the other defendant. Oh, 'cos that's not a conflict of interest at all, is it on the part of the solicitor?
Crap. Complete crap. It's been...8 minutes now and that's enough to establish that it may rival Judge John Deed for badness. *cries*
So far, the CPS have invited a couple of defendants and the solicitor into the CPS offices for a plea bargain, with a certainty of the sentence to be served if they plead guilty. Which is just... No!
And Freema's been running round the streets of London interviewing a witness, in the street! Words fail me.
5 minutes, that's all. And that 5 minutes is enough to establish that it bears no resemblance to the actual practice of law.
Oh, they've just got one of the defendants in with the same solicitor who represented both defendants earlier but not with the other defendant and are offering him (one of the defendants) a bargain if he'll testify against the other defendant. Oh, 'cos that's not a conflict of interest at all, is it on the part of the solicitor?
Crap. Complete crap. It's been...8 minutes now and that's enough to establish that it may rival Judge John Deed for badness. *cries*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:03 (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:16 (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:05 (UTC)Heroes was oddly satisfying after last season (at least, for me *G*)
no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:17 (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:31 (UTC)He was totally cool in this ep!
no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:07 (UTC)I'm watching Reign of Fire on dvd instead -- it's kinda ridiculous, but hey, Christian Bale and dragons!
no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:18 (UTC)no subject
Date: 27 February 2009 16:36 (UTC)... Sorry, it's a grating point with me... :)
no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:08 (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:18 (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:10 (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:19 (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:20 (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:23 (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:27 (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:12 (UTC)Abuse of the legal system aside, it was horrible. I felt so sorry for the poor cast, who were all acting their little socks off as they tried to stop the audience noticing how shit the script was. All the badness of Deed, with none of the cracktastic OTTness. (And no Martin Shaw.)
no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:21 (UTC)It's such a pity, though. All those lovely actors. Sigh.
no subject
Date: 24 February 2009 01:52 (UTC)I know. A couple of times, I found myself wondering what it would be like with the sound turned off :-)
no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:21 (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:25 (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:35 (UTC)Oh, they've just got one of the defendants in with the same solicitor who represented both defendants earlier but not with the other defendant and are offering him (one of the defendants) a bargain if he'll testify against the other defendant.
That's quite odd. Even in the U.S. joint representation would be considered inappropriate under those circumstances.
My guess is that this show is following the model of L&O:SVU (which is like every other legal drama in the U.S., moderately to wildly inaccurate) rather than L&O, original flavor, which is--with a few notable lapses--remarkably accurate for a TV show.
no subject
Date: 23 February 2009 22:44 (UTC)And you know, I still had hopes before tonight that they'd manage to pull it off.
On the joint representation front it is just about possible to represent joint clients when there's no possibility of a conflict. But that's pretty rare in criminal cases as you can no doubt imagine and of course it would be impossible to continue to represent either one of them at the point that the prosecution is trying to persuade one to testify against the other. And it would never be done in the way it was in the episode, anyway.
no subject
Date: 24 February 2009 00:58 (UTC)Why does Jamie Bamber insist on doing shows I can't watch? It's like he's deliberately avoiding me or something.
no subject
Date: 25 February 2009 21:35 (UTC)Actually, from what I can gather if you don't know much about the English legal system it's reasonably enjoyable so (provided you're not sufficiently conversant to be overly irritated by the errors) don't let my ranting prevent you from enjoying the delectable Jamie.
no subject
Date: 24 February 2009 10:10 (UTC)*dies a little inside*
no subject
Date: 25 February 2009 21:36 (UTC)Pity, though. I really wanted to like it.
no subject
Date: 24 February 2009 10:49 (UTC)Ha! And there I was, pondering whether to ask you if JJD bore any resemblance to real practice. I guess that answers that question *g*.
no subject
Date: 25 February 2009 21:37 (UTC)JJD is in the unwatchable category for me, despite the lovely Mr Shaw, because of all the legal errors.
no subject
Date: 24 February 2009 11:42 (UTC)no subject
Date: 25 February 2009 21:39 (UTC)The problem seems to be that they used an actual US script, complete with how the legal system works in NTC, and didn't change anything for the English version...
no subject
Date: 24 February 2009 17:27 (UTC)break my brainwaste my time with it. *hugs you*no subject
Date: 25 February 2009 21:39 (UTC)no subject
Date: 25 February 2009 12:16 (UTC)I can#'t watch this. Our tv may be broken by projectiles I must throw
no subject
Date: 25 February 2009 21:41 (UTC)Apparently, they took an actual US script and plonked it wholesale into the English version with no changes (other than the most cosmetic) to take account of the fact that actual legal practice differs here.
Which is mindbogglingly stupid, actually.