Glasgow live referring to her as a Scottish Lawyer
See the people reporting like this I feel are feeding her delusions and making it worse, it’s really poor fact checking which is meant to be a key part of being a journalist. Shes not currently registered as a lawyer anywhere. Its also quite obvious she’s not working from the way she claims to be a lawyer but also says she has no money so will represent herselfGlasgow live referring to her as a Scottish Lawyerhttps://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/...SiiqkIuCkWqCDgbXcS8gmAApp#lvs1mo3rpxak2kl933r
It’s called I May Destroy You. It was on iplayer not sure if it still isWhat was the other programme on here that was recommended? I forgot and can't find the posts
See the people reporting like this I feel are feeding her delusions and making it worse, it’s really poor fact checking which is meant to be a key part of being a journalist. Shes not currently registered as a lawyer anywhere. Its also quite obvious she’s not working from the way she claims to be a lawyer but also says she has no money so will represent herselftruth is also a defence to defamation and I’m sure the Netflix legal team will have verified that the emails and texts exist before they hosted this show. If she tries to sue anyone she’s going to lose, she isn’t competent to represent herself and all the people she’s talking about suing will have proper lawyers
Counsel aren’t required, you have the right to represent yourself, it’s just not advised. To be honest I imagine someone would do it pro bono for the publicity. But yeah if she was passing off as a lawyer when she’s not licensed that is contempt of court. So all these papers and people on fb trying to get her all geared up to sue when she not only have a case but would likely get herself in more trouble are gross. They’ve really downplayed the way the lawyer who have the quote saying she could have a case UNLESS it’s true is so misleadingNot only this for defamation claims of this type it is usually a High court battle that requires counsel to represent. She can't afford that. It is very very rare that a party would be allowed to represent themselves in a high court case which is why actual lawyers don't even do it.
And if she tells the court she is a lawyer and isn't that is contempt of court and they will punish her for that WITHOUT HESITATION. Hopefully with jail.time. About time she went
That's interesting a company that shares my office building was told that they had to have counsel to defend a high court case. We share a kitchen and they were literally mentioning it last weekCounsel aren’t required, you have the right to represent yourself, it’s just not advised. To be honest I imagine someone would do it pro bono for the publicity. But yeah if she was passing off as a lawyer when she’s not licensed that is contempt of court. So all these papers and people on fb trying to get her all geared up to sue when she not only have a case but would likely get herself in more trouble are gross. They’ve really downplayed the way the lawyer who have the quote saying she could have a case UNLESS it’s true is so misleading
Oh it’s different for companies. Directors, board members etc of a registered company who aren’t also a registered lawyer can’t represent the company in legal proceedings. But an individual can if they are representing just themselvesThat's interesting a company that shares my office building was told that they had to have counsel to defend a high court case. We share a kitchen and they were literally mentioning it last week
Will knock on the door Tuesday and let them know that's not the case. They will be glad to hear that I'm sure
Thanks for clarifying
That’s a non story. Someone who auditioned for a part in Baby Reindeer didn’t get the job and aren’t happy about it.Not sure if this has been posted yet..
Baby Reindeer creator 'investigated by producers over conduct'
Baby Reindeer creator Richard Gadd has been accused of 'unwisely' dating an actress at the same time as she also auditioned for a part.www.dailymail.co.uk
Do newspapers not have any ethics to adhere to in regard of the mental capacity/condition of someone giving such an explosive interview? I don’t feel sorry for her, she is bringing most of this on herself but it just does not sit right that a journalist can admit to interviewing someone who he believes is mentally unstable can then go ahead & print her chaotic ramblings.The Daily Mail are taking advantage of a mentally unstable woman in my opinion. I bet that reporter is secretly over the moon about her continual texts and calls and voicemails, it’s another story for him. Martha doesn’t realise she’s providing unpaid entertainment.
that makes senseOh it’s different for companies. Directors, board members etc of a registered company who aren’t also a registered lawyer can’t represent the company in legal proceedings. But an individual can if they are representing just themselves
Your comment on her not being competent is spot on. I have said before I don’t feel sorry for her but I’m horrified that no seems to be trying to intervene based on her delusional & escalating posts. That woman must be having some kind of psychotic episode? Surely the newspapers have a duty of care to report concern for her & the journalists safety.See the people reporting like this I feel are feeding her delusions and making it worse, it’s really poor fact checking which is meant to be a key part of being a journalist. Shes not currently registered as a lawyer anywhere. Its also quite obvious she’s not working from the way she claims to be a lawyer but also says she has no money so will represent herselftruth is also a defence to defamation and I’m sure the Netflix legal team will have verified that the emails and texts exist before they hosted this show. If she tries to sue anyone she’s going to lose, she isn’t competent to represent herself and all the people she’s talking about suing will have proper lawyers
oh yes it is a criminal offence to profess yourself off as a solicitor or barrister if you do not hold the credentials and a law degree is a small part of thatLawyer isn't a protected title in Ireland. Any gobshite could call themselves a lawyer. Solicitor and barrister are protected titles. Is it different in the UK?
Same as in Ireland then. In reality, most people who call themselves lawyers here are solicitors or barristers, but you do get types like Martha using the term when she is actually neither.This is from the SRA website. So apparently she can call herself a lawyer if she’s providing legal services. Not exactly sure who she’s claiming to provide legal services to haha but not a regulated term, and same for Scotland
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?