Thread: Richard Lincoln

Originally Posted by ebf

@Sidney, really ? Do you even understand what a classical liberal is ? I fully support my right to have my own views and not having to be lumped with a group who thinks they have the right to speak on my behalf... Maybe I should update my handle to "The slightly anarchic, neo-classical liberal gnome".

What is sad is that I see no difference between the groups you guys love to hate, and the organization that you are so quick to defend. They both operate in exactly the same way, and yet you completely fail to see the irony

Except that by not supporting anyone that insists on the rule of law, and for freedom of choice, self determination, and accountability for those charged with enforcement of the law - one can hardly claim consistency with liberal values..

Can't have it both ways - freedom of association is only one part of the deal.. a given, and irrelevant..

And don't bother putting words into my mouth...

I think....na fuck that

Originally Posted by ebf

Ah gundoc, just messing with you dude...

Comprehension does not seem to be a strong point for you. Where in post 81 did I mention "represent" ?

Looking at a couple of antonyms, would you be happier with rigid,right-wing and unscholarly ? Sound about right ?

Perhaps it was remiss of me to paraphrase your 'acting on behalf of others' comment to 'representing', even though the meaning is identical.

I would have thought logical, honest and educated was a better description!

We all agree that our various shooting related interests are forever in need of good representation.
For the Press, the lawyer over at COLFO is great. Sorting out a particular issue in court, lawyers like RL are at their best.
No-one can be everything everyone wants whenever they want.

Maybe a 3 minute silence for the passing of the liberal gnome, and his reincarnation into FAL iron sights, an event which occurred during the life of this thread.

The core issue of this thread has deflected from the suitability of character and professionalism of this chap to become registered as a lawyer, to the need for gun sport legal representation. Representation in any fora should be credible, trustworthy and professional. That is the acid test. If it is not, it causes no good to the people it purports to represent.

In this case what fit for purpose means can be subjective (as in this thread), or be decided by the what should be the most objective institutions (in this case the Court).

I know nothing really about this chap apart from what I have read and the transcripts of cases. But I'm certainly likely to be more persuaded of Lincoln's suitability to practice by the Court (and the Law Society) than I am by subjective gun owners.

My personal view is that he displays the characteristics of a "wounded helper". I have worked and associated with hundreds of them. These people can be very effective as advocates, but in my experience lack the personal qualities and temperament to cross the threshold that makes them suitable to practice law.

Sydney, you may respond...but I'm out for the rest of the day

That may be so... Thar.. but evidence of being a "wounded helper" in a personal and specific area does not mean that applies to all areas that legal representation typically involves.

Secondly, Richard has had already considerable experience in preparing for court, forming legal opinion and making representations and is been commended in these areas on his performance. He has been competent, dispassionate and very effective and recognised as such. So your position that he will not perform well seems not only ill-informed but also somewhat superficial.

The nature of legal work is that you get to argue both sides of any position and you get paid to represent the position of the client. You might be the most rabid environmentalist under the sun, but in commercial work you would be just as likely to be arguing for the establishment of a new open cast coal mine as you would be working for DOC and the ability to freeze snails at its own discretion.

I would suggest that your assessment of anyone's character based on personal investment in a single issue area is considerably less than sufficient. So is the significance of a couple of silly facebook posts. To infer lack of competence in this case is laughable when you might consider that totally inexperienced graduates are admitted without question.

This was a smack on the hand and go and behave yourself issue, admission granted on notice of good behaviour. Competence was not the question.

Originally Posted by muzza

And Ricky Jervais . Everyone should hate Ricky Jervais...

What that has to do with Richard Lincoln I have no idea , but it just seemed to fit with the increasing degree of irrelevance that the whole discussion has slipped into...

And the dick head Jim Jeffries.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Sidney

That may be so... Thar.. but evidence of being a "wounded helper" in a personal and specific area does not mean that applies to all areas that legal representation typically involves.

Secondly, Richard has had already considerable experience in preparing for court, forming legal opinion and making representations and is been commended in these areas on his performance. He has been competent, dispassionate and very effective and recognised as such. So your position that he will not perform well seems not only ill-informed but also somewhat superficial.

The nature of legal work is that you get to argue both sides of any position and you get paid to represent the position of the client. You might be the most rabid environmentalist under the sun, but in commercial work you would be just as likely to be arguing for the establishment of a new open cast coal mine as you would be working for DOC and the ability to freeze snails at its own discretion.

I would suggest that your assessment of anyone's character based on personal investment in a single issue area is considerably less than sufficient. So is the significance of a couple of silly facebook posts. To infer lack of competence in this case is laughable when you might consider that totally inexperienced graduates are admitted without question.

This was a smack on the hand and go and behave yourself issue, admission granted on notice of good behaviour. Competence was not the question.

You can represent ME any time, Sidney. (-:

Originally Posted by Sidney

That may be so... Thar.. but evidence of being a "wounded helper" in a personal and specific area does not mean that applies to all areas that legal representation typically involves.

Secondly, Richard has had already considerable experience in preparing for court, forming legal opinion and making representations and is been commended in these areas on his performance. He has been competent, dispassionate and very effective and recognised as such. So your position that he will not perform well seems not only ill-informed but also somewhat superficial.

The nature of legal work is that you get to argue both sides of any position and you get paid to represent the position of the client. You might be the most rabid environmentalist under the sun, but in commercial work you would be just as likely to be arguing for the establishment of a new open cast coal mine as you would be working for DOC and the ability to freeze snails at its own discretion.

I would suggest that your assessment of anyone's character based on personal investment in a single issue area is considerably less than sufficient. So is the significance of a couple of silly facebook posts. To infer lack of competence in this case is laughable when you might consider that totally inexperienced graduates are admitted without question.

This was a smack on the hand and go and behave yourself issue, admission granted on notice of good behaviour. Competence was not the question.

I did not question this person's competence, I commented on his suitability.

Personality disorders are pervasive and do not just confine themselves to only certain functions or activities.

Originally Posted by Tahr

I did not question this person's competence, I commented on his suitability.
Personality disorders are pervasive and do not just confine themselves to only certain functions or activities.

Re personality disorders, whether or not RL has one, they are too prevalent to consider sifting people on that basis. You'd need a lot of by-elections in the aftermath.

Don't see what the problem is when third-conviction drink drivers plus driving-while-disqualified get a few months out in the cold and then let back inside the Law Society. A different standard was applied.

I perceive the real problem is that some people this guy has politically offended are now inappropriately responding by pearl clutching over some minor infractions of unwritten laws.

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

And the dick head Jim Jeffries.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Ah shit...and all garden gnomes. There said it!

Originally Posted by outlander

Ah shit...and all garden gnomes. There said it!

Even sexi Sammi, the mankini gnome ?

I did not question this person's competence, I commented on his suitability.

Personality disorders are pervasive and do not just confine themselves to only certain functions or activities.

A fine point, but you introduced competence as the measure by which suitability is determined - by implying that competence as a lawyer would be affected by him being a "wounded helper" as defined by yourself....

The fact of the matter is that suitability and competence is not bestowed by the Law Society, and to ignore the willing custom and employment opportunities makes a considerable mockery of that general argument.

Diagnosing personality disorders on the basis of your limited knowledge of Mr Lincoln is also inappropriate give the lack of valid information that you have. That would appear to be a job for experts and while your observations may be informed through some experience, mine are also and would have no less validity. Neither of us however would meet the standard for the court to accept either as expert in that area.

Nor has the court had sufficient evidence to justifiably reach that conclusion of unsuitability because no real evidence of ongoing unsuitable behaviour has been submitted. Remember that the court disqualified itself from considering the incidents themselves as being material.

As pointed out, in the role of advocate, legal assistance and competence he is clearly suitable. You must have also missed the "dispassionate" bit as well. The only piece of evidence challenging "personal suitability" was as discussed' a couple of facebook posts, and a historic letter of complaint and that is an absolute joke given its vintage.

That standard for what is a significant penalty despite LS assertions, is at best an absolute reach. There were no laws broken, nor any threats made. Indeed not the smartest response in the world but whether you like it or not, making an observation that someone is a thug and that they might be going to jail, when from personal experience that has been reality, is not dishonest.

Suitability? The court clearly could have reacted differently and wouldn't have been in error, as could have the LS. So on balance to not offer benefit of the doubt to the applicant speaks little as to the value of justice and significantly more to retribution and predjudice.

Well I guess in the absence of the LS resiling from their decision the Higher Court will be the final arbiter on this one. Regardless of that, I guess that we will hold tightly to our views and watch Mr Lincolns career with interest (that is not to say I can not be persuaded by a valid argument - I just haven't heard one yet).

P.S. I did not diagnose Mr Lincoln. it was a general comment about personality orders, just in case his behaviours fall within the DSM's key indicators.

Originally Posted by ebf

@Sidney, really ? Do you even understand what a classical liberal is ? I fully support my right to have my own views and not having to be lumped with a group who thinks they have the right to speak on my behalf... Maybe I should update my handle to "The slightly anarchic, neo-classical liberal gnome".

What is sad is that I see no difference between the groups you guys love to hate, and the organization that you are so quick to defend. They both operate in exactly the same way, and yet you completely fail to see the irony

Topic change but I take umbrage with your profession to be a "classic liberal". You are not (unless your outlook, like your avatar, has undergone a drastic and convenient change recently).

Especially in light of the thread (since deleted) where you advocated for "land restitution" in South Africa despite yourself having enjoyed the benefit of the land that was "stolen". Back on topic, Richard Lincoln has done nothing to harm you or anyone on this forum. He may, like you or I, be disagreeable to some but he has the right to pursue his career in a profession that he's invested time and money in.