DS Forums

 
 

Pierce Ed


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18-05-2016, 10:56
julie2009
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,331

Can someone please explain how Pierce managed to get a job at Rakesh's old law firm and now Rakesh has been sacked. I know Rakesh was a lawyer does that mean that Pierce is one too.

I think he plays the part well creepy and always hanging about.
julie2009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 18-05-2016, 11:39
Adrian_Ward1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Plymouth Devon
Posts: 12,497
He's very creepy and Strange .
Adrian_Ward1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 16:36
lulu g
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 43,573
Why didn't Rhona foresee any of this?
lulu g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 17:22
Ben96
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: It's CHRISTMASSSSSS!
Posts: 2,943
I think they're gonna turn him into the next village psycho, he does give off a kind of a psycho vibe.
Ben96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 17:36
jamauk1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 159
How does this all work out, it seemed way too dodgy. Doesn't Rakesh own this law firm, or at least part of it so how his shares were sold from under him I've no idea, he was also suspended when Kirin was a suspect, once again how would you be suspended/put on leave from a company you own!? It also seems too coincidental that Pierce just happened to end up in that job, and how he seems to be sneaking round the village and getting friendly with Rhona. Is Rhona stupid, seeing as Pierce told Paddy to not contact her and to go through Marlon any normal person would see that as an end to their friend/relation-ship.
jamauk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 17:56
Corstemmee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 928
I've always found Rhona immensely annoying and not too bright. (Despite being a vet!)

I'm also finding this Pierce bloke irritating. And why do so many people on the show think he's so attractive? He's weird looking and got a weird personality, imo.
Corstemmee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 18:08
idgwiat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 371
Can someone please explain how Pierce managed to get a job at Rakesh's old law firm and now Rakesh has been sacked. I know Rakesh was a lawyer does that mean that Pierce is one too.

I think he plays the part well creepy and always hanging about.
I commented in the the other thread about this. Rakesh said that Pierce took his job in as much as he stirred it up at the law firm an he lost it. He was a partner there and was already on suspension because of his association with Kirin and then Pierce going there and saying that Rakesh was aiding and abetting Kirin they had to do something. The legal profession is all about trust, if that is lost or compromised then his position becomes untenable. Because he's arguably brought the partnership into disrepute then he could lose all or part of his stake (money) in it.
idgwiat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 18:17
Nico_D
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,966
I commented in the the other thread about this. Rakesh said that Pierce took his job in as much as he stirred it up at the law firm an he lost it. He was a partner there and was already on suspension because of his association with Kirin and then Pierce going there and saying that Rakesh was aiding and abetting Kirin they had to do something. The legal profession is all about trust, if that is lost or compromised then his position becomes untenable. Because he's arguably brought the partnership into disrepute then he could lose all or part of his stake (money) in it.
If they suspended him on hearsay how did it never get back to them about his DNA results switch around , or did they turn a blind eye as he was a corporate lawyer who was still able to get a woman of three counts of causing death with reckless behaviour after ADMITTING that she set fire to a car which caused their deaths
Nico_D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 18:37
idgwiat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 371
If they suspended him on hearsay how did it never get back to them about his DNA results switch around , or did they turn a blind eye as he was a corporate lawyer who was still able to get a woman of three counts of causing death with reckless behaviour after ADMITTING that she set fire to a car which caused their deaths
Pierce making those accusations to the law firm implies the perception of bringing the firms reputation into question, true or not they would have to do something to distance themselves from Rakesh until such time as it was confirmed or denied. The matter of the DNA issue would not necessarily be a criminal matter even if they knew and we don't know whether they do know. So his association with Kirin, maybe the DNA issue and Pierce's accusations would be enough.

Chrissie admitted setting the car alight but the defence was that it wasn't her intention to bring down the helicopter and the aftermath, that was out of her control. Rakesh's job was to represent her defence and that is what he did, his job not pass judgement on her.
idgwiat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 18:43
Nico_D
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,966
Pierce making those accusations to the law firm implies the perception of bringing the firms reputation into question, true or not they would have to do something to distance themselves from Rakesh until such time as it was confirmed or denied. The matter of the DNA issue would not necessarily be a criminal matter even if they knew and we don't know whether they do know. So his association with Kirin, maybe the DNA issue and Pierce's accusations would be enough.

Chrissie admitted setting the car alight but the defence was that it wasn't her intention to bring down the helicopter and the aftermath, that was out of her control. Rakesh's job was to represent her defence and that is what he did, his job not pass judgement on her.
It wouldn't have mattered if she didn't intend to bring the helicopter down, and while it was out of her control it was her fault if she hadn't set the car alight none if it would have happened hence from a legal perspective she would be at fault. Not to mention setting the car alight is illegal in itself. She only got away with it because it's soaps and we can disregard realism for the sake of a storyline.

And I know rakesh my point being if he can get someone out of a custodial sentence in the most impossible of circumstances, even when he's a corporate lawyer rather than a criminal one he must be amazing at his job.
Nico_D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 18:56
idgwiat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 371
Rakesh studied law, all law. He decided to specialise and practice in corporate law, but is still qualified to practice criminal law. In fact when Cain pressured him to defend Charity he tried to pass it onto a criminal lawyer at the firm but Cain said no.
idgwiat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 19:01
Nico_D
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,966
Rakesh studied law, all law. He decided to specialise and practice in corporate law, but is still qualified to practice criminal law. In fact when Cain pressured him to defend Charity he tried to pass it onto a criminal lawyer at the firm but Cain said no.
I'm aware but he'd find himself out of his depth with someone who specialised in criminal law and spent 20 years doing that. With regards to be qualified do you actually have to be qualified? I think if you choose you could have a mate defend you, although I wouldn't Recccomend this obviously.
Nico_D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 19:07
Andybear
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,951
Rakesh studied law, all law. He decided to specialise and practice in corporate law, but is still qualified to practice criminal law. In fact when Cain pressured him to defend Charity he tried to pass it onto a criminal lawyer at the firm but Cain said no.
In the law firm I work for the solicitors studied all areas of law when doing their degrees. After they'd got their degrees they did basic training in law firms - this basic training is known as a training contract. They then specialised in the area they wanted to work in. Thus where I work a solicitor specialising in criminal defence can't for example do residential conveyancing because he doesn't have the specialised knowledge of residential conveyancing to do the job.

Cain should have listened to Rakesh and used a criminal defence solicitor as Rakesh suggested. But this is after all soapland and reality doesn't exist in soapland!
Andybear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 19:15
idgwiat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 371
I'm aware but he'd find himself out of his depth with someone who specialised in criminal law and spent 20 years doing that. With regards to be qualified do you actually have to be qualified? I think if you choose you could have a mate defend you, although I wouldn't Recccomend this obviously.
Yes he could well do, but I would have thought he would seek advice about strategy from a colleague in the firm. I know you can represent yourself in court, again ill advised. Military court martial s are either done by accused friend or lawyer, but I don't know about crown or high court.
idgwiat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 19:20
Andybear
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,951
I'm aware but he'd find himself out of his depth with someone who specialised in criminal law and spent 20 years doing that. With regards to be qualified do you actually have to be qualified? I think if you choose you could have a mate defend you, although I wouldn't Recccomend this obviously.
It's better to go to a solicitor who has been doing a particular role for 20 years than going to one who only has a very basic knowledge of it and might not necessarily know what they are doing.

Incidentally the law firm I work for has been in existence since the 1930s so they must be doing something right
Andybear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 19:47
babyegg
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 248
Why didn't Rhona foresee any of this?
For an educated woman, she is seriously stupid.
babyegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2016, 22:17
Adrian_Ward1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Plymouth Devon
Posts: 12,497
He is very weird.
Adrian_Ward1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 00:41
arr95
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 87
I can definetely see Pierce and Rhona becoming the next Cameron Debbie, culminating in him taking Rhona/ Vanessa possibly Leo/ baby Johnny hostage and leading to a rescue by paddy
arr95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 01:51
rustnstardust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 10
I may be the only one that thinks this but I'm not convinced that Pierce was totally crazy in this episode, I can understand that he is grieving and angry and stealing Vanessas phone and going in her house was wildly inappropriate, I think that Vanessa could and should have handled it in a more sensitive manner without escalating it
rustnstardust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 05:33
Redhead69
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 912
Pierce is obs the link to the big stunt.
Redhead69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 07:23
davejc64
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,054
There is probably a lot more to why Tess wanted to leave Pierce other than the fact she was having an affair with Paddy, I'm sure she did make some comment to Paddy about him being abusive towards her in some form, he certainly comes across as very domineering and manipulative as well as being a nutjob.
davejc64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 10:10
misty cloud
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,130
I feel no sympathy for Rhona, everyone has warned her about Pierce but as usual Rhona knows best - just as she did about self medicating, addiction and adoption. Where is Marlon? Has Vanessa not told him about Pierce? The one time he should be poking his nose in he is nowhere to be seen!
misty cloud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 10:18
Chiltons Cane
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 4,018
I don't think Pierce is doing anything wrong. His wife was killed in a hit and run and he is trying to get justice. perfectly understandable. Whether Tess was cheating or not, she did not deserve to be left to die the way she was. Kirin should be held accountable.
Chiltons Cane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 10:23
sheepiefarm
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,115
Pierce's grief about his dead wife might come across as more narratively relevant if we'd actually had some indication of them together as a couple.

The fact that the show didn't see fit to make any effort to bring depth or meaning to the audience (of any sort) to Pierce & Tess just makes his current "grief" seem one-dimensional & plot driven.


Emmerdale has become far too reliant on off-screen stuff being used to shore up their plots on-screen.
sheepiefarm is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 10:31
Nico_D
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,966
They've also found a way of turning this into yet another affair story, has anyone in Emmerdale managed to stay completely faithful in the past year
Nico_D is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13.