|
||||||||
Pierce Ed |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,331
|
Pierce Ed
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. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Plymouth Devon
Posts: 12,497
|
He's very creepy and Strange .
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 43,573
|
Why didn't Rhona foresee any of this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 371
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,966
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 371
|
Quote:
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
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,966
|
Quote:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,966
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,951
|
Quote:
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.
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! |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 371
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,951
|
Quote:
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.
Incidentally the law firm I work for has been in existence since the 1930s so they must be doing something right ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 248
|
Quote:
Why didn't Rhona foresee any of this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Plymouth Devon
Posts: 12,497
|
He is very weird.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 912
|
Pierce is obs the link to the big stunt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
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
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13.




