Anti-racism protests

But it has become more difficult to obtain because of a series of decisions from previous governments.

Legal aid is there for a reason. Worrying about how much they received is futile when government ministers are handing out multimillion pound contracts for PPE and the likes to their chums.

By increasing sentences for assaults/killing of a copper puts them above other people thus suggesting they’re more important or of a higher stature...they’re not, that’s not me saying the police aren’t important but me recognising that’s a multitude of jobs carry significant risks therefore how do you justify increasing sentences for assaults/murder against police officers and not others? You can’t.

In this case we have, and understandably, a traumatised wife who has been through the most horrific ordeal who is obviously angry, frustrated, hurt, broken, sad and everything else but as a family member of a murder victim once said to me, “at this point I’m the worst person to ask about all these things because I can’t give a balanced or healthy view...come back to me in a few years”...at last conversation that person is doing exactly that, looking at prison reform and campaigning for more logical and consistent sentences.

This is a case where people will naturally get wound up and passions increase, even for people that weren’t actually affected by it but the initial comment was based on justice not being done when, in the eyes of the law, it has been done.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

You miss the point spectacularly.

Legal aid was introduced to enable the poor to have a defence in court. Over the years it has been more difficult to get legal aid yet here we have career criminals benefitting to the tune of £465,000  after killing a policeman whilst he was on duty.

It is not as simple as stating the principle of legal aid is what matters.  If it were that simple and it could be afforded it would available to everyone including in the hypothetical case you mentioned.

I am arguing that spending over £450,000 on legal aid for career criminals who have killed a serving policeman is morally indefensible.

I am sure you are not on the side of these evil and cowardly killers just to try and score points, but dont you think there should be a practical and moral imperative that legal aid is fairly distributed to more deserving cases?

We’ve already suffered through your views on legal aid during your ranting & raving over Shamima Begum.

You either support the concept of legal aid or you don’t.

Luckily, we live in a society where there is a presumption of innocence and every citizen has the right to a fair and impartial trial, no matter the crime, no matter the person or persons being tried.

I have sat on a jury for a case of malicious wounding. Some nice young man had stuck a glass in the face of a girl at a barbeque. We were told by the judge in no uncertain terms to put aside our personal feelings and only reach a decision based on the evidence. The prosecution had to prove beyond any doubt that said young man had done the deed. We all thought he most probably had, but the prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt that he had and we had to acquit him. It stuck in my throat at the time, but if there was even a shred of doubt that he had done it, he had to be found not guilty.

These young men did a heinous thing, but were tried and sentenced according to the law, with the aforementioned presumption of innocence. I have no problem with that, or the amount of money it cost to reach that verdict. Are people now going to complain about how much money it will cost the taxpayer to keep them in prison and try to rehabilitate them, which is also part of our justice system.

Maybe we adopt the practices of other less enlightened countries and just have had them summarily beheaded in public without a trial. That would save a fortune.

The problem about how much legal aid had been allotted for the defence of these young career criminals would not have been so much a problem if.

1. They had not been seen laughing on the way to court.

2. They had got a long enough sentence to wipe the smile off their smug faces.

Out in 8 years is a disgracefully small price to pay for what they did.

The wife has a lifetime to live without her husband of only four weeks not to mention the rest of his family who have lost a son and family member.

Sorry Pete but i disagree. They got convicted of manslaughter and were sentenced on the guidelines, whatever you may think of them. There are loads of grieving families out there who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers for example, and have to live with the transgressors being charged accordingly and serving what some see as lenient sentences. Unless the perpetrators acted with malice aforethought and set out to murder the young officer, they could only be charged with manslaughter and the sentences that come with it.

Their behaviour, although disgusting, cannot be used as a reason to deny them their legal rights and access to legal aid. It sticks in the throat but as soon as the press and public start deciding who is, and who is not worthy of a fair trial, it's a very slippery slope.

Quoted from ginnywings

Sorry Pete but i disagree. They got convicted of manslaughter and were sentenced on the guidelines, whatever you may think of them. There are loads of grieving families out there who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers for example, and have to live with the transgressors being charged accordingly and serving what some see as lenient sentences. Unless the perpetrators acted with malice aforethought and set out to murder the young officer, they could only be charged with manslaughter and the sentences that come with it.

Their behaviour, although disgusting, cannot be used as a reason to deny them their legal rights and access to legal aid. It sticks in the throat but as soon as the press and public start deciding who is, and who is not worthy of a fair trial, it's a very slippery slope.

Are you telling me they did not know they were dragging him for over a mile and did not know he was there when he was going from one side of the road to the other. It was murder in my eyes.

Quoted from grimsby pete

Are you telling me they did not know they were dragging him for over a mile and did not know he was there when he was doing from one side of the road to the other. It was murder in my eyes.

My, or your thoughts don't matter. The only thing that matters is the evidence, which would have been presented to the Crown Prosecution Service, who would then have decided on the crime to be tried. It is then up to the prosecution and defence to present their arguments, and the jury to decide the outcome.

The police would have done everything in their power to collate evidence for a murder conviction, given it was one of their own, but they didn't find sufficient to do so.

The opinion of the press and the public should hold no sway. Do i think they are scumbags? Yes of course i do, but they have been tried and sentenced according to the current law. We have one of the best justice systems in the world, and to bend it for individual cases is a very slippery slope.

Just to clarify I am not saying they should not have legal aid as I said  in another post the law of what is murder and what is manslaughter should be looked at.

If they knew he was there and I believe they did then they must have known he could be killed so a murder charge should be made.

The same with drunken driving if you know before you have a drink if you kill somebody while under the influence it's murder.

I know the law will not be changed but they are my views.

Quoted from ginnywings

The opinion of the press and the public should hold no sway. Do i think they are scumbags? Yes of course i do, but they have been tried and sentenced according to the current law. We have one of the best justice systems in the world, and to bend it for individual cases is a very slippery slope.

The law though ginny is created by man and man is not perfect so things should not be set in stone  .Like nature things sometimes have to evolve.Its happened before when Sarah Payne that  little girl which got murdered and they created Sarahs law which the home office said was a success.

I personally think the tougher the punishment(within reason) the less people are likely to commit the crime.

Quoted from Rick12

I personally think the tougher the punishment(within reason) the less people are likely to commit the crime.

Despite the evidence confirming that this doesn’t work, of course - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-sentences-deter-crime

Even in the USA, states with the death penalty have a higher murder rate than those without - https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/f.....death-penalty-states


Going back to Legal aid, I’d rather not live with a system which allocates aid on the basis of who the ghouls at the Daily Heil have decided are the scum of the week. It might just be you, one day.