Anti-racism protests

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

We know the full case. Career criminals killed a serving policeman. They got a sentence most sane people would consider inadequate and to rub salt into the wounds their legal team milked the publicly funded legal aid system for all it's worth.

It is left to the grieving widow with the support of the public to try to toughen up the sentencing for killing a front line worker and to hold the legal aid system to account.



What else is there to know?

This is not the first case where the public have been outraged by the gross imbalance between how the perpetrators and the victims are treated and sadly it wont be the last.

However I feel a great deal of admiration for Mrs Harper 's determination that something be done to start correcting the imbalance.

You persist in aggregating the issue of cost with that of the length of sentences under the system. They are two absolutely totally different issues. I wish the lady in question all the luck in the world in her attempts to get stricter sentencing for the manslaughter/murder of custodians of the law but sadly for your argument the cost of arriving at the verdict which would see perpetrators receive those new sentences would be at least the same. I might not agree with you but I readily concede that normally your arguments are well put. I cannot for the life of me see why you cannot see that the argument for a fair trial should not have itself moderated by cost. If you were arguing that you wanted the legal professions gravy train halted or at least slowed down I could happily support that.
Some things..and I happen to believe that the enactment of Justice is one...transcends money.

The gravy train of the legal profession has been prevalent for so long now I don’t think there’s a time where we can remember legal aid etc. Being cheap.

It’s no different if you go private so to speak. I met several barristers of accused folk who were earning eye watering amounts, some even knew their client was guilty. For the it’s a game and the chase...

Locally, one of our well known solicitors made some seriously large sums from the Huntley case. It’s how it is. Does it make it right? Probably not but equally, the removal of legal aid based on what the alleged crime is is simply not fair or just.

It’s always been a complex issue but if it didn’t exist then pretty ouch any every day folk would simply not get their day in court, something you’re entitled to. I’ve known people use legal aid to challenge a serious accusation and win, had they not been entitled to that they’d be sat in a prison cell accused and convicted of a murder they didn’t commit...that’s not fair.

This lady will go on her crusade and she may win, will it change? Possibly not. Sentences aren’t as cut and dry as that. That’s how the law works. I taught several kids who committed, in theory, the same crime yet all got different sentences because of victim impact statements, context, understanding and so much more.

I don’t think anyone has argued that there isn’t a need for both justice reform and prison reform but it’s unlikely to ever really happen. We have social media and the likes which are great vessel for influencing folk and promoting an agenda, an agenda which seems to focus on lengthy sentences with zero effort at rehabilitation simply because it makes people feel better...even though they’re not affected by it.

This is a very provocative and emotive case and I have to say I’ve been caught up in it myself. Initially I looked at the case and wanted ‘justice’ for that poor man and his family. I realise my ‘justice‘ was in part revenge and born out of a natural human instinct to right a clear wrong. I look at my own perspective as a case in point as to why law must be applied matter of factly or clinically for want of a better phrase. Especially given the abhorrent behaviour of the seemingly remorseless perpetrators.

I can fully understand the quest of lissie Harper to change the law and her disgust for the people responsible for her husbands death, I think I would feel exactly the same. Sadly her biggest battle may lie ahead in letting go and truly grieving. My heart goes out to her.

Again when faced with the amount spent on legal aid, it is easy to get angry about it, at least Initially on the surface of it and I’d argue it’s natural for many to think that way. On Considered reflection and although in certain circumstances it’s challenging to hold this view, I cannot get away from the principle that everyone deserves a fair trial irrespective Of their crimes. Barralad makes a Great point about justice transcending money and I have to agree with that.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

We know the full case. Career criminals killed a serving policeman. They got a sentence most sane people would consider inadequate and to rub salt into the wounds their legal team milked the publicly funded legal aid system for all it's worth.

It is left to the grieving widow with the support of the public to try to toughen up the sentencing for killing a front line worker and to hold the legal aid system to account.



What else is there to know?

This is not the first case where the public have been outraged by the gross imbalance between how the perpetrators and the victims are treated and sadly it wont be the last.

However I feel a great deal of admiration for Mrs Harper 's determination that something be done to start correcting the imbalance.

??
Can you provide some evidence that the legal aid fund was incorrectly used?
You seem very good at pointing out these  inaccuracies but strangely enough provide no feedback when asked??

Quoted from Stadium

??
Can you provide some evidence that the legal aid fund was incorrectly used?
You seem very good at pointing out these  inaccuracies but strangely enough provide no feedback when asked??

What the hell is up with you people?

Petty career criminals took a serving policeman's life, they got a derisory sentence and criminal legal aid which is our money amounting to £465,000 and counting, and you seem more concerned about my understandable reaction on a bloody message board.

Like a lot of people I support Mrs Harpers attempts to bring about tougher sentences and a review into the amount of legal aid given in such cases.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

What the hell is up with you people?

Petty career criminals took a serving policeman's life, they got a derisory sentence and criminal legal aid which is our money amounts to £465,000 and counting, and you seem more concerned about my understandable reaction on a bloody message board.

Like a lot of people I support Mrs Harpers attempts to bring about tougher sentences and a review into the amount of legal aid given in such cases.

Did they not get sentences of 16, 13 and 13 years? That’s a long time to be in prison.

It’s a long time to reflect on the their stupidity and the utter tragedy they have caused.

We have to be clear on the differences between justice and revenge.

Would longer sentences stop people committing these crimes? The evidence suggests not.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

What the hell is up with you people?

Petty career criminals took a serving policeman's life, they got a derisory sentence and criminal legal aid which is our money amounts to £465,000 and counting, and you seem more concerned about my understandable reaction on a bloody message board.

Like a lot of people I support Mrs Harpers attempts to bring about tougher sentences and a review into the amount of legal aid given in such cases.

This is just a regurgitation of the points you’ve made over and over already and is the equivalent of saying the same thing in an argument only shouting it louder and louder each time.

Do you actually digest what people write in reply (I am asking genuinely)?
Simple questions have been asked which would develop the discussion yet they remain unanswered.

In answer to your question, there is nothing wrong with me, whilst I can, to a point, understand your view, I just think differently to you.

Quoted from Sandford1981

This is just a regurgitation of the points you’ve made over and over already and is the equivalent of saying the same thing in an argument only shouting it louder and louder each time.

Do you actually digest what people write in reply (I am asking genuinely)?
Simple questions have been asked which would develop the discussion yet they remain unanswered.

In answer to your question, there is nothing wrong with me, whilst I can, to a point, understand your view, I just think differently to you.

I have no intention of providing answers to you or anybody else. My view repeated again is that these career criminals should have been given longer sentences and I am against huge sums of legal aid being used in cases like this. I am at one with the widow of PC Harper who is someone I admire greatly who has the guts to say we have had enough of soft sentences and legal aid for repeat offenders.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

I have no intention of providing answers to you or anybody else.

Fair enough! I thought this was a forum for debate and that’s the way it worked.  

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

I have no intention of providing answers to you or anybody else. My view repeated again is that these career criminals should have been given longer sentences and I am against huge sums of legal aid being used in cases like this. I am at one with the widow of PC Harper who is someone I admire greatly who has the guts to say we have had enough of soft sentences and legal aid for repeat offenders.



I am in no way defending them. They have killed a young man and it is a truly awful crime.

But how at 18 or 19 can you be a career criminal?