Anti-racism protests

Quoted from grimsby pete

A life is a life and nobodies life is more important than another.

If dragging of a police officer for over a mile is manslaughter then I am a dutchman.

They knew he was there being tossed from one side of the road to the other.

The system needs a serious looking at to what consist of manslaughter or murder.

That means not just the killing of police but any citizen.

Evening Van der Valk.
Good luck with that reform.
Clearly manslaughter in the current legal definition.

Knowing he was there after the fact has been reflected in the lengthy sentences...proving they planned to do that wasn’t proved hence it can’t be murder...

Reforming that law isn’t really high on the agenda at present, there are plenty more pressing reforms to law and order that need addressing.

The irony is, she herself has intimated that every life is important but is pushing for a law that seemingly suggests the death of a serviceman should see an increased and more severe sentence...implying that their lives are in fact worth more...

Quoted from aldi_01

Knowing he was there after the fact has been reflected in the lengthy sentences...proving they planned to do that wasn’t proved hence it can’t be murder...

Reforming that law isn’t really high on the agenda at present, there are plenty more pressing reforms to law and order that need addressing.

The irony is, she herself has intimated that every life is important but is pushing for a law that seemingly suggests the death of a serviceman should see an increased and more severe sentence...implying that their lives are in fact worth more...

That's a grotesque way of looking at it.

People on the front line are protecting the public from scum like this and lenient sentences dont give them the protection they need.

The law does need changing so that low life would think again before killing a policeman or other front line worker.

I see a report says the killers got over £450,000 in legal aid in their bid to escape justice. Hard to imagine a more disgusting use of public funds than that.

An excellent thread by the Secret Barrister about the reporting of that, over on the twitter.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1299108590100373506.html

Quoted from Abdul19

An excellent thread by the Secret Barrister about the reporting of that, over on the twitter.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1299108590100373506.html

He starts off by saying the amount spent on legal aid was not £500,000 as reported by the media but a mere £465,000 which tells you all you need to know about how out of touch they are with the taxpayers who have to fund it.

Career criminals get £465,000 public money for legal aid. Something has gone seriously wrong.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

He starts off by saying the amount spent on legal aid was not £500,000 as reported by the media but a mere £465,000 which tells you all you need to know about how out of touch they are with the taxpayers who have to fund it.

Career criminals get £465,000 public money for legal aid. Something has gone seriously wrong.

I'm trying not to be unkind here but did you even read the article? VAT at 20% alone is in the region of £78000.
There may be a case to query the actual fee structure for barristers but that is hardly the fault of the scumbags.
I know you have a problem with it but under British law everyone deserves the right to a fair trial. That right does not unfortunately come without cost. These three were tried and convicted under one of the best legal systems the world has to offer.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

He starts off by saying the amount spent on legal aid was not £500,000 as reported by the media but a mere £465,000 which tells you all you need to know about how out of touch they are with the taxpayers who have to fund it.

Career criminals get £465,000 public money for legal aid. Something has gone seriously wrong.

So which of the below do you disagree with??

1.Anyone accused of a criminal offence has the right to a fair trial.
2.It’s not a fair trial if the prosecution has lawyers and the accused does not.
3.Legal aid rates are fixed by government well below market rates.

Quoted from barralad

I'm trying not to be unkind here but did you even read the article? VAT at 20% alone is in the region of £78000.
There may be a case to query the actual fee structure for barristers but that is hardly the fault of the scumbags.
I know you have a problem with it but under British law everyone deserves the right to a fair trial. That right does not unfortunately come without cost. These three were tried and convicted under one of the best legal systems the world has to offer.

If you are happy that £465,000 was spent on legal aid for career criminals then so be it.

I am not happy about that and dont care how much of the bill VAT accounted for.

The once great British criminal justice system now seems more weighted in favour of career criminals and it has fallen to the widow of a young police officer to try and do something about it.


I am not being unkind but anybody who thinks that £465,000 is a fair amount for legal aid for people already well known to the justice system, who have killed a police officer whilst carrying out his duties is so far out of touch it is frightening.

So, to clarify: if tonight your home is broken into and you struggle with a burglar who subsequently falls down the stairs to their death then you’re quite happy to foot the bill for your defence and not rely on the taxpayer?

Quoted from LH

So, to clarify: if tonight your home is broken into and you struggle with a burglar who subsequently falls down the stairs to their death then you’re quite happy to foot the bill for your defence and not rely on the taxpayer?

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?