Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
31 Jul 14
11:22
Joined:
Date Joined:
02 Oct 03
Imagine committing a murder, being caught bang to rights, and jailed for a whole of life sentence.
Would you bother appealing against it?
More to the point, who would take your case?
What self-respecting solicitor would want to try and get your sentence reduced?
Isn't there enough other work in the country for solicitors?
The legal aid bill for one of the scumbags that beheaded Lee Rigby is £212,000 so far, and won't stop yet.
I say 'Fack him, let him rot.'
Would you bother appealing against it?
More to the point, who would take your case?
What self-respecting solicitor would want to try and get your sentence reduced?
Isn't there enough other work in the country for solicitors?
The legal aid bill for one of the scumbags that beheaded Lee Rigby is £212,000 so far, and won't stop yet.
I say 'Fack him, let him rot.'
Show More
No wonder the coalition are clamping down on legal aid.
What can justify spending sot much money on an open and shut case?
They've brought the legal aid system into disrepute with their outrageous charges.
What can justify spending sot much money on an open and shut case?
They've brought the legal aid system into disrepute with their outrageous charges.
It's not just about spending the money, it's about the greedy bastard who represents him.
more importantly who gave the ok for his sentence to be contested.
No doubt it will be one of those human right lawyers that only thinks of the defendant.
Not the system and their great big house they live in.
No doubt it will be one of those human right lawyers that only thinks of the defendant.
Not the system and their great big house they live in.
We should worry far more about our ridiculous compensation system we have, it is destroying us
Solicitors/Law firms drive this for their own benefit
Solicitors/Law firms drive this for their own benefit
^^^ look who has got bored with Israel threads for 5 minutes and come on here. 
Capt__F
01 Aug 14 00:51
where's Lord O ?
Busy building his own all-weather course in the grounds of the mansion. Where he trains every runner.
Can't wait for the tips.
01 Aug 14 00:51
where's Lord O ?
Busy building his own all-weather course in the grounds of the mansion. Where he trains every runner.
Can't wait for the tips.
just imagine if you could train them to dip on the line.
Being awkward 
I was just pointing ou,t however bad an offense someone is charged with
they are entitled to a defence
if there are grounds, they are entitled to an appeal
and if they do not have the money...this is paid for by the state...otherwise only the rich would get justice
Barristers defending someone, do not necessarily approve of the alleged crime
they have a duty to ensure that the defendant gets a fair hearing that is all
this applies to everybody in the country
I was just pointing ou,t however bad an offense someone is charged with
they are entitled to a defence
if there are grounds, they are entitled to an appeal
and if they do not have the money...this is paid for by the state...otherwise only the rich would get justice
Barristers defending someone, do not necessarily approve of the alleged crime
they have a duty to ensure that the defendant gets a fair hearing that is all
this applies to everybody in the country
If the original sentence is deemed fair, it will upheld by the appeal court
To appeal, someone has to have grounds,
a judge somewhere has decided there are,
a judge somewhere has decided there are,
I am not trolling you taxi
I did not look who posted the thread
yes we disagreed on the Israel thread
still we have all paid our £2, we are entitled to our view
me more than most
I did not look who posted the thread
yes we disagreed on the Israel thread
still we have all paid our £2, we are entitled to our view
me more than most
ebulGery,
I tend slightly Luvvie-of-Centre on here, but I can't imagine possible grounds for appealing his sentance.
We all saw what he did!
If he really thinks he deserves less than what he got, then he should fund his own appeal. If enough people think like he does, then he'd be able to raise the cash, wouldn't he?
I tend slightly Luvvie-of-Centre on here, but I can't imagine possible grounds for appealing his sentance.
We all saw what he did!
If he really thinks he deserves less than what he got, then he should fund his own appeal. If enough people think like he does, then he'd be able to raise the cash, wouldn't he?
has to have grounds
before the scumbag has a chance to appeal against his sentence he has to be:
1) arrested
2) charged
3) stand trial
4) be convicted
5) be sentenced
Being seen in the street and on CCTV camera, with a meat cleaver in your hand, and the nigh-on decapitated body of a soldier near you, would make step 3 totally pointless, but some fat lawyer stood up and defended him.
Why?
Because they're money grabbing bastards that's why. It was a case that the defence couldn't possibly win.
It should have been:
1) Shot dead in the street.
Case finished.
But for some reason, the police 'marksman' missed firing a fatal shot.
Now read this:
You have been arrested for a crime and need a solicitor to defend you. Being a good citizen you've worked all your life and paid all your taxes. You own your house and have no mortgage, it's all paid off.
But due to ailing health, you can't work, and have no money in the bank.
Can you get legal aid?
No, you can't.
The rules state that if you have equity of more than £100k in your house, you're not entitled to legal aid.
On the other hand you don't work and won't be able to remortgage as you can't repay it.
So who stands up in court for you?
before the scumbag has a chance to appeal against his sentence he has to be:
1) arrested
2) charged
3) stand trial
4) be convicted
5) be sentenced
Being seen in the street and on CCTV camera, with a meat cleaver in your hand, and the nigh-on decapitated body of a soldier near you, would make step 3 totally pointless, but some fat lawyer stood up and defended him.
Why?
Because they're money grabbing bastards that's why. It was a case that the defence couldn't possibly win.
It should have been:
1) Shot dead in the street.
Case finished.
But for some reason, the police 'marksman' missed firing a fatal shot.
Now read this:
You have been arrested for a crime and need a solicitor to defend you. Being a good citizen you've worked all your life and paid all your taxes. You own your house and have no mortgage, it's all paid off.
But due to ailing health, you can't work, and have no money in the bank.
Can you get legal aid?
No, you can't.
The rules state that if you have equity of more than £100k in your house, you're not entitled to legal aid.
On the other hand you don't work and won't be able to remortgage as you can't repay it.
So who stands up in court for you?
Digressing slightly, cmat, I did think at the time that this exposes the truth about police marksmen always being trained (and ordered) to "shoot to kill" only.
Stevie
It would have made no difference to me if I was an armed copper, I carry a gun for one reason, order or no order, he would have been toast.
It would have made no difference to me if I was an armed copper, I carry a gun for one reason, order or no order, he would have been toast.
you can blame me as much as you want
I am telling what the law is, that is all
it is evident not everybody thinks much of it
I am telling what the law is, that is all
it is evident not everybody thinks much of it
I don't know what happened in the incident
but one would guess the police asked the two assailants to drop their machetes or whatever
when they failed they opened fire, probably to kill, they missed, aimed too low
but one would guess the police asked the two assailants to drop their machetes or whatever
when they failed they opened fire, probably to kill, they missed, aimed too low
The police are trained to aim at the centre of the body, the largest area, had their aim been good
both assailants would probably be dead
both assailants would probably be dead
ebulGery 01 Aug 14 14:36
when they failed they opened fire, probably to kill, they missed, aimed too low
Read the news ffs.
One of them had a gun, he should have died in a hail of police gunfire.
Ans the other one was carrying a meat cleaver, and wanted to be a martyr.
One in the body or leg to put him down, then one in his head to finish him off. Martyrdom achieved.
They are the correct sentences for murdering scumbags.
when they failed they opened fire, probably to kill, they missed, aimed too low
Read the news ffs.
One of them had a gun, he should have died in a hail of police gunfire.
Ans the other one was carrying a meat cleaver, and wanted to be a martyr.
One in the body or leg to put him down, then one in his head to finish him off. Martyrdom achieved.
They are the correct sentences for murdering scumbags.
The sentence is your opinion.
What is happening is the LAW
As for the rest, well the police will ask an assailant to drop weapons, that is usual
if they do not comply they then open fire...which will be to kill
Personally I believe the police probably panicked as I believe they did in the Knox case.
But I will check the details ok taxi
I think the police need to look at who carries guns.....it needs to be someone who will not panic
What is happening is the LAW
As for the rest, well the police will ask an assailant to drop weapons, that is usual
if they do not comply they then open fire...which will be to kill
Personally I believe the police probably panicked as I believe they did in the Knox case.
But I will check the details ok taxi
I think the police need to look at who carries guns.....it needs to be someone who will not panic
You see marksmanship in these situations is not enough...the police officers have to have
the mental toughness to cope with what can be a life threatening situation
the mental toughness to cope with what can be a life threatening situation
The assailants, armed with a gun and cleaver, charged at the police, who fired shots that wounded them both.
from Wikipedia
They would have shot to kill though
so you are right Taxi, I am wrong there ok
from Wikipedia
They would have shot to kill though
so you are right Taxi, I am wrong there ok
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539