ISIS Brides

[Zambo]

There is no upside to allow her back.
Would be a trial and considerable jail sentence
She would get legal aid
This would cost a lot of money.
This way -no cost

Her lawyers have been paid by the British taxpayer.

This is not a bad thing.

Everybody needs someone competent fighting their corner (no matter how serious the crime) as a competent defensive / prosecution gives credibility to the verdict.

I assume she has no money, so would be unable to hire someone capable, so being funded by the Tax payer is better in the long run. As no one can argue her solicitor was shit and her case reviewed on those grounds.

That's my understanding anyway.

Defence barristers are in it for the money and the fame. On a general note, there is something very morally corrupt about someone who knows that their client is guilty, yet they still try and get them off.

Having said that, and it's underpinned by the number of miscarriages of justice where innocent people have been found guilty, you have to have a tight and vigorous defence system, and I understand it's difficult to separate the two aspects. The police and the CPS have a major role to play here but at times they are fucking useless. I've been watching a docu (only seen first part so far) on the murder of Jodi Jones, and the case against Luke Mitchell. That looked very dodgy indeed, with no forensics against him whatsoever.

[JimmyDee]

Defence barristers are in it for the money and the fame. On a general note, there is something very morally corrupt about someone who knows that their client is guilty, yet they still try and get them off.

If they KNOW that their client is guilty of the charge as specifically laid-down by the letter of the law then you are correct.
They don't, though. They weren't there (in, say, Ian Huntley's case) or they spot an ambiguity in the law as written down.
Either way, if you were stood in front of three magistrates, or a jury, wouldn't you want someone experienced in law to give your side of the story? Especially if you were actually innocent.
It happens, now and again, as Jean Charles de Menezes would no doubt tell you, if he were still alive to do it.

[Zambo]

Defence barristers are in it for the money and the fame. On a general note, there is something very morally corrupt about someone who knows that their client is guilty, yet they still try and get them off.

If they KNOW that their client is guilty of the charge as specifically laid-down by the letter of the law then you are correct.
They don't, though. They weren't there (in, say, Ian Huntley's case) or they spot an ambiguity in the law as written down.

So, no defence barristers know when they defend their client that they are guilty. Yeah sure

Either way, if you were stood in front of three magistrates, or a jury, wouldn't you want someone experienced in law to give your side of the story? Especially if you were actually innocent.
It happens, now and again, as Jean Charles de Menezes would no doubt tell you, if he were still alive to do it.

Well if you'd have quoted all of my post instead of part of it, you would have noticed it wasn't that unbalanced

[JimmyDee]

Well if you'd have quoted all of my post instead of part of it, you would have noticed it wasn't that unbalanced.

I edited it, old chum, because I thought that's what you're supposed to do .... not quote an entire 300-line thread just to post "^ This" at the end, but to quote the bit you're answering, and then reply to it.

I'll know better in future

[Zambo]

It is not something that will get resolved. The whole criminal justice system is full of incompetence, ineptitude and inadequacy.

[Sid Pervcat]

And nonces

[The Ghost of Alex Higgins]

And yeast

[birdie]

Defence barristers are in it for the money and the fame. On a general note, there is something very morally corrupt about someone who knows that their client is guilty, yet they still try and get them off.

If they KNOW that their client is guilty of the charge as specifically laid-down by the letter of the law then you are correct.
They don't, though. They weren't there (in, say, Ian Huntley's case) or they spot an ambiguity in the law as written down.
Either way, if you were stood in front of three magistrates, or a jury, wouldn't you want someone experienced in law to give your side of the story? Especially if you were actually innocent.
It happens, now and again, as Jean Charles de Menezes would no doubt tell you, if he were still alive to do it.

Eh? what has he to do with whether a defence barrister knows his client is innocent. De Menezes wasn't in front of a magistrate or any court of law, he was gunned down by trigger happy police who were so blind they couldn't see that he wasn't carrying a weapon let alone a suicide vest.

[paolo]

Free the Begum one

loves britain

potential real contributor

kid pumper

uk raper

forgive her sins as we forgive those who sin against us

it's only money

put her up in the hilton

[The Ghost of Alex Higgins]

Give her some bitcoin and a ds7

[JimmyDee]

Either way, if you were stood in front of three magistrates, or a jury, wouldn't you want someone experienced in law to give your side of the story? Especially if you were actually innocent.
It happens, now and again, as Jean Charles de Menezes would no doubt tell you, if he were still alive to do it.

Eh? what has he to do with whether a defence barrister knows his client is innocent. De Menezes wasn't in front of a magistrate or any court of law, he was gunned down by trigger happy police who were so blind they couldn't see that he wasn't carrying a weapon let alone a suicide vest.

It's got EVERYTHING to do with the point under discussion. Sometimes people ARE actually innocent.
Lest we forget, the cops, after shooting an innocent man, STILL tried to make out that he deserved it, in some way. That's what they do ... for a living.
What's worse; a defence barrister who wasn't there and is obliged to take his client's word for it, or a prosecution barrister who knows the guy didn't do it, but ploughs on anyway?

[Zambo]

Either way, if you were stood in front of three magistrates, or a jury, wouldn't you want someone experienced in law to give your side of the story? Especially if you were actually innocent.
It happens, now and again, as Jean Charles de Menezes would no doubt tell you, if he were still alive to do it.

Eh? what has he to do with whether a defence barrister knows his client is innocent. De Menezes wasn't in front of a magistrate or any court of law, he was gunned down by trigger happy police who were so blind they couldn't see that he wasn't carrying a weapon let alone a suicide vest.

It's got EVERYTHING to do with the point under discussion. Sometimes people ARE actually innocent.
Lest we forget, the cops, after shooting an innocent man, STILL tried to make out that he deserved it, in some way. That's what they do ... for a living.
What's worse; a defence barrister who wasn't there and is obliged to take his client's word for it, or a prosecution barrister who knows the guy didn't do it, but ploughs on anyway?

Both as bad, but a defence barrister isn't obliged to take anyone's word. If I was Des Nilson's barrister, I would have told him to fuck off and find someone else.

[JimmyDee]

Both as bad, but a defence barrister isn't obliged to take anyone's word. If I was Des Nilson's barrister, I would have told him to fuck off and find someone else.

But that's the point. They ARE obliged to take their word for it, just as the jury is obliged to have a completely open mind.
Are you saying that the worse the crime they're accused of the more they MUST, by definition, be guilty?

[Zambo]

Both as bad, but a defence barrister isn't obliged to take anyone's word. If I was Des Nilson's barrister, I would have told him to fuck off and find someone else.

But that's the point. They ARE obliged to take their word for it, just as the jury is obliged to have a completely open mind.
Are you saying that the worse the crime they're accused of the more they MUST, by definition, be guilty?

Well I don't know how some can sleep at night, it's not a job I could do, and I have no idea how you have come to the conclusion you posted as your second sentence.

[JimmyDee]

Well I don't know how some can sleep at night, it's not a job I could do, and I have no idea how you have come to the conclusion you posted as your second sentence.

I would have thought it was perfectly obvious, but there you go.