Rotherham Grooming Gang Predators Received Over £600K In Legal Funds

[Khandro]

Was this a sane use of public money? And what do you think of the lawyers who trousered it?  'Just doing their job'? https://www.gbnews.com/news/grooming-gangs-rotherham-predators-legal-aid

[Ken4155]

The lawyers saw an opportunity and took it. Isn't that what lawyers do?

[ToraToraTora]

kin wonderful, what has happened to this country?

[davebro3]

I thought it had become extraordinarily difficult to get legal aid these days - apparently not.

[Ken4155]

Those in power at the time have a lot to answer for.

[jackthehat]

Distasteful though it may be, everyone is entitled to mount a defence against a crime of which they have been accused.

And Lawyers are entitled to be paid for working on these defences.

And just how much would you want to be paid for having to get close to these animals and try to defend their obvious and repulsive actions?

I'm not sure there is enough money in the world for me to do it...

[davebro3]

It seems a complete waste of public money when conviction in the ringleader's second trial resulted only in a (shorter) sntence to run concurrently with his previous one.

[naomi24]

Ive just posted this on the other thread.  Shadow Minister Katie Lam in the Commons this week.  Start at 2 minutes - and then ask why we are spending one single penny or even one single compassionate thought on these monsters.  

 

 

[Clone]

We are importing more child abusers.

Paedophile hunters have never been so busy.

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Culture/Question1893476.html#answer-14046110

 

[mushroom25]

// ask why we are spending one single penny or even one single compassionate thought on these monsters.  //

replace "we" with "the government" and the answer is simple. if they don't stump up (money or compassion), those of a similar faith persuasion won't vote for you.

[Ken4155]

^

These animals were tried in 2018, mushroom. Don't think Labour were in power, then.

[gulliver1]

Naomi 12.43 Best if you close your thread down then Naomi.

[gulliver1]

10,43!

[andy-hughes]

It's not the government, it's due legal process.

In order to function properly, the law has to be dispassionate and treat all cases equally.

If it starts deciding on the worth of a defence based upon a sliding scale of human reaction, it instantly fails to function fairly.

Human reaction to many crimes is absolutely justified but it cannot interfere with a system that, if it is to operate fairly, has to be applied fairly - to everyone, who is innocent until proven guilty. 

[davebro3]

"deemed" innocent surely? The guilty are never innocent if they did it.

[jackthehat]

If you allow the government, or anyone for that matter, to choose just who ought to be afforded the right to legal representation it will be the first-step into a totalitarian nightmare.

I wish we hadn't had to fund the legal expenses of these unspeakable men but the alternative is unthinkable...

[Old_Geezer]

It is important that all has access to justice, not just the rich.  But it is disappointing to see, time & again, cases going ahead costing ridiculous amounts when one might have expected the case to be fairly straightforward and thus quick, low effort, and consequently "low" cost.

[andy-hughes]

Again, fairness has to be applied. There is no sliding scale of cost based on an advanced presumption of the complexity or speed of the process, or indeed lack of either.