Should Such Scum, Be Allowed Legal Aid?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6039089/Three-men-Rochdale-child-sex-abuse-gang-lose-citizenship-appeal.html

/// Figures released under Freedom of Information laws show Rauf was granted £282,370, Khan £282,289 and Aziz £195,277 for their unsuccessful court battle. ///

/// But the figures are set to rise as three of the men are spending tens of thousands of pounds paying lawyers working on their bid to beat deportation. ///

Or is it money well spent if we remove them from this country?

[Kromovaracun]

I can't say I have any problem with this.

[jim360]

I don't want these men to stay and have no interest in protecting them from anything. What I have interest in is protecting the system. Unfortunately, on occasion that leads to despicable human beings getting protections that they hardly deserve -- but, despite such cases, it's vital to ensure that those rules exist for the people who *do* need them.

[naomi24]

Rules can exist for people who 'do' need them. It doesn't follow that we apply those rules to convicted criminals who clearly don't deserve such consideration.

[sandyRoe]

And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
(Act One, scene seven)
^^ From the play, A man for all seasons.
Sometimes a law designed to protect the innocent can be abused
That's probably a price we should be prepared to pay.

[jim360]

Even criminals have rights. The only qualification required to have human rights is to be human.

It's unsavoury, but it's the right thing to do. Society as a whole is better off when it treats even "scum" with some modicum of respect.

Also, AOG, much of the legal aid received by these men so far was in respect of their criminal convictions (as per the DM article), so, in that respect, the question about innocence or guilt *does* matter. even the question of citizenship is worth testing; although, as the Home Office spokesperson said, "Citizenship is a privilege, not a right", clearly no-one would want a system in which the State can make arbitrary and unchallengeable decisions about how is or is not a citizen.

Let me make the point again: I don't give a toss about these three men. I only care about preserving the system that is, for now, protecting them, because that system also protects other, far more deserving, people. It stands to reason that, the easier it is to remove that protection, the harder it is to preserve that protection when it genuinely *is* needed. That is the point; that is the only thing I care about.

[Old_Geezer]

Ideally justice should be free for all, not a privilege for the rich. (That stated Gawd knows how they run up such large bills, I reckon the legal profession must think they're worth umpteen times other professionals.) Meanwhile appeals should be shorter. A few minutes to hear some waffle about how unfair it all is, a moment or so to point out that's rubbish; then off they go, before elevensies.

[naomi24]

Jim/Sandy, they've been given a chance and they've been treated fairly. They appealed. They lost.

[Old_Geezer]

"The only qualification required to have human rights is to be human."

Very true. But it breaks down when some group starts defining non-'human rights' as 'human rights'.

[jim360]

You've read the article, I assume, so you will know that so far the men have only appealed (unsuccessfully) against their loss of citizenship. Now, or soon, they will receive a deportation order, and appeal against that too. It should be clear that these are two separate decisions, and therefore demand two separate appeal processes.

[andy-hughes]

// Andy-Hughes. I’ve
never read anything remotely like that here. You wouldn’t be making it up would you? //

// It's a complete and utter P take.
I'm not absolutely sure who scores lowest, clients or lawyers. //
// My opinion is that the right not to be raped by dead-eyed savages trumps their right to a family life and possibly saves any daughters they may have years of worry. //
// I don't care about these people, they are the lowest of the low, worse than germs. All these delaying tactics to stay in this country are sick in the extreme. Why can't we just line them up and shoot them ???
// I'd happily fire the first round. //
// Same here NoM. //
// Surely the time has come to arrange for a convicted rapist to have his bits removed ( preferably with two bricks, & before anyone asks it doesn't hurt if one keeps ones thumbs out of the way) //
// dam savages should not see the light of day again in my opinion, when TROB let them out their feet should not touch, end of. If it was up to me they'd get the Saddam shuffle, kin vermin. //
// Given the position of authority I’d disappear them permanently. //
// God almighty, I truly despair at how much money we throw away on specimens likes this who will never contribute to our society, never abide by our laws, nor respect our hardworking, tax-paying, decent, upstanding citizens, our women or our children.

When are we going to stop being grovelling apologists and kick these filthy beasts out, without spending endless fortunes defending their "human rights" and making a laughing stock of ourselves?

God, we are such a bunch of suckers! //


Doesn't look like I'm making it up actuallly, so, no.

[naomi24]

Andy-hughes, //there are those who would execute people for having a beard and praying on a Friday.//

Can’t see that^ there.

[naomi24]

Jim, yes, I have read the article. Nevertheless, I remain convinced the law is an ass.

[anotheoldgit]

If they are no longer British citizens, how come that they have the right to claim British Legal Aid?

[youngmafbog]

Difficult one. I am torn between keeping a system that can protect the innocent vs one that can be abused by people like these scum drug dealers and other such pond life.

I think I am erring with jim at the moment.

[Old_Geezer]

Few here admit to erring :-)

[fender62]

echr will probably rule against (our) courts...again another reason to leave the eu, snowflakes would say erm..it's small thing to keep them in the uk, against all the great things we get from the eu, funny that i cannot think of one good thing.

[fender62]

oh i forgot they give us there criminals and illegals and straight bananas..thats a comfort