News1 min ago
True Conservative Style.
Boris Johnson gets Legal aid . To fight his Partygate case. Although he has just moved into a £4m Oxfordshire Mansion and he once described his £250,000 jounalist salary as chicken feed ,and claims to have made £5m since resigning as PM While a single mother of three who worked for the NHS has been dragged through the courts by an abusive former partner ,has been refused legal aid and has had to sell her house to pay legal fees of £40,000 and is now forced to use food banks feed her children.
Do you think this is right ????.
Do you think this is right ????.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gulliver1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.There is currently a spat going on between Boris & Sunak – Sunak is unhappy that Boris is planning to bring down the Tory party/government along with him, over the party-gate scandal - and has threatened to withhold paying Boris’s legal fees, now that he has sacked his government appointed lawyers. Watch this space.
Gromit 14.02 Don,t know about comparing Boris with a rent boy. But agree that he should lose the party gate case. But would not be at all surprised if he was found not guilty at end of it all by his legal Con Cronies and awarded millions in compensation
Then shared out amongst them behind the bike shed.
Then shared out amongst them behind the bike shed.
Wallpaper you say, I give you Labour's Lord Irvine
http:// news.bb c.co.uk /1/hi/u k/polit ics/616 65.stm
http://
I'll raise and give you Angela Rayner. How many ears does this fiddler possess? She paid the money back because she was caught!!! If she had the money to pay back why did she attempt to fiddle them on her expense account in the first place?
https:/ /www.te legraph .co.uk/ politic s/2023/ 05/25/a ngela-r ayner-t ried-to -put-ai rpods-e xpenses for-sec ond-tim e/
https:/
-- answer removed --
And adjusting for time, how much will this…
https:/ /www.th etimes. co.uk/i mageser ver/ima ge/%2Fm ethode% 2Fsunda ytimes% 2Fprod% 2Fweb%2 Fbin%2F 9cdef3b c-7dc3- 11eb-8d e9-4ee2 1426ea3 f.jpg?c rop=455 4%2C256 2%2C23% 2C3171& amp;res ize=685
…have cost in 25 years time ?
https:/
…have cost in 25 years time ?
///many of our ‘Hon Friends’ have been at it and trying by it on for years no matter what party they represent///
Is that true? Have previous prime ministers - of any party - demanded that the public should fund their appearances before parliamentary inquiries? We're already paying for the other side...
Is that true? Have previous prime ministers - of any party - demanded that the public should fund their appearances before parliamentary inquiries? We're already paying for the other side...
Yes ,This lady who applied for Legal aid was told that she had too much Equity in her Family home so she did not Qualify for Legal aid. While Boris and his millionaire friends get all their bills paid by the Taxpayer. Britain has now a become a Country where rich and powerful people like Johnson and his Cronies recieve state support for all their Legal problems even when they are wrong.
we have to use recognisable facts Gullz
Bonka BoJo is NOT on legal aid. If the abused single muvva had been an MP and abused by another MP within the H of C - then she wd be assisted in any enquiry
BoJo is not 'fighting a case' he has already er lost that ( penalty for parties).
and he didnt resign, he was thrown out on his bum
so yeah, by and large, on the facts I think it probably is fair
Bonka BoJo is NOT on legal aid. If the abused single muvva had been an MP and abused by another MP within the H of C - then she wd be assisted in any enquiry
BoJo is not 'fighting a case' he has already er lost that ( penalty for parties).
and he didnt resign, he was thrown out on his bum
so yeah, by and large, on the facts I think it probably is fair
Legal representation should not be for the rich only. Everyone (with a reasonable case) should have access to equal representation as a right of the citizen. So although I do not know the circumstances of the 2 cases you compare, it's probably not right. The question should be as to why the abused mother was considered ineligible.