Low life scum access to litigation...

[R1Geezer]

http://tinyurl.com/yg6wprd
How come criminal lowlife scum can afford to set lawyers on people? Surely legal aid does not pay for the litigous whims of convicts Have the legal firms no principles at all? Why would they give this pond life the time of day?

[another-view]

I thought he was let off with murder?

[daffy654]

The poster doesn't actually refer to him as a killer or murderer,it calls him "Animal Abuser,Baby Abuser,Rapist" These are crimes for which he has convictions so how is this libelous?

[another-view]

That's the new amended poster.

[jno]

the principle that all law firms have is that everyone should have equal access to the law.

[jake-the-peg]

That's the point of the law - its there for everybody whether you approve of them or not.

Some people seem to think it's there for the benefit of the middle classes to keep scum in their place

It's not

[albaqwerty]

I was under the impression that Legal Aid wasn't available for libel. (Or is it only just slander)?

[andy-hughes]

I'm with jake on this.

I always post the same arguemtn - tailored to the individual post -

the law is operated in as fair and impartial a manner as possible, and punishments are delivered under that legal system.

Because an individual is guilty of a crime - however heimous that crime may be - does not entitle anyone to hold his image up as part of a propaganda campaign - however worthy that may be.

Steven Barker is not guilty of muder under the law - to call him so in print is libel, and he is entitled to redress under the law - that's the way our society functions. You cannot simply pick and choose the people whom you think deservve legal protection, or the whole edifice crumbles.

The law protects the good - and has by necessity to portect the bad as well. It's a flawed system, but it;s the best we have.

[jake-the-peg]

Ah - I'm not quite with Andy

I don't take a view as to the rights and wrongs of the poster case.

I do take a view of the absolute necessity to make sure that nobody, but nobody is excluded from having access to the law!

The law may find that he has suffered libel and loss or not - that is not Geezers point His point is that certain people should be barred access to the law.

I will oppose that idea to the last breath in my body

[hc4361]

His reputation cannot be damaged, as people would never think less of him for cruelty to animals than they do already.

[Sandy-Wroe]

Where does it say he got legal aid? A solicitor wrote a letter on his behalf. I think the fee for that might be about £50.
Legal aid is not available for libel cases.

[andy-hughes]

Well again I am with you jake - and notwithstanding your abstention from a view on the individual circumstances, we agree that the law is there for the protection of everybody - and that is the only way it can work effectively.