Calis Beach and Fethiye Turkey Discussion Forum
General Topics => The Debating Chamber => Topic started by: Highlander on November 29, 2013, 13:39:01 PM
-
Should the people defending Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale be congratulated for ensuring that the justice system that Lee Rigby would have fought for was upheld or vilified for assisting the two individuals involved who admitted their obscene crime in it's immediate aftermath.
-
I believe that all are entitled to a fair trial. However when there is absolutely no doubt of their guilt (especially of such a heinous crime) I think the persons who defend them, for money, are just as much scumbags. That's me "sitting on the fence".
-
Our justice system provides for those accused to be represented and like it or not someone has to do it if it is requested.
It is unjust to label those who have stepped in to do this "job" as scumbags.
The law states that everyone is entitled to a defence even against the indefensible.
-
We have an adversarial legal system. We have had for centuries. To make it work both the accused and the accuser/s are entitled to legal representation. The legal representatives are entitled to be paid. I don't see that there is anything here worth questioning. If people don't like it, what would they like instead? That the guilt or innocence of the accused is decided in advance and then only the innocent get representation? I don't see why we would need a court system at all under those circumstances since the "authorities" would already have decided things. Which, of course, is it the way things used to be in this country several centuries ago before habeas corpus and other civil rights were established through struggles to establish a system of law that bound first kings and then parliaments.
The alternative is Guantanamo Bay. I'll join with others in a fight against attempts to establish any such thing in the UK.
-
The same argument could be said about the defence of The Moors Murder's and other high profile cases.. The alternative these days seems to be trial by media..
-
I believe that all are entitled to a fair trial. However when there is absolutely no doubt of their guilt (especially of such a heinous crime) I think the persons who defend them, for money, are just as much scumbags. That's me "sitting on the fence".
So pray tell, how will they achieve a fair trial (which you believe they are entitled to) without competent legal representation?
And if you don't believe their lawyers should be remunerated in "money", what's your alternative?
JF
-
Work experience youths?
-
Try as I might I could not find out for certain that the defence is being mounted by a private firm.
It was on the assumption that it was a private firm, that I asked if they should be congratulated or vilified.
-
It doesn't make any difference to my view of the issue but if you are interested in pursuing it you could start with the defence lawyer at the first court appearance back in June. It was David Gottlieb of Thomas More Chambers, Lincolns Inn Fields. He may very well be the current defence counsel. Here is his profile: http://www.thomasmore.co.uk/members/david_gottlieb
-
They should be shown the same mercy they showed to Lee Rigby. >:( >:( >:(
-
Thanks Colwyn.
I bet Mr David Gottlieb does not come cheap. I wonder who is paying his fee.
-
Does anyone know what the defence actually is? I for one simply can't think of one they could go with.
-
Well we should know shortly but since they can hardly deny the killing it could be that the original action was whilst the balance of the mind was deranged and thus they were not responsible, or that they are currently mentally unfit to stand trial. The prosecution has already declared that a gambit of self-defensive action (i.e. British Army personnel attacking Muslims leads to Muslims attacking British Army personnel) would not be applicable since revenge attacks don't come under the rubric of self-defence - maybe a hint the prosecution suspects that it may go this way. I'm sure the defendants would like to state that since the court is non-Sharia it is not competent to try them - but I don't see how counsel can plead this except by saying "My clients insist that ..." which is almost the same as pleading guilty.
-
I don't.
The fact the these two people are putting the relatives of Lee Rigby through a trial is sickening.
They are getting what they wanted. >:(
-
Colwyn - would they not have had to enter that defence rather than to deny the charges.
-
There must be a defence I think, that's why it is difficult to think what it might be. As I understand it, if I murder someone and wish to plead not guilty, then privately tell my legal team that I did it, they can no longer represent me. I might be wrong. So in this case their legal representatives must believe in the reasons behind the not guilty plea..?
-
There was nobody to defend Lee Rigby but this pair of b##stards will
receive a defence paid for from funds provided by law abiding citizens.
They will then be kept in comfort and good health from those funds and
middle aged women from penal reform groups will ensure their well-
being and human rights are catered for.
I find that perverse and disgusting.
-
Well said Kevin,they will both get a second chance in life.Lee Rigby was run over and then butchered.The vision of his little son with a t-shirt bearing the words My dad my hero on it was one of the saddest images of this year.
-
Immediately after he committed his heinous crime Michael Adebolajo said that he had killed Lee Rigby because British soldiers had killed his people and he wanted an eye for an eye.
Well Mr Adebolajo I want your eye for Lee's and wish that at least we had the option of the death penalty for your crime.
Oh and by the way if you think that makes you a martyr, I dont give a ****..................... tell that to your maker.
-
Two individuals as unstable and irrational as these could, had they a logical brain cell between them, have caused mass deaths in the capital - if there is a glimmer of a silver lining in this repulsive tale it is that the two of them only took one life and will now not be able to take any more.
That is a statement of fact, it is in no way meant to devalue Lee's life. He is a hero, to his family, friends and to our country. A complete contrast to people who carry out their acts of "heroism" for their cause by running innocent people down in a car from behind. Scum.
-
Rabid animals are normally put down to stop them infecting others. Bring in a vet. !!!
-
At the risk of straying into another popular area of debate Kevin, these idiots expected to die in the close aftermath of what they did. In fact, they were probably counting on that. Why kill them? That's what they wanted.
-
So be it, for me - I am happy to grant them a wish that they may or may not want.
-
If our politicians havn't got the balls to re-instate the death penalty for certain murder offences
they should have the balls to introduce "full life" sentences for those crimes OR put it to a referendum.
Some group of do-gooders or other will fight for these b##stards rights in the future and they will be
let out amongst us.Public opinion counts for nothing.
-
I've said before, make it life or stop calling it life!!!
Full life sentences are the best option we have. Without the tellys in the cells and roast beef with all the trimmings on a Sunday.
-
Someone I know is a freelance physiotherapist and does some work for the prison
service in my area.The prisoners have to cross an open courtyard to get to the room
to receive their FREE treatment.If it's cold or wet they can't be arsed to turn up for
their appointment's so the physio has wasted their time and the prison service
still has to pay. And it's called punishment.
-
As an ex-soldier myself I hated to see what happened to Lee Rigby and want to see these two punished, I also like many here deplore the poor sentences and easy treatment of the perpetrators of violent crime in our Country.
However wrong the law maybe it is the law and has to stand until it is democratically changed, under the law if I plead not guilty then I am entitled to a defense, and lawyers are entitled to be paid.
I hope the b*****ds who killed poor Lee burn in hell but unfortunately the fact that the law designed for fair treatment of all is being cleverly abused here is to taunt us further so we should just not react. I would love for all the media to agree to not mention anything about the trial, just the final verdict -- they want the publicity -- deny it to them. Be under no illusion that the misguided leaders of these Terrorist groups are extremely clever manipulators and planners, and in some cases very well educated, their tentacles are everywhere and you can be sure every action of these two is under instruction.
Also why not hold the Trial in the remotest court we have that can hand down the full sentences the Law allows?
Heavily Guarded and away from eyes of the World, but within the Law, the public allowed to observe, well the few people prepared to travel there!
Section 78 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 provides that the Crown Court can conduct business at any location in England and Wales, in accordance with directions given by the Lord Chancellor.[5] This power is sometimes used to enable court sittings to take place away from one of the regular Crown Court venues
Lawyer of Repute
(Barrack Room) :)
-
Bravo JT49 ! I could not have put it better myself. My sentiments exactly.
-
I wonder if people so keen here to advocate reduction in the availability and access to justice, including a competent defence lawyer, for the heinous crime of cold blooded murder in this case, would have advocated this in all cases of murder? Like, for example, the recent case of the Royal Marines accused of cold blooded murder, and indeed where one defendant was found guilty. Not for a moment I would have thought.
And it is that application of a fair and balanced justice system that separates the UK from many other countries in the world.
-
I think people's opinion on this is due only to the fact that they were seen committing the murder, were filmed committing the murder and discussed why they had carried out the murder. They need a little more than access to a competent defence lawyer.
-
Sadly in the Royal Marines case that too was filmed, and the decision on whether to kill the man or not was discussed between the marines involved.
But I do not seek here to make a case for an application of justice that differs between cases, on one justification or another. Simply that to be effective and respected justice needs to be balanced and applied fairly in all cases.
-
My point is not about Marines, it is simply that people may believe that when a murder has clearly been committed and widely witnessed, and the perpetrators filmed discussing why they did it, that maybe we shouldn't have to ask them whether they feel they are guilty or not.
-
But I do not seek here to make a case for an application of justice that differs between cases, on one justification or another. Simply that to be effective and respected justice needs to be balanced and applied fairly in all cases.
Oh you mean kill the B*****ds!!
-
Which ones? The jihadists or the marines?
-
I cannot think what purpose the naming of the marines serves other than to put their family at great risk. >:(
-
In war I think things are different for those involved, certainly when compared to a fairly quiet street in a capital city.
-
I'm of the opinion that they don't deserve a trial or a solicitor to defend them.
The world saw them commit murder and heard their rants of hatred.
Why should they receive anything other than the rest of their lives in solitary confinement? They did it, fair and
square. Guilty as charged and no public trial to enable them to spout more of their vile hatred towrards us.
I'd happily put a bullet in their heads!
-
The jihadists or the marines?
-
Colwyn, John asked the question on the jihadists.
I therefor answered his question as I'm assuming most others did on this thread.
Perhaps we need to make it clearer in our replies ;)
-
I think UBT has highlighted a key issue very precisely. There are two cases running almost concurrently. Both involve sets of people accused of murder, in both cases the killing was recorded and published in vision and sound, in both cases an unarmed enemy combatant was deliberately - with forethought - killed, and both cases came before a court. In a country that believes in the equality of all before the law I would expect and demand nothing less. If some people want to say one set should have legal treatment because they are some of "us" whilst another lot ought to be deprived of this and found guilty and sentenced without trial because they are "them" then I condemn that absolutely and will do everything I can, legally and without violence, to oppose such notions infecting my country.
-
Marines go into the battlefield with a uniform,a gun and, if they're lucky, enough bullets and a rule book.
Jihadists go into the battlefield with no identifiable uniform, a variety of weapons, no morals, no conscience,
no rule book and a willingness to use women and children as human shields.
I appreciate what our troops have done for our country, sometimes with one hand tied behind their backs.
Their detractors should lead the way and do it better
-
It's not us and them, it's war and peaceful. Not saying either is justifiable in law but definitely very different.
-
Not justifiable but, I think,understandable.
-
such difficult thing to get your head round. I actually cannot wait for the defence to start in the Rigby trial, and how in Gods name they can plead not guilty is beyond my thinking, so I await my education.
In the case of the Marine, well wrong is wrong is wrong. If it hadn't been filmed and was never made public it would just be him and his conscience, but as it is, the law must still be upheld.
We live on Salisbury Plain Army Training Area, and as much as I admire these soldiers for what they do in war zones, in the local pubs they are just another bunch of loudmouthed bad mannered arrogant drunks, who don't care who they offend, so I do feel for his family but I don't think he should be on a pedestal. Just my opinion
-
We live on Salisbury Plain Army Training Area
Slightly off topic but if I were you I'd duck ;)
-
I want to hide in the cupboard under the stairs when they are shelling!!
-
I want to hide in the cupboard under the stairs when they are shelling!!
Try being on the other end of it--- a lot more scary I can promise you! :)
-
He made the ultimate sacrifice for being a defender of this country.
He deserves the best pedestal available.
The cowards that killed him deserve something a bit higher. GALLOWS.
Just my opinion. >:(
-
I would agree with Colwyn (yes I know we never do!) if both were in a military conflict situation, but that was not the case, the Rigby murder was carried out by civilians deliberately murdering someone on the street, ( don't care what they say about Jihad and they are soldiers and all that nonsense -- they are civilians and British so its premeditated murder) whereas the killing of the Taliban was in a war situation.
So the circumstances are different, both must stand trial, and, where I do agree is the law is the law and must progress through its course, it would be wrong not to -- but why does the Marine get a secret Court Martial whereas the other Murderers get the Old Bailey and all these costs? They should as I have said before
have been tried at a remote County Court as the law allows denying them the publicity they seek!
I don't want top get into the whole Middle East and Islam thing, as I say to people, when you have lived amongst them, been there during their revolutions and conflicts as I have them talk to me about it, if your knowledge is based on journalism and hearsay then don't! :)