Jeremy Corbyn defends Shamima Begum's right to legal aid

[Capetonian]

Perhaps it is time the laws be changed so that criminals of all types are not given so much protection. The treacherous and evil woman should be burned at the stake, fed to wild animals, or sent to sea in a sinking vessel.

Fair trial? I suppose her behaviour has been fair, ethical, decent, compassionate and honest. Does she deserve fairness?

A fair trial and a decent execution is called for. I for one am sorry, for many reasons, that the UK abolished the death penalty and has gone soft on crime. Whilst I understand all the arguments against the death penalty, I disagree with most of them.

[Undried Plum]

Human rights are owed to all humans.

When a society loses sight of that fact, you end up with societies like Nazi Germany or the US or IS.

[OFSO]

Burned at the stake AND fed to wild animals AND sent to sea in a sinking vessel, and made to listen to the pig-child droaning on about global warming.

All human are born with equal rights. However they can lose those rights when they themselves abrogate (is that the right word ? bit big for me to use) the use of their rights to others. What I mean is, they lose their own rights by denying them to others.

[Undried Plum]

they lose their own rights by denying them to others.

I don't think you'll find many human rights lawyers agreeing with that opinion.

There's a bit of a clue in the name of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[Capetonian]

I'm sure human rights lawyers deserve the greatest respect and admiration. This one sets a great example.

A human rights lawyer who spat at a flight attendant during a foul-mouthed racist tirade after she was refused alcohol has been jailed for six months.

Simone Burns, 50, known as Simone O’Broin, was served three bottles of wine but declared “I’m a f***ing international lawyer” when she was denied more on an Air India flight from Mumbai to London in November. She also called staff “Indian money-grabbing c***s” and smoked in the lavatories.

[ian16th]

There are many cases where I believe that the capital punishment definitely fits the crime.
Terrorist shootings and bombings are amongst them.

The problem I have is with the English Legal System, the one that is the basis of law in many countries.

The shortcoming is the finding of someone Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

In cases of Capital Punishment the verdict needs to be Guilty Beyond Any Doubt.

If there is any doubt, there should be a lessor sentence.

I am aware that this opens a can of worms about how to differentiate between Reasonable Doubt and Any Doubt.

Being old, I can remember several cases, in the UK, where hanged men received posthumous pardons.

What a circus.

[Octopussy2]

Posts like Undried Plum's restore my dwindling faith in humanity as it is represented on this site.

OFSO, listen to yourself - you are actually taking the piss, presumably?

Cape, come on, that can't be your best argument? Because really, if that is all that you can dredge up, best give up attempts at serious debate now.

Most of the time I assume you guys are just venting and, if push came to shove, wouldn't actually stand by your views as expressed, being, in other respects it would appear, intelligent adults. It would be lovely if you could reassure me on that point, but maybe I'm just naïve to think that most people are, fundamentally, good

[G-CPTN]

The Begum is, undoubtedly, guilty of heinous behaviour, but, proving it to any degree seems most unlikely.

[OFSO]

No I was not "taking the piss". Rights are acquired by everyone at birth but are Vested by behaviour since they constitute a two-way process. Rights are a form of contract binding both parties and that contract stands on the behaviour of both parties. In reality it is the giver of rights, typically governments or authorities, who more often than not break the contract with the citizen. Rights may also be Acquired, as in people who live in a country deficient in Human Rights moving to civilised countries where the opposite is the case, and then enjoy the same rights and the Vested rights of citizens born there. But 'rights' are a fragile flower, requiring nurturing by both parties. I have lived in two countries where every citizen understood this.
As for human rights lawyers, there may be some who work because of their beliefs and out of the goodness of their hearts. An interesting idea.......most of my acquaintances however work for money (and damned little of it do they receive.)
I myself work pro bono for one class of appellate citizens who nearly all understand the balance between their behaviour and receiving their 'rights'. The ones who don't suffer the consequences.
Would I defend the young lady having been stripped of her nationality ? Yes, because the act was illegal under international law. Would I be happy doing so ? Emphatically not. I separate my obligations and emotions !

[Undried Plum]

We in Britain have an appalling track record is miscarriages of justice in the highest profile cases.

Scotland's disgrace is the wrongful conviction of Megrahi who almost certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with Operation Intekham and the PA103 plot.

In England there are numerous such cases, such as the Birmingham Six and the Jill Dando killing etc. A common strand running through most of them is very dodgy forensic "evidence" which is actually bull$hit administered by incompetent ****.

[Undried Plum]

To go back to the thread title, I think we'd be treading on a horribly slippery slope if we were to say that someone should not be entitled to legal representation if they are accused of a heinous or infamous crime.

[OFSO]

It's called "sweeping it under the carpet". I could not agree more about the PanAm downing. We all know (or suspect) who the real culprits were.

Of course they are entitled to representation. And the best money can buy....

[Capetonian]

Nope, not my best argument but I know a human rights lawyer personally and she is an effing hypocrite and a nasty piece of work to boot, she was married to a friend of mine. I'm afraid she has jaundiced my views of such people, but setting that aside, I still believe in the death penalty for certain crimes and treason is one of them. I won't go into the others as that would not be relevant here.

[Krystal n Chips]

" Whilst I understand all the arguments against the death penalty, I disagree with most of them.."

That's more than a contradiction in terms, because, if, as you claim, you understand the arguments against the death penalty, you wouldn't disagree with them..which begs the question, which arguments do you agree with ?

To save you asking, I am passionately against it.

As for the question of legal aid, and I admit she's not the most deserving case on record, she should still be availed of the basic principles of law in the UK to defend herself against the allegations made against her.

Undried plum mentioned a couple of cases where human rights and right to a fair trial were abused...there are plenty of others available, so worth mentioning the poor soul in Rochdale here as another . For those so antagonistic towards our penal system, try to imagine what it must be like for somebody who is innocent to be incarcerated for years, with their daily life controlled thereafter.

[Pontius Navigator]

I still believe in the death penalty for certain crimes and treason is one of them.

Maybe, but having proven treason in peacetime (define) I am not sure the death penalty should be automatic.

At the time I am sure the atom spies would have been executed. In retrospect, helping Russia develop the atomic bombs acted as a deterrent against the USA. The USA certainly needed to be deterred as they were considering a pre-emptive strike.

In 1968, revealing that the UK would only use nuclear weapons in retaliation would have caused exceptionally grave damage to the country. Later it was openly stared policy. How would it have looked if you had executed the person that leaked Too Secret information that not long after became open source?

[Capetonian]

" Whilst I understand all the arguments against the death penalty, I disagree with most of them.."

That's more than a contradiction in terms, because, if, as you claim, you understand the arguments against the death penalty, you wouldn't disagree with them..which begs the question, which arguments do you agree with ?

It's not a contradiction in terms at all, it may just be that you can't grasp the concept of understanding something but disagreeing with it.
To put it simply, I can understand why people steal from others, but I don't agree with it.

To save you asking, I am passionately against it.
I can't exactly say I am shocked to the core by that revelation from you. I have friends who are passionately against the death penalty and I respect their belief, and yours in this case, whilst disagreeing with it.

[Undried Plum]

When sentencing the actually innocent Birmingham Six to 21 life sentences each, the judge said that he greatly wished that it was in his power to sentence then to death by hanging.

[Rwy in Sight]

Burned at the stake AND fed to wild animals AND sent to sea in a sinking vessel, and made to listen to the pig-child droaning on about global warming.

All human are born with equal rights. However they can lose those rights when they themselves abrogate (is that the right word ? bit big for me to use) the use of their rights to others. What I mean is, they lose their own rights by denying them to others.

I loved the second part of the statement, not that the first one is wrong but the second is magnificent.

When you have people who break the law having earned a positively special treatment I see nothing wrong if some rights of their are forgotten and a harsher punishment is imposed.

[ian16th]

When sentencing the actually innocent Birmingham Six to 21 life sentences each, the judge said that he greatly wished that it was in his power to sentence then to death by hanging.

That was the judges sentence, the verdict was in the hands of the jury.

[ian16th]

To go back to the thread title, I think we'd be treading on a horribly slippery slope if we were to say that someone should not be entitled to legal representation if they are accused of a heinous or infamous crime.

I don't see that anyone says she should be denied legal representation.

The argument is that the representation is paid for from the public purse.