Ian Huntley sues for £100,000 compensation.
Discussion
MilnerR said:
I take those who feel contempt towards his legal team for representing him have a similar level of contempt for the medical team that saved his life. It's called professionalism. You leave your personal views at the door and do the job to the highest standard. Hopefully this case will die young..... Like Huntley!
I don't feel contempt for his legal team. I just recognise that they and the press are going to be the only people who benefit from this saga. Huntley won't. I feel that whilst inside he has rights to be protected where possible, however he no right to expect compensation. If that is the law then set it right or make sure the award is £5.00. Also make sure he is not allowed legal aid, then see how many "legal experts" rush to his aid.
It is unfortunate that law abiding citizens do not seem to have access to the help he has.
It is unfortunate that law abiding citizens do not seem to have access to the help he has.
Well it is pretty obvious tht the prison failed in it's duty of care to him, why not offer an official apology from the minister of justice and 11,000 pounds compensation ( the dame as the parents of the little girls he murdered got) to be held in an account for him until he is released.
That woulnt be offensive to me, wouldn't cost much , and make sure he doesn't become rich over what he does.
Or if he gets a huge payment why don't we all go out abduct and murder two kids and get locked up and arrange for someone else to slash our throats. Surely that's an easy way to make 100k.
That woulnt be offensive to me, wouldn't cost much , and make sure he doesn't become rich over what he does.
Or if he gets a huge payment why don't we all go out abduct and murder two kids and get locked up and arrange for someone else to slash our throats. Surely that's an easy way to make 100k.
Who pays the legal fees? Is it done like a duty solicitor where the police/jail service (And I would imagine, a long way down the line, the taxpayer) pick up the bill?
I think someone should do it properly, it would save us a fair bit of money. It is encouraging that even people in a mental institution (It's Broadmoor iirc, but correct me if I'm wrong) can tell that this guy is a terrible excuse for a human.
I think someone should do it properly, it would save us a fair bit of money. It is encouraging that even people in a mental institution (It's Broadmoor iirc, but correct me if I'm wrong) can tell that this guy is a terrible excuse for a human.
If the law allows this then I say he should be allowed to fight his case and if he wins, the money should go to the families of the kids he killed. That way he can have his victory and the money can be put to good use. Come to think of it I can't imagine what he'd do with the money anyway, but that's beside the point.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Careful - you'll confuse the PH nutters with that one.IMO the "goings on" in our prisons are a disgrace. The prison service say they can't stop inmates' friends throwing drugs, mobile phones etc over the wall. But seriously, just how hard is it to erect a net? And they say it costs nearly £40,000 a year to keep each prisoner. What a waste.
I think there's a half-way point between being a bleedin' heart and a cold monster.
I have no issue with the prison having a duty of care towards prisoners. As a society, the guy's punishment is being in prison for the majority, if not all, of his life. It's not summary justice that I feel few would take such pleasure if they saw first hand.
Equally, whilst I have no issue with a legal systems finding that duty of care has failed, I do have issue if these sums of money are realistic. I would have no issue with a Judge having the empowerment to severely limit compensation depending on the circumstances i.e. Huntley gets next to nothing if found to be right.
I have no issue with the prison having a duty of care towards prisoners. As a society, the guy's punishment is being in prison for the majority, if not all, of his life. It's not summary justice that I feel few would take such pleasure if they saw first hand.
Equally, whilst I have no issue with a legal systems finding that duty of care has failed, I do have issue if these sums of money are realistic. I would have no issue with a Judge having the empowerment to severely limit compensation depending on the circumstances i.e. Huntley gets next to nothing if found to be right.
Zod said:
Stiggy, I represent only major corporates, mega-rich individuals, hedge funds and investment banks (many would think me evil for that).
Come on, matey, you can't seriously be trying to use a b
ks film like that to support your argument?
We cannot have a legal system that says "All are entitled to legal representation,except for those most people think are guilty".
PS I do appreciate that you like the room in which I am currently sitting listening for the second time tonight to the new Arcade Fire album that arrived in the post today.
PPS I'm not that bloody old! I didn't qualify until 1992!
My point of view which could be old fashioned (age 65) is that when an individual has committed murder he should forfeit any legal rights in jail until he has served his sentence, a point overlooked by our 'learned' friend here is that if Huntley had not committed the crime he would not have been in prison to get slashed. So I think that he is the "author of his own misfortune".Come on, matey, you can't seriously be trying to use a b
ks film like that to support your argument?We cannot have a legal system that says "All are entitled to legal representation,except for those most people think are guilty".
PS I do appreciate that you like the room in which I am currently sitting listening for the second time tonight to the new Arcade Fire album that arrived in the post today.
PPS I'm not that bloody old! I didn't qualify until 1992!
Edited by Zod on Saturday 31st July 01:13
I read that Huntley's victims parents received £11k each for the death of their child, what is Huntley after £100.000
Please tell me Mr Zod how the Law is not an Ass?
Simple solution, for certain classes of convicted criminal (say, murderers) just pay the compo to the next of kin.
Supporting Zod's position on legal representation, the problem is always edge cases, just like with the death penalty. Many people agree that some people should be put to death, but no-one can agree where to draw the boundary.
Supporting Zod's position on legal representation, the problem is always edge cases, just like with the death penalty. Many people agree that some people should be put to death, but no-one can agree where to draw the boundary.
Tony 1234 said:
Zod said:
Stiggy, I represent only major corporates, mega-rich individuals, hedge funds and investment banks (many would think me evil for that).
Come on, matey, you can't seriously be trying to use a bks film like that to support your argument?
We cannot have a legal system that says "All are entitled to legal representation,except for those most people think are guilty".
PS I do appreciate that you like the room in which I am currently sitting listening for the second time tonight to the new Arcade Fire album that arrived in the post today.
PPS I'm not that bloody old! I didn't qualify until 1992!
My point of view which could be old fashioned (age 65) is that when an individual has committed murder he should forfeit any legal rights in jail until he has served his sentence, a point overlooked by our 'learned' friend here is that if Huntley had not committed the crime he would not have been in prison to get slashed. So I think that he is the "author of his own misfortune".Come on, matey, you can't seriously be trying to use a b
ks film like that to support your argument?We cannot have a legal system that says "All are entitled to legal representation,except for those most people think are guilty".
PS I do appreciate that you like the room in which I am currently sitting listening for the second time tonight to the new Arcade Fire album that arrived in the post today.
PPS I'm not that bloody old! I didn't qualify until 1992!
Edited by Zod on Saturday 31st July 01:13
I read that Huntley's victims parents received £11k each for the death of their child, what is Huntley after £100.000
Please tell me Mr Zod how the Law is not an Ass?
ExChrispy Porker said:
No win, no fee 'Lawyers for you'. would seem appropriate.
As an aside, why they think that an actor who played a corrupt DS in The Bill, would encourage me to contact them, is beyond me.
Yes, I thought that when I first saw it, it would have made more sense to use his daughter, who although played a con artist on TV, was at least nice to look at.As an aside, why they think that an actor who played a corrupt DS in The Bill, would encourage me to contact them, is beyond me.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff