Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again
Discussion
Zod said:
That's the pub bore's argument. Extradition is a big issue. Anyone, however evil, should be represented in relation to an extradition hearing.
We are a free democracy under the rule of law. We don't abrogate the rule of law just because the person we are dealing with is obviously an evil sack of st.
Any system of law which permits so many challenges and appeals needs to be changed then (as does the legal aid system which I understand has funded most of it).We are a free democracy under the rule of law. We don't abrogate the rule of law just because the person we are dealing with is obviously an evil sack of st.
Edited by Zod on Wednesday 26th September 18:16
Indeed where legal aid capped at say £250,000 for anyone individual case, then it would perhaps focus the minds of all concerned.
I would be happy if a similar system applied to crown cost, as it would also focus there minds.
The legal system, barristers and silks is a closed shop monopoly, they charge whatever they like and everyone has to wear it or give up. Perhaps if more competition was introduced we might start to see some sanity in the costs.
I would be happy if a similar system applied to crown cost, as it would also focus there minds.
The legal system, barristers and silks is a closed shop monopoly, they charge whatever they like and everyone has to wear it or give up. Perhaps if more competition was introduced we might start to see some sanity in the costs.
Sorry to intrude with boring old facts, but the fees paid for publicly funded legal work are set by the government and are not negotiable. They are well below market rates. For example, when I represent the government against a terrorist suspect or similar, as I sometimes do, I am paid a rate set over 16 years ago and not raised since, which is about 25% of my market rate. Legal aid rates are lower still. There is plenty of competition for the work, which is one reason why the rates stay low.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 26th September 20:18
whoami said:
Breadvan72 said:
This is only an interim stay on extradition pending a hearing next week. There has been no ruling on the merits of the latest challenge. I wager that the court next week will take a lot of persuading not to approve the extradition.
But how many more times can he appeal?I think that this is his last throw.
Bear in mind that the legal games are part of a guerilla strategy, designed to cause hassle and to make us doubt our own values, which are infinitely preferable to his. We afford our enemies rights, because we are superior to them. We must not descend to their level.
Hamza would laugh at those of you who clamour for legal systems akin to those he would have in his dream State.
Breadvan72 said:
Sorry to intrude with boring old facts, but the fees paid for publicly funded legal work are set by the government and are not negotiable. They are well below market rates. For example, when I represent the government against a terrorist suspect or similar, as I sometimes do, I am paid a rate set over 16 years ago and not raised since, which is about 25% of my market rate. Legal aid rates are lower still.
not suggesting your wrong, but how does this fit with several million quid on this one 'person'?Ozzie Osmond said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am paid a rate set over 16 years ago and not raised since, which is about 25% of my market rate. Legal aid rates are lower still.
This means nothing without the figures.I am lucky, as that's the top rate for government work. Legal aid rates tend to be daily rather than hourly, and are lower.To get net figures, knock off about 30 percent for expenses (more like 60 to 70 per cent for solicitors), and then deduct tax and NI.
Is the million quid on this case, or the firm's overall legal aid income from all cases?
Breadvan72 said:
My government rate is 120 an hour, which equates to about 40 net of expenses and taxes. My market rate is 450 an hour, which is about 160 net.
I am lucky, as that's the top rate for government work. Legal aid rates tend to be daily rather than hourly, and are lower.To get net figures, knock off about 30 percent for expenses (more like 60 to 70 per cent for solicitors), and then deduct tax and NI.
Which begs a huge question, what sort of person works for £120 if he can make £450 for the same work?I am lucky, as that's the top rate for government work. Legal aid rates tend to be daily rather than hourly, and are lower.To get net figures, knock off about 30 percent for expenses (more like 60 to 70 per cent for solicitors), and then deduct tax and NI.
See also, NHS consultants.
Breadvan72 said:
when I represent the government against a terrorist suspect or similar, as I sometimes do,
A couple of questions if you don't mind...Do you get chosen for these jobs or go after them?
When representing the likes of a terror suspect, particularly, do you generally believe their version of events or suspect they do have something to answer, or do they sometimes let things out in private that convince you that they are lying/likely to be guilty?
If you think they are guilty do you try to steer them or the handling of the case to accomodate/accept and maybe mitigate their 'work' and/or get a preferable sentence or do you defend them as fully as possible even if this means representing things in a certain way or hiding facts etc. to strengthen their plea, to do your job as well as possible - even if this means the outcome seems likely to be, or is in the event, 'wrong'?
Breadvan72 said:
I regard it as a form of public service. My other work subsisdises my government work. The work can be interesting.
NHS Consultants tend to have a strong sense of vocation.
This argument holds absolutely no water. Don't the low paid teachers and nurses also claim they do it for the strong sense of vocation? NHS Consultants tend to have a strong sense of vocation.
If lawyers and consultants want to do some real public service they should IMO stop pocketing so much cash, train more young people and share the work.
I do train people, and also do quite a lot of work for free. Do you?
I am not responsible for teachers and nurses and others being underpaid.
PS: I know several NHS consultants, and they are all motivated by a strong public service ethos. Few other people that I know are thus motivated.
I am not responsible for teachers and nurses and others being underpaid.
PS: I know several NHS consultants, and they are all motivated by a strong public service ethos. Few other people that I know are thus motivated.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 26th September 20:47
I read that the apeal is because of his mental condition. So he is scared of going where they will ock him away for a long time so now this. Look out for a lenghty investigation as to his mental state. As others have said we are a laughing stock, he should have been sat on a plane waiting the decision and then away he goes. Don't forget when he goes we will still be stumping up for his kids and wife for ever.
Breadvan72 said:
I do train people, and also do quite a lot of work for free. Do you?
I am not responsible for teachers and nurses and others being underpaid.
PS: I know several NHS consultants, and they are all motivated by a strong public service ethos. Few other people that I know are thus motivated.
Well, it's a subjective view but then again, I know several who are not at all motivated by a public service ethos at all.I am not responsible for teachers and nurses and others being underpaid.
PS: I know several NHS consultants, and they are all motivated by a strong public service ethos. Few other people that I know are thus motivated.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 26th September 20:47
Lost_BMW said:
Breadvan72 said:
when I represent the government against a terrorist suspect or similar, as I sometimes do,
A couple of questions if you don't mind...Do you get chosen for these jobs or go after them?
When representing the likes of a terror suspect, particularly, do you generally believe their version of events or suspect they do have something to answer, or do they sometimes let things out in private that convince you that they are lying/likely to be guilty?
If you think they are guilty do you try to steer them or the handling of the case to accomodate/accept and maybe mitigate their 'work' and/or get a preferable sentence or do you defend them as fully as possible even if this means representing things in a certain way or hiding facts etc. to strengthen their plea, to do your job as well as possible - even if this means the outcome seems likely to be, or is in the event, 'wrong'?
Dr Johnson put it better than I can:-
Boswell: "But what do you think of supporting a cause which you know to be bad?" Johnson: "Sir, you do not know it to be good or bad until the judge determines it. I have said that you are to state facts fairly; so that your thinking, or what you call knowing, a cause to be bad, must be from reasoning, must be from your supposing your arguments to be weak and inconclusive. But, Sir, that is not enough. An argument which does not convince yourself, may convince the Judge to which you urge it; and if it does convince him, why, then, Sir, you are wrong and he is right. It is his business to judge; and you are not to be confident in your own opinion that a cause is bad, but to say all you can for your client, and then hear the Judge's opinion." Boswell: "But, Sir, does not affecting a warmth when you have no warmth, and appearing to be clearly of one opinion, when you are in reality of another opinion, does not such dissimulation impair one's honesty? Is there not some danger that a lawyer may put on the same mask in common life, in the intercourse with friends?" Johnson: "Why no, Sir. Everybody knows you are paid for affecting warmth for your client; and it is, therefore, properly no dissimulation: the moment you come from the bar you resume your usual behaviour. Sir, a man will no more carry the artifice of the bar into the common intercourse of society, than a man who is paid for tumbling upon his hands will continue to tumble on his hands when he should walk on his feet."
Boswell: "But what do you think of supporting a cause which you know to be bad?" Johnson: "Sir, you do not know it to be good or bad until the judge determines it. I have said that you are to state facts fairly; so that your thinking, or what you call knowing, a cause to be bad, must be from reasoning, must be from your supposing your arguments to be weak and inconclusive. But, Sir, that is not enough. An argument which does not convince yourself, may convince the Judge to which you urge it; and if it does convince him, why, then, Sir, you are wrong and he is right. It is his business to judge; and you are not to be confident in your own opinion that a cause is bad, but to say all you can for your client, and then hear the Judge's opinion." Boswell: "But, Sir, does not affecting a warmth when you have no warmth, and appearing to be clearly of one opinion, when you are in reality of another opinion, does not such dissimulation impair one's honesty? Is there not some danger that a lawyer may put on the same mask in common life, in the intercourse with friends?" Johnson: "Why no, Sir. Everybody knows you are paid for affecting warmth for your client; and it is, therefore, properly no dissimulation: the moment you come from the bar you resume your usual behaviour. Sir, a man will no more carry the artifice of the bar into the common intercourse of society, than a man who is paid for tumbling upon his hands will continue to tumble on his hands when he should walk on his feet."
Breadvan72 said:
Lost_BMW said:
Breadvan72 said:
when I represent the government against a terrorist suspect or similar, as I sometimes do,
A couple of questions if you don't mind...Do you get chosen for these jobs or go after them?
When representing the likes of a terror suspect, particularly, do you generally believe their version of events or suspect they do have something to answer, or do they sometimes let things out in private that convince you that they are lying/likely to be guilty?
If you think they are guilty do you try to steer them or the handling of the case to accomodate/accept and maybe mitigate their 'work' and/or get a preferable sentence or do you defend them as fully as possible even if this means representing things in a certain way or hiding facts etc. to strengthen their plea, to do your job as well as possible - even if this means the outcome seems likely to be, or is in the event, 'wrong'?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff