General Chat

Since the Arrest of the Failed Bombers( Thank God)and their claim to have 'Rights' I wonder who will pick up the poisoned Chalice to defend these rights?Will it be that well known defender of these'Cherrie Blair' or someone from her 'Chambers'?. And will they be granted 'Legal Aid'?. Please keep the replies in acceptable terms. Hal. Ps. my personal opinionof these people is 'Unprintable' Hal.

me too

Roxanne,Julie,you must have the same evil thoughts I have.Obviously Great minds think alike. Hal.

The world is full of ambulance chasers and those that want to make a name for themselves with a high profile case. The money will hopefully keep them warm at night as they sleep the sleep of the just and untroubled.

Britain's 'innocent until proven guilty' legal system allows for everyone to have a legal defence - someone has to to do the job if justice as our society has defined it is to be seen to be done. If somebody was deemed guilty and therefore could not get a lawyer to defend them, there'd be no point in having a trial. Living in a 'civilized' society has its positives and negatives same as any other, though some may prefer anarchy.

want to reply,but have decided to keep stum! bryan.

I think this is one instance where the rights of millions to go about their daily business in peace, without being blown to Kingdom come, will prevail over the supposed 'Rights' of a few whose warped interpretations of religion have led them to attempt mass murder. CB >|<

Well said C. B

Maybe the Legal Profession should spend less time on the minute details of what happened. We all know what the result was. All we need to know is that we have the right Culprit. 'Ching Ching', say the barristers.

I have no time or sympathy for failed bombers, or even successful bombers. However, I have lived through a depressing number of Miscarriages of Justice and I for one, want these men to have a fair trial. If they are found guilty by 'popular opinion', and let's suppose the remote possibility that the Police have got the wrong men, then not only are the innocent falsely imprisoned, but the REAL culprits go free. So, a nice, open trial, reported with reserve in the Press, a lifetime sentence and then SILENCE - no more reporting of them at all, no giving them a platform from which to spout their twisted views etc. Olde Crone

why would any lawyer want to defend scum like that.as for legal aid i think it should be abolished.only their for the criminals who put their victims through hellxxxxxx):

I'm with Marjorie on this one. I have never believed in the death penalty for various reasons - the main ones being:- It didn't stop Ian Brady - it was still in place when he first started his heinous crimes. And just take a look at America - it hasn't stopped it there either and why do they keep them on death row for years on end - what's that all about? Miscarriages of justice to me are just as bad as the original crime - can you imagine losing one of your family wrongly accused of a crime or even worse, the feelings of the accused who has no involvement? On the other hand, when there is NO possible doubt (and with DNA etc this should be more apparent) - I am beginning to sway a little. Debby

I agree with a couple of opinions expressed. What does worry me very much is we are a free? and democratic society and yet we seem to be going down the road of holding people for 3 months without trial? I absolutely hate the bombers and their ideology , wherever it stems from, but No I'm not a 'do-gooder' just someone who is concerned that we are taking the same path? Innocent until proven guilty? That is the whole basis of our society. Guilty by media?

Yes Mike I agree with you and Marjorie on that point also re the media - I do hope we don't see the reporting frenzy we tend to get these days. Debby

nothing to do with title (sorryHarold) but in a way linked ... When I got in from work I put Sky News on and they were going on about a car that had been stopped and was the subject of a major operation.... As I looked i thought --Nooo--- people in those familiar forensic suits leaning on the car? bumper open? white stuff visible? -- I actually said out loud ' Dozy ducks (well similar) thats the forensic teams car!!!!!! 10 mins later Sky News went --- we dont believe that blue car is the one in question??? Now this had been broadcast for who knows how long?? What I'm trying to say is a very fine line between reporting to us the public and a fair trial? Don't forget -- lots of you went YES when they shot the chap at Stockwell?? Now you know he was Innocent? ( sorry to me he isnt - innocent people don't run?) there's an out cry? Getting back to your point Harold --- someone has to defend?? Surely that is the right of all? if lawyers picked cases it would be a sorry day? Just my opinion .

I'd say they do have rights.... what if this is not the right person? ok - he ran for a visa? doesn't make him a bomber? Sorry if I go against what you all think, but I just imagine what it must be like to prove your INNOCENCE IF you're not guilty? Not saying these are --- police have done a great job to track them all down--- I live in Rome -- brother suddenly appears - doesn't mean I know he was a bomber?? Thats all I'm saying --- we get fed the media -- not all the facts?

Val But they HAVE to be defended to be found guilty - you can't just kill someone without them having a fair trial! Debby

If they are going to be 'banged up' for years, who is going to pay for it? Just us, Joe public. I suggest the death penalty for terrorists brenda

I am in agreement with everything M C has said on this subject.

We had the Death Penalty when Timothy Evans was hung. He was later given a posthumous pardon. Stefan Kiszco served 27 years for the rape and murder of a little girl - the police and prosecution had suppressed medical evidence which proved that it was NOT him. IRA bombers were released many years after their original imprisonment - again, faulty evidence was suppressed by the Police, presumably because of tremendous public pressure to 'get' someone for their crimes. There are dozens of other cases where people were wrongly hung, or served over thirty years for crimes they did not commit and would not admit to (you have to admit you did it before you can be released from a life sentence). DNA evidence would probably not have helped Timothy Evans. I am not on the side of the wrongdoers - but I AM on the side of the innocent. If the Police raided your house tonight and arrested you as a Bomber, how would you set about proving you are innocent? Especially if they 'found' explosives etc in your home. Yes, we the Taxpayers will have to pay for their Trial costs and for their hopefully VERY long incarceration - but what is the alternative? These people, whoever they are, are dangerous and without conscience. Secure Mental Hospitals are full of such people but we do not suggest that THEY be done away with. If the Death Penalty were still in force, it would merely make them martyrs and likeminded people would be queuing up behind them to throw more bombs. Olde Crone