Abu Hamza legal aid

[VHG]

Spot the difference

From 2008

http://www.telegraph....r-Hamza-law-firm.html

From today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11707386

[Gromit]

Is the difference that the new Government is having to make huge cuts across the board and that includes savings on Legal Aid? So that 2 years ago it was granted willy nilly, and now even worthy causes are not getting it?

Or are you implying one recipient who got Legal Aid a couple of years ago is a muslim and Asian, whilst the white families in the drug case have not now been granted Legal
Aid?

[Gromit]

http://www.noshockdoctrine.org.uk/?p=343

[naomi24]

Our priorities are completely skewiff. Perhaps if we didn't throw money at people like Hamza there would be enough to fight cases that deserve to be fought. It's time we got our moral obligations right. Hamza is an enemy of this country and we owe him nothing.

[Gromit]

Here are the top eaners from Legal Aid. Hamzas solicitor does not feature, in fact, it is a paltry sum compared to the vast amounts claimed by the others.

http://www.justice.go...barr-sol-2008-091.pdf

[naomi24]

However paltry you consider the sum to be, we shouldn't be giving it to him. We should get our priorities right.

[Gromit]

We don't even know what the sum is. The law firm have had £2million over 5 years. That isn't £2million for the Hamza case alone, they will have many clients on legal aid. Though it might not be paltry, it is small fry compared to the firms getting nearly £10million a year.

[naomi24]

It's irrelevant. Whatever is spent on him is too much.

[rov1200]

I wonder how much legal aid Hamza will get when he is deported to the US. With a bit of luck he will be thrown into prison and the key chucked away. However I believe his legal team are already working to stop him getting deported. Our crass laws need amending!

[Gromit]

The law is not a beauty pageant. It is not dispensed on a 'we like you, but we don't like you basis'. Hamza won't be on many people's christmas card list, but I am willing to bet there have been other recipients of legal aid who have committed far worse crimes, and who are equally horrible people.

Peter Huntley could have been used as an example, but Hamza better fits the bill of the immigrants bleeding us dry agenda.

[naomi24]

That's right Gromit - why resort to common sense when it's easier to play the non-existent race card. This man is not just a criminal - he is an enemy of this country and should be treated as such. Pathetic!

[Gromit]

Naomi24.

Hamza was deliberately used as an example rather than Peter Huntley. He wasn't just a nasty criminal, he was an immigrant nasty criminal. There is a race element to the question.

[naomi24]

Have you got a link?

[fredpuli47]

There's no connection. We provide for the defence of people in criminal cases however hopeless their case is, or seems to be. Legal Aid exists for that. In legal aid civil cases there has to be an assessment of the chances of winning the case. That's true of privately paid cases too, the only difference being that the private client may go on regardless of that, ignoring his lawyer's advice, and is wasting his own money.

The CPS adopt a similar policy. They don't prosecute cases unless they think there's an above average chance of a conviction. They do however, in spite of that, manage to prosecute cases which should never have been brought! Sometimes they just lack basic common sense but usually they are short of people to review cases properly and such cases get through without anyone realising.

Important cases do demand time of the most experienced (and highest cost people in a firm) and a lot of it. It's extremely unlikely that the lawyers will get all they ask for on legal aid. (A cynic would say that, if they do, they can't have asked enough in the first place and are a disgrace to the profession LOL)

[naomi24]

Gromit, well, I don't know who Peter Huntley is, and no link has emerged, but never mind. He may be a criminal - and a nasty one as you say - but I don't think he is an enemy of Britain as Abu Hamza is because I'm sure I would have heard of him. As far as foreign criminals go, regardless of colour, creed, or ethnicity, personally I would have no hesitation in deporting them all. In the case of people like Hamza whose sole purpose seems to be to plot the destruction of this country and to encourage others to do likewise, I really don't understand why anyone would champion someone who would like to see us all dead. As far as Legal Aid goes I feel the money would be better spent on really worthwhile causes - like the children whose lives have been blighted by defective drugs. The criminals and the extremists have made their choice and they should be made to live with the consequences.

[Gromit]

Apologies Naomi, I meant IAN Huntley.

// The Daily Mail said Huntley was seeking £20,000 for injuries and £60,000 for authorities failing in their duty of care and a further £15,000 through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. No paperwork in relation to the matter is believed to have been received by the body, however. The case could cost £1 million in Legal Aid fees. //

[naomi24]

Gromit. I wondered. Personally, apart from food and lodging, I wouldn't spend money on any criminal, but nothing, including the example you've given, negates the case for Abu Hamza. You clearly cannot see the difference between the two. Huntley is a criminal, yes, but Hamza is our sworn enemy who, if allowed to fulfil his purpose would destroy this country and all of us with it. By defending his claim to legal aid, you are, in effect, condoning his intentions. Perhaps you don't mind if one of his cronies blows you to smithereens. As I said, criminals make their choice - and Abu Hamza, despite coming to this country and taking all he can get, has made his. I hope he is extradited and I hope the US courts deal with him in the harshest possible terms - as he and anyone like him should be dealt with.

[Gromit]

Is he really a sworn enemy?

http://en.wikipedia.o...ki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri

[Gromit]

Early 1997: Leading Radical Imam Abu Hamza Begins Working with British Security Services  

Abu Hamza. [Source: Ian Waldie / Reuters / Corbis]
London-based imam Abu Hamza al-Masri starts working with two branches of the British security services, the police’s Special Branch and MI5, the domestic counterintelligence service. The relationships continue for several years and there are at least seven meetings between Abu Hamza and MI5 between 1997 and 2000 (see October 1, 1997, November 20, 1997, and September 1998). Based on records of the meetings, authors Daniel O’Neill and Sean McGrory will describe the relationship as “respectful, polite, and often cooperative.”
Rhetoric - One theme in the meetings, which take place at Abu Hamza’s home and a mosque he runs in Finsbury Park, is that the security services tell Abu Hamza that they do not want any trouble and ask him to tone down some of his more inflammatory comments. Abu Hamza listens politely, but always replies he is committed to jihad. However, over this period Abu Hamza’s rhetoric changes subtly, and he begins attacking “Zionists,” rather than simply “Jews.” Abu Hamza will later say that he asks security officers if his sermons are inappropriate, and they reply, “No, freedom of speech, you don’t have to worry unless we see blood on the streets.”
Information - Abu Hamza provides the security services with information about the ideology of various extremist factions, as well as “tidbits” of information about others, although in one case he provides specific intelligence that leads to the detention of two terrorist suspects. He also likes to “tell tales” about one of his rival preachers, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, and his Al-Muhajiroun organization.
Favors - Sometimes Abu Hamza asks for favors from his handlers. For example, on one occasion he requests the release of