| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 99666 | 2009-05-10 05:22:00 | More gravy-train | Scouse (83) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 772776 | 2009-05-10 05:22:00 | More carriages on the fat-cat lawyers' gravy-train - paid for by you and me........ www.stuff.co.nz |
Scouse (83) | ||
| 772777 | 2009-05-10 06:53:00 | Well I shouldn't be on that jury because I'm convinced of his guilt because of the dumping of the kid. | mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 772778 | 2009-05-10 07:21:00 | Send him back to China to be tried and sentenced. Ken |
kenj (9738) | ||
| 772779 | 2009-05-10 10:40:00 | Send him back to China to be tried and sentenced. Ken I agree he is going to cost the tax payer millions. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 772780 | 2009-05-10 11:39:00 | Send him back to China to be tried and sentenced. Ken Crime was committed here, so needs to be tried here - otherwise it sets a dangerous precedent. The whole legal aid system gives lawyers too much leeway to exploit the taxpayer - that's what needs fixing. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 772781 | 2009-05-10 13:28:00 | xxxx "has applied for taxpayer funds." Note the word APPLIED. If that word was AWARDED taxpayer funds, you may well have a good argument. But as this application relates to funding the personal investigation of jurors,which is a totally new concept in NZ law, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for my shock/horror/fears to be realised. As the saying goes: "An awful lot of water will have flowed under the bridge before...." P.S. Later - I'm doing an about-face now. I was writing with the accused in mind - assuming he wouldn't be granted taxpayer funds for this purpose, as: 1) Presumably he still has enough assets to be ineligible for legal aid. 2) Permission to investigate jurors is unlikely to be granted. . But now I realise I didn't take enough notice of Scouse's wording. It is indeed the LAWYERS' gravy train which might do well out of this. Lots of toing & froing before there's a decision. Sorry, Scouse. You did indeed make a good point. |
Laura (43) | ||
| 772782 | 2009-05-10 19:53:00 | There are no winners apart from the lawyers in any case that goes to court | gary67 (56) | ||
| 772783 | 2009-05-10 21:05:00 | Definition of a scam: Anything good that you're not in on yourself. | johcar (6283) | ||
| 772784 | 2009-05-10 23:03:00 | You must remember it’s 99% of lawyers that give the other 1% a bad name.;) | B.M. (505) | ||
| 772785 | 2009-05-11 02:06:00 | Crime was committed here, so needs to be tried here - otherwise it sets a dangerous precedent. The whole legal aid system gives lawyers too much leeway to exploit the taxpayer - that's what needs fixing. I see nothing "dangerous" in a precedent for sending someone off to their native country for killing a spouse and dumping a kid in a strange country. A truly dangerous precedent would be committing a heinous crime and getting a token sentence. Sorry, that would not be a precedent would it? After his sentence is announced, he will be completely reformed, really sorry (albeit briefly), and most unlikely to offend again. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||