October 7, 2020 at 5:42 pm #195541
A good thread on the demonisation of lawyers by this government for political purposes:
I want to tell you about a criminal case I’ve been contacted about.
It’s not pleasant, but in light of @BorisJohnson’s comments yesterday, I think it’s important.
It’s not one of my cases, but it’s v similar to many I prosecute. It involves serious allegations of rape. [THREAD]
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) October 7, 2020October 8, 2020 at 8:08 am #195545THE-99%ParticipantOffline
Registered On: February 14, 2015
Sadly for Lawyers there are always the shark such as libel Lawyers who’ll take their clients money and write letters chancing their arm in the hope of scaring people despite knowing it would never stand up in court or the human rights Lawyers who are in it for the money and don’t give a toss really when they become Labour leader ,they just abstain when the government choses to kerb human rightsOctober 8, 2020 at 9:30 am #195547
Yes, clearly. Starmer obviously doesn’t care about human rights. He has raked in money from human rights abusing Iranian and Russian state media, while the previous incumbent wrote several books on human rights law. Oh, wait, I got the two mixed up.October 8, 2020 at 2:37 pm #195550Deereyme66ParticipantOffline
Registered On: May 8, 2017
Lol, I can see neither of you need to borrow my whetstone.October 8, 2020 at 3:25 pm #195551THE-99%ParticipantOffline
Registered On: February 14, 2015
Step aside BRI,like Starmer does when the tories want to curtail our human rights, shocking for a Labour leader to order labour politicians to abstain on human rights issues.OOH he wrote a book!, ,which makes his capitualtion in order to get Murdoch on side all the more despicableOctober 8, 2020 at 4:08 pm #195552
I still say he’s done more for actually stopping human rights abuses as a lawyer than Corbyn ever has done, certainly when making pals with human rights abusing dictators. As for Starmer’s position, it should be noted that not all the bill is about letting off soldiers who have committed war crimes. Labour are probably taking the position of abstaining with the aim of making a potential stand if the egregious parts are not removed on the final hearing, which it isn’t at yet. So, if those egregious parts, the parts where the state can abuse human rights, are removed they will push through to allow the acceptable changes. If not, then they will oppose.
I am not yet at the point of calling Starmer into question over this, because political bills are sometimes more complex than presented. I do question the motives of those determined to see the worst possible scenario, especially when the thing they complain about isn’t something they care about elsewhere. If they don’t care about human rights elsewhere, what moral standing do they have to lecture anyone else about how the state must act?
Yes, it wouldn’t change the nature of the wrong, and if the worst elements of this bill are not removed it would be a wrong, but it doesn’t validate their side or show we were better off with the racist granddad who loved to go on visits with Assad and praising Cuba’s medical internationalism scheme, which is nothing more than a PR exercise for the regime and has been described as being akin to slavery.
Those years at CPS and book writing, as you so mock it, have been credited at bringing human rights into greater focus into the legal system. The same rights which Corbynites will defend, yet they will make out that human rights is Corbyn’s strength, when it was anything but.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.