Disgraced MPs entitled to Legal Aid

#3
Can't they claim their defence costs on ex's then? 8O
 
#4
Anybody who is being prosecuted for an imprisionable offence is entitled to legal aid for their defence. Unless you only want the very rich or very poor to have qualified legal defence there's no other option
 
#5
Andy71 said:
Anybody who is being prosecuted for an imprisionable offence is entitled to legal aid for their defence. Unless you only want the very rich or very poor to have qualified legal defence there's no other option
Regrettably not quite the case now ..... unless you chose your Crown Court wisely .

See Link ...

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/p=3280311.html#3280311

Which may be the main thread on this topic .
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
Their defence seems to be not that they're inoccent of the charges, but that their actions were covered by parliamentary privilege as set out in the 1689 Bill of Rights.

If they were innocent men, they'd have fought on the grounds that the expenses were legally incurred. Hiding behind a 300 year old law suggests to me that they're thieving cnuts.

Wordsmith.
 
#7
Wordsmith said:
Their defence seems to be not that they're inoccent of the charges, but that their actions were covered by parliamentary privilege as set out in the 1689 Bill of Rights. Wordsmith.
Yes, but doesn't that defence give them the appearance of crusaders for right, rather than being seen as (alleged) a group of trough snuffling thieving c**ts?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top