Discussion in 'SMB' started by hefty em, Feb 13, 2019.
Stitch a vest onto her with a timer on it and leave her to blow up, problem solved.
Depends where you draw the line at "basic" human rights though. Should everyone have the right to legal aid for every circumstance?
So in other words if she has a right to legal aid she should have a right to legal aid. Her right to it is the issue.
They should, I feel. Without wanting to sound like a stuck record, once you start picking and choosing who it is available to, it's a slippery slope. If we judged everyone morally there'd be no fucker left on the streets.
Once you start giving those in charge the power to take away basic human rights from people on the basis of moral outrage, you're in for a very bad time. It becomes too easy for that power to be abused.
I ask because when i was getting divorced (many moons ago) my solictor all but said "just give her what she wants, it'll work out cheaper". My ex was on legal aid and I was warned that as she (or her solicitor) knew i was paying my own way they would just batter us with letters until I gave up and paid up. It was fcking wrong but what could i do. Had I been on legal aid I would have probably fought and legal costs could have been ridiculous over a couple of grand.
As it happened I had to borrow cash to pay my ex off which was fcking ridiculous
I'm sorry to hear that chief, that's a disgusting state of affairs.
But again that's an issue that really should not have come about, yer kna? Everyone should have the same entitlement to legal aid as a basic human right.
Was there a reason she was and you weren't, by the way? I understand if you don't want to comment on it like.
Without going into details... I was earning and she wasn't.
She asked for everything we had and then some (mind we had next to fck all anyway) and I ended up having to borrow cash to pay her off.
Well worth it in the long run mind
Aye, I suspected that was the case. It's a tricky one.
She's entitled to legal representation and (generalising here, not her in particular) it's good that she had that in place.
However I think it's a failure of the legal system itself that a case could be abused in such a way as to just decimate the resources of someone who has an income.
In short, I think her soliciter was the arsehole here, yer kna?
Is legal aid capped ?
That's an interesting thought. I have no idea.
Dunno mate. If legal aid results in one side having a bottomless pit of resources and the other having limited then it's obviously wrong. On the flip side should we both have had it and the solicitors have just been given a blank cheque?
If she hadn't had legal aid we would have just sorted things out ourselves as fairly as possible.
At the time of my divorce I would have paid to get my ex "capped"
Absolutely, it's a bit of a lopsided battle when it comes to that. I think a "Person V Person" case should have stipulations regarding the fair use policy of such things.
Aye this would have helped
Never mind. Don't wanna derail the thread
Not 100% on board here personally, whilst I get where you’re going, there has to be cases where common sense kicks in, for the greater good of the society we live in.
Perfectly valid point, chief. But then you're still giving unilateral power to those higher up to choose what qualifies as "common sense" and to deny human rights as they see fit, yer kna?
Let the fucker rot in the Middle East. Horrible bitch.
I actually could be prime minister even my worst enemy's would vote for me over that shower of shit show.
I have a spare room if she wants to stop round here.
And absolutely wrong on a million levels.
She may lose.
Separate names with a comma.