Gazza

They were some of the best. Pure gold! 

Hah. I'd argue with anyone who thinks she shouldn't get legal aid. There's no question that the home secretary can strip the citizenship of people in certain circumstances but whether he should have in this case seems questionable, where she was a child when she left the country, arguably having been groomed by ISIS, and where it seems he did not carry out the most rudimentary checks as to whether he was going to make her stateless. At the very least, where the result has undoubtedly been to make her stateless, and where there is no doubt that she qualifies on the grounds of both her own lack of means (that is not in question) and the seriousness of the issue (again, not in question), I don't think it can be argued that she is entitled to whatever is required to challenge the decision of the State to strip her of her rights.

The thing that absolutely boils my piss the most are the arguments that so-and-so didn't get legal aid, therefore why should see (for example, like saying the Hillsborough or Birmingham families didn't get legal aid). That premise simply doesn't follow: the logical corollary of that argument is why *didn't* they get legal aid: because of repeated Tory cuts, punching down as usual. For the State to use their legal might to strip a person of their rights, but deny even the most basic of representation to the person they are stripping of rights, is both legally and morally reprehensible. To expect an uneducated 19 or 20 year old, who has possibly been groomed and thoroughly mislead, to be in a position to defend herself on any legal issue, particularly one as complex as in this case, and even more specificaly from a refugee camp thousands of miles away, is even worse. Sajid Javid is nothing but a typical Tory, a thug and a populist.

Defenders of the decision, specifically those saying she shouldn't get legal aid, pretend they stand for the rule of law but, it seems, only when they can set the rule of law and when decisions they agree with are immune from challenge to the application of it. You cannot have the rule of law unless the application of that law can be properly tested and challenged; without that, you have merely the rule of dictat, and that is no rule at all.

You've got to love this forum 

I have always deprecated the way the US operates when it comes to defence, particularly in circumstances where some states have the death penalty. It can effectively rig the trial against a defendant, and I don’t think it’s any surprise that the vast majority of death row inmates will cite insufficient or incompetent legal representation as a grounds for setting aside their sentence. You hear cases of commercial lawyers being dropped into capital murder cases, where their opponents will be highly experienced prosecutors, and there is little parity when it comes to the trial.

There is frankly no base to refusing legal aid in this instance, unless you’re satisfied to toss away due process.

Gazza is a moron.

Can you post a link?