Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Or it could be that he's unsure and experimenting? Only the individual truly knows.
Rapists
- Thread starter kwerk
- Start date
- Status
Or it could be that he's unsure and experimenting? Only the individual truly knows.
That's a strong possibility, but im sure at some point someone will take it to the European Court as a test case, as everyone should be entitled to reasonable legal representation to defend themselves if they are being prosecuted by the state, you have no option but to legally defend yourself, under the new rules it will depend on how much cash you have stashed away will depend on how well you do defending yourself.
There is also the CICA Compensation route to consider as we are talking about rape victims, bearing in mind that the CICA is overspending its budget by £50 million a year in giving out compensation, in December 2010, £600 million is owed to 50,000 people, so read into that what you will
Link 1 (two years old but still relevent) - http://robertwhiston.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/23/
Link 2 (showing you can claim despite no conviction) - http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Person...n/Claims_When_There_is_no_Criminal_Conviction
It appears it has not been changed for E&W as the 2003 Act states HIM and HIS GENITALS
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66
In Scotland, the 2009 Act makes no distinction:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/section/8
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
What do you mean by an £8k cap? I can find information suggesting that if your household income is greater than £37,500 then you will be expected to pay for criminal legal aid or if you have disposable assets of £8,000 or greater (this does include homes) then the same applies. I can't say I'd heard of a cap but I'd be interested to know more if you've got further information on it.
The argument advanced that the UK's justice system costs too much so we should change it is one that needs rather careful thought - it's perfectly possible that we're getting what we pay for. Despite what many people will say the UK's justice system is pretty damn good and if we're risking that for a small measure of cost saving that makes me more than a little nervous.
Currently you can receive legal aid in the Crown Court whatever your means: however you can be required to pay "contributions". These contributions depend on your income and the type of case you are accused of. You either pay a monthly contribution for 6 months, or an upfront payment of 5* the monthly contribution.You are refunded them if acquitted.
However the "contributions" can easily outstrip the cost of your legal aid; hence it can be cheaper to pay privately.
Under the new proposals there will be no legal aid if you have a disposable income of over £37,500, and you will have to pay privately.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t_data/file/183358/transforming-legal-aid.pdf
If this consultation is put into effect the problems will be far greater than just the legal aid position however.
However the "contributions" can easily outstrip the cost of your legal aid; hence it can be cheaper to pay privately.
Under the new proposals there will be no legal aid if you have a disposable income of over £37,500, and you will have to pay privately.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t_data/file/183358/transforming-legal-aid.pdf
If this consultation is put into effect the problems will be far greater than just the legal aid position however.
I might be totally wrong, but I thought that the Legal Aid caps were for civil, not criminal cases? I've not read up on them too much though so, as said, might be way off the mark.
quite possibly...
though I'd suggest that you probably still get a large portion of rapes within the prison population in the US
I too was under this impression
From the current legal aid consultation paper:
"Proposal
3.27 We propose to introduce a financial eligibility threshold whereby any defendant with a disposable household income of £37,500 or more would be ineligible for legal aid in the Crown Court, subject to review on hardship grounds for those who exceed that threshold but demonstrate that they cannot in fact afford to pay for their defence."
Fair enough!
But is that not just saying that you ought to pay for your defence as far as possible, after which you can appeal on hardship grounds for aid? In a case such as rape for which a life sentence is a real possibility, where the defendant is unable to pay for an adequate defence, I find it hard to believe that the legal system would not enable this.
There is no definition of hardship grounds in the consultation, so your guess is as good as mine. There is currently an "in/out" system in the magistrates courts, and they operate a hardship system, but I don't know how it works and the sums involved there are unlikely to be beyond the means of someone who does not qualify on means alone.
A "simple" rape might not cost all that much to defend even on private rates...however if it is complex, has a lot of evidence, experts involved regarding spiked drinks etc the costs could become quite high.
At what point the legal aid board would step in is unknown at this stage, they might well conclude that if you have £35K disposable you can afford it.
Another consideration is that private fees are higher than legal aid rates, so if you are acquitted and reclaim your fees from the legal aid board, they will actually be paying over their own rates because of their own refusal to defend anultimately successful defendant.
A "simple" rape might not cost all that much to defend even on private rates...however if it is complex, has a lot of evidence, experts involved regarding spiked drinks etc the costs could become quite high.
At what point the legal aid board would step in is unknown at this stage, they might well conclude that if you have £35K disposable you can afford it.
Another consideration is that private fees are higher than legal aid rates, so if you are acquitted and reclaim your fees from the legal aid board, they will actually be paying over their own rates because of their own refusal to defend anultimately successful defendant.
Haven't read the entire thread, however you do realise that there are the same amount of gay people around than there used to be? However now its just slightly less frowned upon in most of the world (apart from obvious parts) so more people are open about it.
You may as well have just said is "Quite a taboo subject but does anyone think it's weird there doesn't seem to be more black rapists?"
The above will probably get me an infraction, however that just confirms that this society is so screwed up.
You may as well have just said is "Quite a taboo subject but does anyone think it's weird there doesn't seem to be more black rapists?"
The above will probably get me an infraction, however that just confirms that this society is so screwed up.
Don't deserve an infraction for that. Any kind of label being used to create prejudice or to discriminate against any group of people, minority or majority, is unacceptable.
Whether it's about sexuality, race, gender, disability, even size or personality traits, it should all be considered on the same level of offensiveness.
It would be unjust to assume that someone of ethnic minority would be more emotionally scarred if they were to be subjected to racial abuse than someone of a certain sexuality would be if they were subjected to abuse because of their sexuality.
I think this thread is a prime example of what is wrong with society... "Don't you think its weird that there aren't more gay rapists?"
What is that even meant to mean?! Come on!
Last edited:
I believe there is actually more gay people than before due to over-crowding, BPAs, hormones in dairy products and other reasons.
All have been scientifically studied to cause homosexualism.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/researchHighlights/Environment/rats.aspx
Makes you wonder how many OCUKers may have been "turned" from living at home cooped up with the parents too long.
All have been scientifically studied to cause homosexualism.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/researchHighlights/Environment/rats.aspx
Makes you wonder how many OCUKers may have been "turned" from living at home cooped up with the parents too long.
What in the name of **** is this. Erm, where have any of these things been 'scientifically studied' to cause homosexualism- in humans???
And what are BPAs?
Also, ahhh, I never realised 'other reasons' caused homosexualism. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2013
- Posts
- 2,468
- Location
- Birmingham
"...hormones in dairy products..." contribute to "causing" homosexuality? I'm sorry, what?
- Status