7/7 "Bombers" widow denied 'Legal aid'.Is it fair ?

[vResistance]

Why does she want Legal Aid ?

Quote from BBC News-

 

Lord Justice Thomas said the court heard how Ms Patel "was interested to understand why her late husband and the other bombers acted as they did" and sought "an opportunity to ask questions of witnesses at the inquest which bore on their knowledge and experience of her husband and others".

 

And why was she refused ?

Quote from same Item- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11114627

 

Although requested by this court to show how she could help establish why her late husband and the others, whom she knew acted to murder fellow citizens, she has provided not an iota of evidence to us which could show how in some way she could bring a wider benefit, let alone a significant benefit to the inquests or to the understanding of the victims of the bombing."

Hmmm.

So because she couldn't come up with a reason to tell them why her husband would want to blow himself and other innocents to pieces,she has been denied the chance to clear his name.

There is little evidence he did it,and a hell of a lot that he and the others were innocent "patsies"(please spare me the meat pie type jokes)

So my feeling is they don't want her asking awkward questions that could reveal that those bombings were another false flag attack .Simply to get Mr Blair out the sh..trouble he was in,:rant:and get public support for the invasion of certain countries,despite it being illegal , making he and everyone else in power, not doing anything about it guilty of treason ?

 

So is it fair ?

[HeadingNorth]

She has not been denied the chance to clear his name. She's just going to have to raise the funds herself.

 

Maybe if she had co-operated with the investigation the result would have been different, although personally I can't see why she should be entitled to legal aid for an inquest regardless of whether she's been helpful. Nothing prevents her from asking questions herself, if she can't afford a lawyer to ask them.

[natjack]

You'd think there'd be someone in the community who'd offer to do it for her pro bono. She and you can't be the only two people who think he didn't do it.

 

Personally, I think it's hard to ignore the evidence of the tapes even if you could explain the other stuff away.

[Swan_Vesta]

Yes it is.

 

Why should I pay for a hearing to confirm that her late husband is a Godless, murdering SOB? I don't buy your conspiracy theories, I agree that Blair was a knobber but couldn't organise a celebration in a brewery let alone what you suggest. It was the act of evil swines who cared more about a perverted view than human life ......... Her husband was an arsehole. Deal with it.

[haggis]

why should legal aid eg the taxpayer pay for the widow of a sucide bomber to ask victims of her husbands bombing why he and others murdered their loved ones

it seems to me that she is being used by someone else to promote their views and as such is not only a fool but either has full knowledge of what is happening, or is being personaly funded by the friends of her husband to take this case to court and any lawyer involved in this case has to look at the motives involved

[vResistance]

She has not been denied the chance to clear his name. She's just going to have to raise the funds herself.

 

Maybe if she had co-operated with the investigation the result would have been different, although personally I can't see why she should be entitled to legal aid for an inquest regardless of whether she's been helpful. Nothing prevents her from asking questions herself, if she can't afford a lawyer to ask them.

 

Yes i must admit i'd kinda missed that point at first(not actually forbidden from speaking), I hope she does get a chance to ask questions herself or someone on her behalf.could be interesting.(if we get to hear what's said)

She did co-operate but she doesn't think he did it,so isn't gonna give them information as to why he might have.the evidence against them is very dodgy.

I recommend you watch this- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY2NXPl625A (part one)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E177j-bH9Vs (part 2) This is more relative to topic but makes more sense if you watch the first part.

[denomis]

Yes it is.

 

Why should I pay for a hearing to confirm that her late husband is a Godless, murdering SOB? I don't buy your conspiracy theories, I agree that Blair was a knobber but couldn't organise a celebration in a brewery let alone what you suggest. It was the act of evil swines who cared more about a perverted view than human life ......... Her husband was an arsehole. Deal with it.

 

i really couldnt have said it better the guy strapped on a bomb and killed people how did he not do it

[vResistance]

why should legal aid eg the taxpayer pay for the widow of a sucide bomber to ask victims of her husbands bombing why he and others murdered their loved ones

it seems to me that she is being used by someone else to promote their views and as such is not only a fool but either has full knowledge of what is happening, or is being personaly funded by the friends of her husband to take this case to court and any lawyer involved in this case has to look at the motives involved

 

But there has never been an investigation,or evidence presented to prove anything.He is the "alleged" bomber.

Its only fair she gets representation on his behalf some of the survivors and families don't believe the official account either,i hope they get a voice in the enquiry.I can't see those getting "called up" though.

Beware the signs of a whitewash coming up.

[vResistance]

i really couldnt have said it better the guy strapped on a bomb and killed people how did he not do it

 

Watch 'Ludicrous diversion' and '7/7 ripple effect' to find out how he probably didn't.nothing has been proven.

R'Diversion

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719#

7/7 RipEff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY2NXPl625A

 

In the years since 9/11 more than 1,000 people have been arrested under anti-terrorism laws, of which less than 50 have been convicted.

Quote.

So sweeping are the anti-terrorism powers that people have been detained on the flimsiest of pretexts. Earlier this month, five people in Plymouth were detained under the Terrorism Act after a young man was seen spraying graffiti. “Political literature” was reportedly found in one of the homes raided and it was claimed at the time that the five had been planning to join the G20 protests in London. Held for several days, they were all released without charge.

 

All the while, the hysterical atmosphere generated by such arrests has been used to further strengthen police powers and undermine democratic rights. The brutal shooting of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes in July 2005 by undercover anti-terrorist officers exposed that police had covertly adopted a shoot-to-kill policy. Less than one year later another innocent man, Mohammed Abdul Kahar, was shot by anti-terror police in a raid on his home.

(He too was found to be innocent).

[hard2miss]

But there has never been an investigation,or evidence presented to prove anything.He is the "alleged" bomber.

Its only fair she gets representation on his behalf some of the survivors and families don't believe the official account either,i hope they get a voice in the enquiry.I can't see those getting "called up" though.

Beware the signs of a whitewash coming up.

Ang on there's evidence to say he did it, they were filmed casing the act out and doing trial runs were they not ?

 

didn't one of them run off with there bomb after it didn't go to plan?

 

I wonder why the epicentre of the bombs was from the big red puddle of dna from the bombers then ?

 

were they duped into walking round with backpacks full of explosives ?

 

I will look forward to her giving evidence if some ones daft enough to front the money.