Eater Sundae Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Like most of these cases the only certain winners are the lawyers. Spot on there. I sincerely hope that the public purse is not funding this prosecution, and I doubt that it would be. If these MPs choose to sue, then it should be up to them to bear the costs of the case until such time that they are awarded their costs, if they ever are. It's a very risky business to sue someone, unless you have very deep pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) Spot on there. I sincerely hope that the public purse is not funding this prosecution, and I doubt that it would be. If these MPs choose to sue, then it should be up to them to bear the costs of the case until such time that they are awarded their costs, if they ever are. It's a very risky business to sue someone, unless you have very deep pockets. I also agree . Also the quoted comments posted doesn't actually name any MP's . The main issue is to prevent children being abused in the future . Edited December 10, 2015 by Gamston typo error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Spot on there. I sincerely hope that the public purse is not funding this prosecution, and I doubt that it would be. If these MPs choose to sue, then it should be up to them to bear the costs of the case until such time that they are awarded their costs, if they ever are. It's a very risky business to sue someone, unless you have very deep pockets. To be fair to the MPs, if someone publicly accuses someone else of being complicit in child abuse, then I think that they've got every right to defend their name. Of course if the MPs were complicit and the evidence came out in court then it would ruin the MPs. I would imagine that the MPs party's are funding the legal action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Like most of these cases the only certain winners are the lawyers. Spot on, it's already been dragged out for a year by m'learned friends, trebbles all round! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 To be fair to the MPs, if someone publicly accuses someone else of being complicit in child abuse, then I think that they've got every right to defend their name. Of course if the MPs were complicit and the evidence came out in court then it would ruin the MPs. I would imagine that the MPs party's are funding the legal action. Oh I agree. They've every right to protect their good name. If the club they belong to, in this case the Labour party, choose to support them in doing this, then that's fine also, in my mind. I would be concerned, however, if the public purse were expected to pick up the tab. It's a civil case, and should be paid for by the people involved. If other private organisations want to chip in towards the costs, that's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) To be fair to the MPs, if someone publicly accuses someone else of being complicit in child abuse, then I think that they've got every right to defend their name. Of course if the MPs were complicit and the evidence came out in court then it would ruin the MPs. It's a bit of a catch 22 all round. If they did know about a major social and criminal issue on their patch, with multiple reports and briefings to their political colleagues, they have a problem as the senior local politicians. If they didn't know people will want to know why they were ignorant and they have different problem and people will wonder what use they are. The legal threat by the MP'S looks like something between a first strike and a gagging of somebody who who wasn't smart enough to use Parliamentary privilege for her statement. Edited December 10, 2015 by Eric Arthur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 It's a bit of a catch 22 all round. If they did know about a major social and criminal issue on their patch, with multiple reports and briefings to their political colleagues, they have a problem as the senior local politicians. If they didn't know people will want to know why they were ignorant and they have different problem and people will wonder what use they are. The legal threat by the MP'S looks like something between a first strike and a gagging of somebody who who wasn't smart enough to use Parliamentary privilege for her statement. I think that when it comes to being accused of being complicit in child abuse, unless the accuser can back up that accusation then the person being accused has ever right to gag the accuser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Whose funding the legal bill ?Probably the solicitor firm, on a CFA ('no win no fee'). Win = quids in. Lose = excellent profile-raising marketing exercise with little cash/disbursements involved (...=win). Methinks the Labour MPs in question should have kept quiet and let this one slide into oblivion. They're going to get grilled beyond well-done in cross-examination about what they knew (nothing of course) and didn't know (so why didn't they, since it was their job). A case of out of the pan and into the fire IMHO. Win or lose, politically the UKIP defendant is going to come out of this smelling of roses, mark my words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 I think that when it comes to being accused of being complicit in child abuse, unless the accuser can back up that accusation then the person being accused has ever right to gag the accuser. I absolutely agree, and I'll accept their word that these MP's were ignorant of the abuse of 1400 children on their patch that their peers knew all about, though it doesn't solve the problem that if they were ignorant in spite of all the crystal clear knowledge in their peer group, how on earth did they avoid knowing about it? I'm a bit out of touch with it all recently but if they were ignorant it is reasonable to ask if they are rooting out all the people in their peer group who delibrately kept them in the dark and taking some sort of action against them as well as their political opponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 I absolutely agree, and I'll accept their word that these MP's were ignorant of the abuse of 1400 children on their patch that their peers knew all about, though it doesn't solve the problem that if they were ignorant in spite of all the crystal clear knowledge in their peer group, how on earth did they avoid knowing about it? I'm a bit out of touch with it all recently but if they were ignorant it is reasonable to ask if they are rooting out all the people in their peer group who delibrately kept them in the dark and taking some sort of action against them as well as their political opponent. Now thanks to the MPs' decision to sue it seems that we'll all find out some more answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now