More Lies About Jeremy In the Press

[grahameb]

With regard to the published articles about Legal Aid it should be noted that the prisoners concerned do not physically get the money.

The Legal Aid system, depending on the application, is a means tested system which will take people's financial situation into consideration. It is a support facility for people who are involved in a legal situation. As such, it is not the prisoners who are featured in the articles getting the cash in their pocket. It is however, the state agreeing to pay their legal fees associated with the legal situation they are involved. It is the lawyers who will get the money. Given Jeremy has had 2 Appeal hearings already and has a third in application their is no doubt his legal aid bills will be quite substantial. The associate legal costs will be paid, in part, by the state i.e. Contributions from Tax paying members of society.

If the amounts are deemed too much maybe it is the lawyers who should be looking at their legal charge rates per hour etc..

The articles are reporting some of the facts of life of our society whilst the specific words used re 'parole' hearings may be inaccurate.

I am sure the majority of posters on the forum will not have had such support from the state in terms of legal aid. However, if any of us were in Jeremy's position we would have been entitled to submit a claim for Legal Aid. I believe in the majority of criminal cases it is the Legal Aid system that pays the legal bills on behalf of the accused. It is a fact of our society that enveryone is entitled to a defence.

It is also a fact of our society that the victims of crime are not looked after with the same crude financial levels / sums of support from the state.

I am sure NGB will be able to confirm the above.

It might be worth mentioning here that Jeremy is very much reliant upon the kindness of people who have offered their services for free because he cannot get legal aid for much of what he is trying to appeal against.

[H]

With regard to the published articles about Legal Aid it should be noted that the prisoners concerned do not physically get the money.

The Legal Aid system, depending on the application, is a means tested system which will take people's financial situation into consideration. It is a support facility for people who are involved in a legal situation. As such, it is not the prisoners who are featured in the articles getting the cash in their pocket. It is however, the state agreeing to pay their legal fees associated with the legal situation they are involved. It is the lawyers who will get the money. Given Jeremy has had 2 Appeal hearings already and has a third in application their is no doubt his legal aid bills will be quite substantial. The associate legal costs will be paid, in part, by the state i.e. Contributions from Tax paying members of society.

If the amounts are deemed too much maybe it is the lawyers who should be looking at their legal charge rates per hour etc..

The articles are reporting some of the facts of life of our society whilst the specific words used re 'parole' hearings may be inaccurate.

I am sure the majority of posters on the forum will not have had such support from the state in terms of legal aid. However, if any of us were in Jeremy's position we would have been entitled to submit a claim for Legal Aid. I believe in the majority of criminal cases it is the Legal Aid system that pays the legal bills on behalf of the accused. It is a fact of our society that enveryone is entitled to a defence.

It is also a fact of our society that the victims of crime are not looked after with the same crude financial levels / sums of support from the state.

I am sure NGB will be able to confirm the above.

It might be worth mentioning here that Jeremy is very much reliant upon the kindness of people who have offered their services for free because he cannot get legal aid for much of what he is trying to appeal against.

Pro-bono work, so to speak.

[grahameb]

With regard to the published articles about Legal Aid it should be noted that the prisoners concerned do not physically get the money.

The Legal Aid system, depending on the application, is a means tested system which will take people's financial situation into consideration. It is a support facility for people who are involved in a legal situation. As such, it is not the prisoners who are featured in the articles getting the cash in their pocket. It is however, the state agreeing to pay their legal fees associated with the legal situation they are involved. It is the lawyers who will get the money. Given Jeremy has had 2 Appeal hearings already and has a third in application their is no doubt his legal aid bills will be quite substantial. The associate legal costs will be paid, in part, by the state i.e. Contributions from Tax paying members of society.

If the amounts are deemed too much maybe it is the lawyers who should be looking at their legal charge rates per hour etc..

The articles are reporting some of the facts of life of our society whilst the specific words used re 'parole' hearings may be inaccurate.

I am sure the majority of posters on the forum will not have had such support from the state in terms of legal aid. However, if any of us were in Jeremy's position we would have been entitled to submit a claim for Legal Aid. I believe in the majority of criminal cases it is the Legal Aid system that pays the legal bills on behalf of the accused. It is a fact of our society that enveryone is entitled to a defence.

It is also a fact of our society that the victims of crime are not looked after with the same crude financial levels / sums of support from the state.

I am sure NGB will be able to confirm the above.

It might be worth mentioning here that Jeremy is very much reliant upon the kindness of people who have offered their services for free because he cannot get legal aid for much of what he is trying to appeal against.

Pro-bono work, so to speak.

I  dunno about dogs and things.

[curiousessex]

With regard to the published articles about Legal Aid it should be noted that the prisoners concerned do not physically get the money.

The Legal Aid system, depending on the application, is a means tested system which will take people's financial situation into consideration. It is a support facility for people who are involved in a legal situation. As such, it is not the prisoners who are featured in the articles getting the cash in their pocket. It is however, the state agreeing to pay their legal fees associated with the legal situation they are involved. It is the lawyers who will get the money. Given Jeremy has had 2 Appeal hearings already and has a third in application their is no doubt his legal aid bills will be quite substantial. The associate legal costs will be paid, in part, by the state i.e. Contributions from Tax paying members of society.

If the amounts are deemed too much maybe it is the lawyers who should be looking at their legal charge rates per hour etc..

The articles are reporting some of the facts of life of our society whilst the specific words used re 'parole' hearings may be inaccurate.

I am sure the majority of posters on the forum will not have had such support from the state in terms of legal aid. However, if any of us were in Jeremy's position we would have been entitled to submit a claim for Legal Aid. I believe in the majority of criminal cases it is the Legal Aid system that pays the legal bills on behalf of the accused. It is a fact of our society that enveryone is entitled to a defence.

It is also a fact of our society that the victims of crime are not looked after with the same crude financial levels / sums of support from the state.

I am sure NGB will be able to confirm the above.

It might be worth mentioning here that Jeremy is very much reliant upon the kindness of people who have offered their services for free because he cannot get legal aid for much of what he is trying to appeal against.

Jeremy in his blog, with a link posted in a previous post on this thread, says 'As a campaign we would like to make it clear that there is no leagl aid available to fund anyone fighting a miscarriage of justice until there is a referral to the court of appeal'

As such Jeremy will have been supported by the Legal Aid system in the two previousappeals.

Within the last paragraph the blog states -

'It is ultimately public money which will pay Jeremy compensation for wasting half his life, but the Mirror and Express didn't consider the fact: No amount of money will bring back the 26 years of Jeremy Bamber's life which has been taken from him unlawfully. POSTED BY JEREMY BAMBER AT WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2011'

It appears money will still play an important part in everything.......... important enough to be specifically mentioned by all parties.

[grahameb]

With regard to the published articles about Legal Aid it should be noted that the prisoners concerned do not physically get the money.

The Legal Aid system, depending on the application, is a means tested system which will take people's financial situation into consideration. It is a support facility for people who are involved in a legal situation. As such, it is not the prisoners who are featured in the articles getting the cash in their pocket. It is however, the state agreeing to pay their legal fees associated with the legal situation they are involved. It is the lawyers who will get the money. Given Jeremy has had 2 Appeal hearings already and has a third in application their is no doubt his legal aid bills will be quite substantial. The associate legal costs will be paid, in part, by the state i.e. Contributions from Tax paying members of society.

If the amounts are deemed too much maybe it is the lawyers who should be looking at their legal charge rates per hour etc..

The articles are reporting some of the facts of life of our society whilst the specific words used re 'parole' hearings may be inaccurate.

I am sure the majority of posters on the forum will not have had such support from the state in terms of legal aid. However, if any of us were in Jeremy's position we would have been entitled to submit a claim for Legal Aid. I believe in the majority of criminal cases it is the Legal Aid system that pays the legal bills on behalf of the accused. It is a fact of our society that everyone is entitled to a defence.

It is also a fact of our society that the victims of crime are not looked after with the same crude financial levels / sums of support from the state.

I am sure NGB will be able to confirm the above.

It might be worth mentioning here that Jeremy is very much reliant upon the kindness of people who have offered their services for free because he cannot get legal aid for much of what he is trying to appeal against.

Jeremy in his blog, with a link posted in a previous post on this thread, says 'As a campaign we would like to make it clear that there is no leagl aid available to fund anyone fighting a miscarriage of justice until there is a referral to the court of appeal'

As such Jeremy will have been supported by the Legal Aid system in the two previousappeals.

Within the last paragraph the blog states -

'It is ultimately public money which will pay Jeremy compensation for wasting half his life, but the Mirror and Express didn't consider the fact: No amount of money will bring back the 26 years of Jeremy Bamber's life which has been taken from him unlawfully. POSTED BY JEREMY BAMBER AT WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2011'

It appears money will still play an important part in everything.......... important enough to be specifically mentioned by all parties.

Of course it is. I'll tell you another thing. If half my life was wasted behind bars for half my like and I won an appeal to get my freedom I would not rest til all those responsible for such a gross miscarriage of justice paid heavily for their part in it all. In one way or another those responsible will be brought down. I don't know if Jeremy feels like that though? I shouldn't think so? He doesn't strike me as a bitter person. Unlike all those who seek continually to blacken his name, although they have him where they want him.

[curiousessex]

With regard to the published articles about Legal Aid it should be noted that the prisoners concerned do not physically get the money.

The Legal Aid system, depending on the application, is a means tested system which will take people's financial situation into consideration. It is a support facility for people who are involved in a legal situation. As such, it is not the prisoners who are featured in the articles getting the cash in their pocket. It is however, the state agreeing to pay their legal fees associated with the legal situation they are involved. It is the lawyers who will get the money. Given Jeremy has had 2 Appeal hearings already and has a third in application their is no doubt his legal aid bills will be quite substantial. The associate legal costs will be paid, in part, by the state i.e. Contributions from Tax paying members of society.

If the amounts are deemed too much maybe it is the lawyers who should be looking at their legal charge rates per hour etc..

The articles are reporting some of the facts of life of our society whilst the specific words used re 'parole' hearings may be inaccurate.

I am sure the majority of posters on the forum will not have had such support from the state in terms of legal aid. However, if any of us were in Jeremy's position we would have been entitled to submit a claim for Legal Aid. I believe in the majority of criminal cases it is the Legal Aid system that pays the legal bills on behalf of the accused. It is a fact of our society that everyone is entitled to a defence.

It is also a fact of our society that the victims of crime are not looked after with the same crude financial levels / sums of support from the state.

I am sure NGB will be able to confirm the above.

It might be worth mentioning here that Jeremy is very much reliant upon the kindness of people who have offered their services for free because he cannot get legal aid for much of what he is trying to appeal against.

Jeremy in his blog, with a link posted in a previous post on this thread, says 'As a campaign we would like to make it clear that there is no leagl aid available to fund anyone fighting a miscarriage of justice until there is a referral to the court of appeal'

As such Jeremy will have been supported by the Legal Aid system in the two previousappeals.

Within the last paragraph the blog states -

'It is ultimately public money which will pay Jeremy compensation for wasting half his life, but the Mirror and Express didn't consider the fact: No amount of money will bring back the 26 years of Jeremy Bamber's life which has been taken from him unlawfully. POSTED BY JEREMY BAMBER AT WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2011'

It appears money will still play an important part in everything.......... important enough to be specifically mentioned by all parties.

Of course it is. I'll tell you another thing. If half my life was wasted behind bars for half my like and I won an appeal to get my freedom I would not rest til all those responsible for such a gross miscarriage of justice paid heavily for their part in it all. In one way or another those responsible will be brought down. I don't know if Jeremy feels like that though? I shouldn't think so? He doesn't strike me as a bitter person. Unlike all those who seek continually to blacken his name, although they have him where they want him.

For me, I just find it very strange to specifically mention it given if there is a miscarriage of justice then it is obvious a compensation package would be made available / required.

Addition - If you were guilty of something and knew the method of your conviction was flawed would you not be willing pursue the matter endlessly. Some may say, ultimately if guilty, you would have nothing to lose but a substantial amount to gain in terms of a large sum of money in compensation.

[grahameb]

For me, I just find it very strange to specifically mention it given if there is a miscarriage of justice then it is obvious a compensation package would be made available / required.

Addition - If you were guilty of something and knew the method of your conviction was flawed would you not be willing pursue the matter endlessly. Some may say, ultimately if guilty, you would have nothing to lose but a substantial amount to gain in terms of a large sum of money in compensation.

It is difficult to say what people will do. I suppose the scope of speculation is endless. But it is a fact that it is not only Jeremy who says he's innocent. It is many others as well, including MP's and very well respected lawyers, who I suspect we shall hear about publicly very soon?

[curiousessex]

For me, I just find it very strange to specifically mention it given if there is a miscarriage of justice then it is obvious a compensation package would be made available / required.

Addition - If you were guilty of something and knew the method of your conviction was flawed would you not be willing pursue the matter endlessly. Some may say, ultimately if guilty, you would have nothing to lose but a substantial amount to gain in terms of a large sum of money in compensation.

It is difficult to say what people will do. I suppose the scope of speculation is endless. But it is a fact that it is not only Jeremy who says he's innocent. It is many others as well, including MP's and very well respected lawyers, who I suspect we shall hear about publicly very soon?

However, it is only Jeremy who knows if he is innocence. Saying and knowing are two completely different things.

[Jackiepreece]

I think it is vital that the general public are made aware that we are paying £75,000 to keep someone in prison who could well be innocent because someone is playing god and deciding what evidence can or cannot be released.

With regard to the latest batch of photos released as far as I can see there was absolutely no reason why these were not available before.

Wait till the general public find out how many £75,000 might have been wasted that money might have been used to keep an old age pensioner warm in the winter

[bob]

I think it is vital that the general public are made aware that we are paying £75,000 to keep someone in prison who could well be innocent because someone is playing god and deciding what evidence can or cannot be released.

With regard to the latest batch of photos released as far as I can see there was absolutely no reason why these were not available before.

Wait till the general public find out how many £75,000 might have been wasted that money might have been used to keep an old age pensioner warm in the winter

Will JB be suing the papers for libel? Or at least demanding that they publish a retraction?

[curiousessex]

I think it is vital that the general public are made aware that we are paying £75,000 to keep someone in prison who could well be innocent because someone is playing god and deciding what evidence can or cannot be released.

With regard to the latest batch of photos released as far as I can see there was absolutely no reason why these were not available before.

Wait till the general public find out how many £75,000 might have been wasted that money might have been used to keep an old age pensioner warm in the winter

Jackie

In your last post above you state - 'I think it is vital that the general public are made aware that we are paying £75,000 to keep someone in prison who could well be innocent.....'

Given the above do you think it is possible Jeremy could also be guilty?

[H]

Taking the individual out of the equation in order that I don't offend.

If somebody (let's change the sex as well and call her Penelope Pitstop), if Penelope was guilty of murdering five members of her family including two children, would it be correct that Miss Pitstop was detained at her Majesties pleasure even though it was costing £75k (or whatever that figure may be)?

[grahameb]

Taking the individual out of the equation in order that I don't offend.

If somebody (let's change the sex as well and call her Penelope Pitstop), if Penelope was guilty of murdering five members of her family including two children, would it be correct that Miss Pitstop was detained at her Majesties pleasure even though it was costing £75k (or whatever that figure may be)?

If guilty then yes I would agree. But the governing factor here is there is grave doubt as to his guilt and this is not just what he says. It is also acknowledged by expert lawyers. Any case where the convicted protests his/her innocence must in all conscience be investigated honestly by the authorities where no legal obstables are purposely put in the way to obstruch such an investigation. Jeremy's case has certainly been obstructed by the legal system and this has clearly been commented upon by many legal experts.

[smiffy]

For me, I just find it very strange to specifically mention it given if there is a miscarriage of justice then it is obvious a compensation package would be made available / required.

Addition - If you were guilty of something and knew the method of your conviction was flawed would you not be willing pursue the matter endlessly. Some may say, ultimately if guilty, you would have nothing to lose but a substantial amount to gain in terms of a large sum of money in compensation.

It is difficult to say what people will do. I suppose the scope of speculation is endless. But it is a fact that it is not only Jeremy who says he's innocent. It is many others as well, including MP's and very well respected lawyers, who I suspect we shall hear about publicly very soon?

However, it is only Jeremy who knows if he is innocence. Saying and knowing are two completely different things.

JB obviously does know...
but lets be clear here...if he is innocent (which I am satisfied he is) then others also know for a fact  he is innocent for someone arranged the bodies and was responsible for their part/s in Sheila's death.

[H]

Taking the individual out of the equation in order that I don't offend.

If somebody (let's change the sex as well and call her Penelope Pitstop), if Penelope was guilty of murdering five members of her family including two children, would it be correct that Miss Pitstop was detained at her Majesties pleasure even though it was costing £75k (or whatever that figure may be)?

If guilty then yes I would agree. But the governing factor here is there is grave doubt as to his guilt and this is not just what he says. It is also acknowledged by expert lawyers. Any case where the convicted protests his/her innocence must in all conscience be investigated honestly by the authorities where no legal obstables are purposely put in the way to obstruch such an investigation. Jeremy's case has certainly been obstructed by the legal system and this has clearly been commented upon by many legal experts.

And if that is the case then it doesn't matter about the money does it? If he's had legal aid then he deserves it right?
I think this whole episode is more to do with the newspapers not having anything else to make a story out of, any article which mentions Brady, Neilson, Nilson and Bamber in the same breath is simply looking to shock it's readers. There is no doubt that JB's captivity and legal fees or court costs or whatever have cost tax payers money.

Other than the fact that some folk consider him to be innocent, I don't understand what the argument is.