Dinosaurs 2,008 Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 What about the twat he shot what sort of bill has got to pay??? Fcuking disgraceful!! Atb 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tb25 4,626 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 What about the twat he shot what sort of bill has got to pay??? Fcuking disgraceful!! Atbnote..Tax payer will pick his bill up fore him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BGD 6,385 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 What about the twat he shot what sort of bill has got to pay??? Fcuking disgraceful!! Atbnote..Tax payer will pick his bill up fore him. What bill does he have? He hasn't been charged with anything has he? He has nothing to pay for. Or do you think if you accuse someone of a crime you should have to foot the bill for the prosecution? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lanesra 3,961 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 Those on the dole / benefits (who contribute nothing to society £££ wise) get legal aid whether found innocent or guilty paying nothing & the tax payer funds this , this man has probably paid 10s of thousands in taxes over the yrs so he's paid into a system that should now stand his bill seeing he was acquitted . . Bit like those who pay to fund the he national health service get no better treatment than those who don't contribute a penny !! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jiggy 3,207 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 The old boy would of been entitled to legal aid if he wasn't well off but probably chose a good legal team that might win instead of the bottom of the barrel free legal aid solicitor that is just there to collect money and doesn't care if your convicted or not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Haiddheliwr 1,911 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 £2 a week on the drip f**k em! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,639 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 I can't see if he was found not guilty how he has to pay .Who should pick up the tab for his legal representation then? The no hoper who he shot? Reckon they'd be waiting a long time for him to pay that off. It's a shitty situation for the old boy but someone has to pay the lawyer's fees. He won't be paying out of his own pocket anyway, all the folk that have been singing his praises online will kick in to the fundraiser I'm sure. i dont think it should matter how long they have to wait for the money, i am not sure you should base a system of liability on who will pay quickest? and why should the people who have been supporting him be expected to pay either? i agree that the cps should foot the bill, and the thief should have to pay them back. up to them to negotiate a repayment schedule. When you say the CPS should pay you mean the taxpayer, remember that. Do you think everyone who is accused of a crime and found not guilty should be able to get the taxpayer to foot the bill for their legal fees and then try to recoup the costs from the accuser? Or just a special exception for this case? Either way it doesn't sound like a very good way to run the legal system to me. Yes absolutely. It's a piss poor 'justice' system that punishes you even when not guilty! The justice system is societies responsibility and so injustices should be shouldered by society. It's a damn sight more virtuous tax than most. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,639 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 So farmer Kenneth Hugill was proved innocent over shooting that waste of space that wasrooting round his yard. Now he finds himself saddled with a bill for 300 grand to prove his innocence. What the hell is wrong with this country when this can happen. Firstly it's £30k not £300k Secondly this appears to be the link to his fundraiser page. It's a f***ing joke that he has to pay that bill, but people don't want to get active enough to fix these kind of injustices so he's just going have to hope enough people agree with him. No longer accepting donations apparently? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Greyman 25,356 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 What about the twat he shot what sort of bill has got to pay??? Fcuking disgraceful!! Atbnote..Tax payer will pick his bill up fore him. What bill does he have? He hasn't been charged with anything has he? He has nothing to pay for. Or do you think if you accuse someone of a crime you should have to foot the bill for the prosecution? the bill for the prosecution case, he went to the police and pressed charges, the prosecution supported him and thought he had a case so they should foot the bill might slow them down in the future from bringing trumped up charges against innocent people, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
j j m 6,483 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 i think if your cleared you should pay sod all,but thats not the way it works Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jonah. 775 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 So farmer Kenneth Hugill was proved innocent over shooting that waste of space that wasrooting round his yard. Now he finds himself saddled with a bill for 300 grand to prove his innocence. What the hell is wrong with this country when this can happen. Firstly it's £30k not £300k Secondly this appears to be the link to his fundraiser page. It's a f***ing joke that he has to pay that bill, but people don't want to get active enough to fix these kind of injustices so he's just going have to hope enough people agree with him. No longer accepting donations apparently? Click through to the justgiving page...he's on £10k now 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,973 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 Yes absolutely. It's a piss poor 'justice' system that punishes you even when not guilty! The justice system is societies responsibility and so injustices should be shouldered by society. It's a damn sight more virtuous tax than most. Can we blame this in part, if not all, on the Conservative austerity measures? They cut £350m from legal aid funding because you know those dirty foreigners, right? The British public were told that these people were stealing benefits so the Tories, quite rightly, removed the capability for immigration cases... Only they cut pretty much every other section as well. From my basic understanding the hardest hit, in the cuts, was 'social welfare law.' Basically representation for the 99%. Legal representation is a third less, and legal advise is two thirds less. Unless I've misread it. I do agree with you, though. This is one area where I'm happy to pony up for the tax, and this case is one of those areas that highlights why. Solicitors, by definition, are all about finding and exploiting loopholes in the law. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record the British public are online activists and this case is just one of many where the wrong man got f****d over by Johnny Law. As no one is willing to learn about it, and vote/demand real change, this injustices will continue and the majority will go unreported as Britain slides further towards an American system where you have to resort to online crowdfunding to pay for your innocence. The question is, how do you fix the problem? No longer accepting donations apparently? No it's apparently been consolidated with this one. As a previous poster said they've already raised a third. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
beast 1,884 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 I can't see if he was found not guilty how he has to pay .Who should pick up the tab for his legal representation then? The no hoper who he shot? Reckon they'd be waiting a long time for him to pay that off. It's a shitty situation for the old boy but someone has to pay the lawyer's fees. He won't be paying out of his own pocket anyway, all the folk that have been singing his praises online will kick in to the fundraiser I'm sure. i dont think it should matter how long they have to wait for the money, i am not sure you should base a system of liability on who will pay quickest? and why should the people who have been supporting him be expected to pay either? i agree that the cps should foot the bill, and the thief should have to pay them back. up to them to negotiate a repayment schedule. When you say the CPS should pay you mean the taxpayer, remember that. Do you think everyone who is accused of a crime and found not guilty should be able to get the taxpayer to foot the bill for their legal fees and then try to recoup the costs from the accuser? Or just a special exception for this case? Either way it doesn't sound like a very good way to run the legal system to me. of course. there is a flaw in any system where you must pay for something you dont actually need! -i see you have billed me for two new tyres -thats right sir -and you havent actually put any on my car -yes sir -i didnt ask for any tyres -thats right sir -i dont need tyres mine are fine -yes sir -can i have my money back please -no sir, thats the law the whole system would be fairer if it was paid for by government but obviously that is not very realistic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MickC 1,825 Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 Not guilty no fee to pay,he will be reimbursed his costs. CPS brought the case and lost so they will have to pay his costs but not sure were funds come from. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.