Wednesday, 17 June 2009

Equal rights in the eyes of the law, for everyone

What if Henry Bellingham didn't want to defend the case of these people because he sincerely believed there was no defence in their case, so he was not the person best placed to act on their behalf? Is he supposed to argue for something he knows is wrong, perhaps even feel compelled to place himself in contempt of court if he wishes to stand any chance of winning, just because the defendant is very stupid and needs looking after? (Implying that quite possibly in turn their kids may also in fact need looking after..?)

Everybody has rights, which need to be defended rigorously. Including Henry Bellingham you'd think?

No comments:

More commentary at the Facebook page

Visit the page to find more news, commentary and community... (Like the page and you'll also see comments on links above - jus sayin.)

Twits can also apply here...