From: John Francis
It's a philosophical difference, and no more "indefensible" than the US system of "one law for the rich, one for the poor" which allows those with deep enough pockets to buy their way out of just about any situation.
My understanding is the British law in this case is sort of in response to an old U.S. Supreme Court decision that EVERY defendant should have access to adequate legal counsel.
The U.S. decision applied only to criminal cases, but the British didn't make that distinction when Parliament passed their law. And they actually put some teeth in their law.
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
