On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 09:39:07AM -0500, John Sessoms wrote: > 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.
That may be one part of it. Another part is that the British setup will generally handle something like a custody hearing in a lower court, so the costs are a lot more reasonable. I don't think anybody is suggesting that Paul didn't get a raw deal from the way the system worked in his particular case. But this was an outlier case, complicated by the fact that a minor child appears to have been removed from the jurisdiction of the appropriate court without the proper formalities. This in itself could be enough to guarantee legal support for a British citizen claiming parental rights, not to mention the fact that the cornerstone of many legal systems, the presumption of innocence, is only worth anything if it is applied to all without pre-judging how deserving they are. It's easy to support a principle if you agree with the beneficiary. The true test is if you can support someone you personally dislike. As Voltaire probably didn't actually state: "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it". -- 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.
