The widow of a July 7 suicide bomber yesterday launched a High Court bid to be represented at the victims’ inquest - saying she had also suffered the loss of a loved one in the atrocity.Well, I'm lost for words...
Not so those who are paid for their use of them, of course:
Lawyers for Miss Patel claim there should be ‘no material distinction’ between her and the families of those killed, because she ‘equally suffered the loss of a relative’.It must be nice to have no conscience at all, to stand up in court and argue the most unconscionable things, never letting it trouble your sleep...
Miss Patel’s request for equal funding was refused in May this year.In the same way as the now-infamous
Afterwards, her solicitor Imran Khan said: ‘There appears to be no material distinction between the victims’ families and the position of my clients as family members who, through no fault of their own, have equally suffered the loss of a relative.’
Yesterday Ashley Underwood QC, representing the Lord Chancellor, said Miss Patel wanted legal aid only to defend her reputation.Defend her what..?
Miss Patel, who was born in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, married Khan in 2002 after they met at Dewsbury College, where both were studying to work in the education sector.Don't bother, love. I think your reputation's beyond any defence...
She has described her husband as a ‘good person’ who was brainwashed by Islamic militants.
her solicitor Imran Khan.....................AHA!
ReplyDeleteImran Khan...a man prepared to defend the indefensible BUT... he's only doing his job..he's only doing his job...he's only doing his job!
ReplyDeleteAs ever, the only winners are parastic lawyers, however much they try and dress their actions up. The losers - the taxpayer.
Still, he was a decent medium pace bowler in his day.
ReplyDeleteThat must be her in the picture, right? Yeah, I'd recognise her anywhere.
ReplyDeleteA lovely sunny morning. Showered to part of Rachmaninov's no 3, fed the birds and had tea and toast.
ReplyDeleteIt was all going so well - but then I read this.
I can't remember when stories like this last surprised me. As my gravestone will have engraved on it 'typical'.
ReplyDeleteSpitting bullets here, but like Dick, completely unsuprised.
ReplyDeleteWe will have the wives of bank robbers caught in the act, suing for loss of earnings next.
Solicitors, unlike Barristers, do not have to accept a case.
This is yet another turn of the screw try on by our lovable cuddly Islamic friends.
Actually, and it pains me to admit this about something Khan says, he's got a point. She's being incredibly insensitive (and for all I know she’s being deliberately and provocatively controversial as well) but there's no law against that. Well, actually there is but only when it's white people, especially men, being insensitive - there should be no law against being insensitive. Yet the fact is that unless we believe that she knew what her loony bastard husband and his high on religion buddies were going to do then it's literally true that she lost someone she loved through no fault of her own. His fault, yes, undeniably. Even if he was brainwashed and even though there may not have been much brain to wash in the first place, certainly his fault. But hers?
ReplyDeleteBut does that entitle her to anything? Here’s where it gets a little stickier. The NY mosque business is not quite the same as it’s more about property rights and freedom of religion, either of which means no more than the state keeping its nose out, than a grant of legal aid. Absolutely they should be allowed to build on property for which they’ve paid fair and square. To deny them their property rights puts everybody’s property rights at risk. Imagine you want to build a Catholic cathedral in a near future where a hard line Paisley-ite leader is running the show. Well, tough shit, papist bastards, we get to make that decision. Precedent? Why, certainly, will the block on Cordoba House in 2010 do? But this isn’t keeping the state out of a property rights issue. She just wants the state to pay her legal costs for her because she too has lost someone, albeit the only way he can be cast as any kind of victim is as a victim of his own stupidity and gullibility.
..."they use our own rights and freedoms against us..."
Indeed, and I don't know what troubles me more: that in order to deny them that freedom so many in government and the media would happily deny it to the rest of us, or that people to whom I wouldn't give the steam off my piss are sometimes doing a better job at keeping our ancient freedoms going.
Still, there's a large amount of WTF involved here. She needs legal aid? Really? If so how was she able to retain Imran Khan? If it's because he's doing it free of charge then why can't he carry on doing so? And surely the inquest is public and there’s nothing to stop her going in herself? Or standing outside making her opinion known? She might fear the consequences of doing so without the protection that goes with having an official role in proceedings, but tough shit. And above all, what the hell’s the point of an inquest 6 years on when we all know that this woman’s dipshit husband and his co-religionists thought they’d get 72 virgins each by blowing themselves up on public transport, though what they expected to be able to do with the afore mentioned virgins having laminated their genitals to the bottom of a small crater is anyone’s guess – if anybody even cares. For my money the best way to deal with Miss Patel and her legal mouthpiece is to note that the circumstances of the deaths of the 52 victims and, for Miss Patel’s benefit, the 4 murderers, is already well known and therefore an inquest is unnecessary.
Lives, everybody, lives. Just pick up and get on with them, because above all the bullets and missiles and tanks and soldiers we can throw at the bastards what the fanatics fear most of all is free people who’ll pick up and carry on. It's the biggest 'fuck you' we can send them.
Ah yes, the old 'murder your parents and claim clemency because you're an orphan' approach.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
ReplyDeleteO/T, the original Home Secretary in my Bloggers Cabinet never showed up for work, so I've merged HO and Justice Ministry again and you are hereby promoted from 'Justice Minister' to Home Secretary.
The ordeal is so much worse for this poor woman. Not only has she lost her former partner, he's also busy cheating on her with a procession of innocent women in heaven.
ReplyDeleteThe lawyer does have morals, they are just not morals as we would understand them.
ReplyDeleteHer and Khan can fuck right off.
ReplyDeleteShe will be claiming compensation because the blast left her without a husband and a breadwinner.
ReplyDeleteIt must be nice to have no conscience at all, to stand up in court and argue the most unconscionable things, never letting it trouble your sleep...
ReplyDeleteOr to be let off after urinating on a war memorial.
I take a potentially different line on this one, though I'll no doubt be let down.
ReplyDeleteIn many parts of the ME kids are brought up to be martyrs - their families get food and 'adulation'. They are victims of indoctrination, as much as anyone giving up his virgin daughters to the Jabberwock.
A widow grieving on the loss of her husband exposing noxious indoctrinators would be Max Clifford fodder and all over our news like a rash. If she is genuine in this regard, she is the story.
The ground zero Mosque turns out to be a prayer room in a 'cultural' building. We allow Sonia Sutcliffe not to have known about her Yorkshire Ripper partner. There should be no need of lawyers at such hearings and they should all be barred. We should remember prejudice is what we hold out against.
I didn't believe Sonia Sutcliffe and I dont believe this bitch either. She is supposed to be a Mrs Khan but now suddenly she is Miss Patel. Some solidarity with her old man eh? But call me cynical, ten years in the Crown Court will do that to you.
ReplyDeleteYes I dont see the reason for anyone to have legal representation at a Coroners Inquest (presuming that is what this is).
Witnesses get called as to the cause of death of the victims. I have been a witness in a court case and I didn't need legal representation, so why here? The relatives were not material witnesses were they? or they would be dead too.So why do they need a lawyer paid for on legal aid?
Now when it comes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Agency proceedings, THEN you need a lawyer to press your claim, though the amount you are likely to receive is derisory compared to what you could get in a Civil Court.
But who do the relatives of the victims sue? Well I'd go for this callous shameless bitch for starters and the relatives of the three others. Let them prove they had nothing to do with it, no knowledge whatsoever and watch a jury believe otherwise.
I repeat. This is a shameless try on by the forces of Evil using our Civil Society and Law against us.
The lawyer does have morals, they are just not morals as we would understand them.
ReplyDeleteThe only bit I understand is that he wants his legal aid pay out
"I can't remember when stories like this last surprised me. "
ReplyDeleteDepressing, isn't it? A few months at the bottom of a Chilean mine is starting to look quite good!
"We will have the wives of bank robbers caught in the act, suing for loss of earnings next."
It would never surprise me to see someone advancing that. Probably happen in the US first.
"Actually, and it pains me to admit this about something Khan says, he's got a point. She's being incredibly insensitive (and for all I know she’s being deliberately and provocatively controversial as well) but there's no law against that."
No, indeed. It's not something I'd want to see either. But you'd think wiser heads might have prevailed to talk her out of it...
"I don't know what troubles me more: that in order to deny them that freedom so many in government and the media would happily deny it to the rest of us, or that people to whom I wouldn't give the steam off my piss are sometimes doing a better job at keeping our ancient freedoms going."
Oh, it's not entirely the media's/governments' fault or idea. Check out any comment sections - most people are shockingly illiberal, and would deny rights to others without a second thought. It's how the anti-smoking laws got through.
"...so I've merged HO and Justice Ministry again and you are hereby promoted from 'Justice Minister' to Home Secretary."
:D
"We allow Sonia Sutcliffe not to have known about her Yorkshire Ripper partner."
It's tricky, isn't it? Like RAB, I've my doubts that she's as innocent as she's presumed to be in law (having never been tested in court). I wonder if it's just a cozy fiction that we all happily take part in?
"She is supposed to be a Mrs Khan but now suddenly she is Miss Patel. Some solidarity with her old man eh? "
Yes, that puzzled me a bit. I wondered if it was some cultural thing?
"Yes, that puzzled me a bit. I wondered if it was some cultural thing?"
ReplyDeleteWell, if she thinks he's off somewhere giving it (or what's left of it) to all those virgins maybe she thinks it's a good reason to go back to her maiden name? Or maybe that name was drawing a bit of aggro her way and she wanted a quieter life? 'Course, neither of those exactly gel with her current stance re the inquest.
Allah provides. Allah provided her with a suicide bomber for a husband who took a lot of innocents with him when he pressed the switch. If Allah now refuses to give the bitch a comfortable life then tough luck. Comparing herself with relatives left grieving by what her murdering bastard of a husband did does not compare and her claim she is a victim too is gold plated bullshit.
ReplyDelete