3 ms·
> Removing someones ability to defend themselves against serious allegations by cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defence is no
by KaiserPro 3y ago
> Removing someones ability to defend themselves against serious allegations by cutting them off from their ability to make money to pay for said defence
is not how the uk courts work(ed) thats what legal aid is for. granted in practice now its not the case, but for any crown court there is still legal aid for most cases.
- bensecure 3y ago"thats what legal aid is for" - public defenders are famously underpaid and overworked in most environs. If you rely on them for your defense it will be very poor.
- AYBABTME 3y agoThat's a ridiculous fallback to the actual problem: preemptively cutting someone's livelihood ahead of a battle. An alternative: let's send the defendant to public housing before they head to court. They'll still have a roof over their head!
- georgespencer 3y agoAlmost as ridiculous as trying to argue that anyone in this situation is "preemptively cutting someone's livelihood ahead of a battle". If you read the letter and believe that the government is requesting, or that X and Rumble are agreeing to, the de-monetisation of Brand's content, then we should address a reading comprehension challenge. If you can see that this -- "preemptively cutting someone's livelihood" -- is definitely not happening, then I would encourage you to more precisely convey what you mean, because this attempt almost perfectly expresses the opposite of reality.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoDid you just say legal aid with a straight face?