Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

So Fusillier Lee Rigby's killers have pleaded Not Guilty to his murder.

99 replies

InsanityandBeyond · 29/11/2013 22:50

Un fucking believable that they are able to do this. IMO they don't even need a trial do they? The police did that poor lad a real disservice when they did not shoot them dead. They must be laughing their fucking heads off at us.

A real deterrent for future deranged fundamentalists. Commit a horrific murder in broad daylight on busy streets with no fear of intervention, then be detained in comfort and safety, and be allowed to make an absolute mockery of the poor victim's family's grief. Have it replayed all over the media again whipping up more publicity and sympathisers while insisting you have done nothing wrong.

Absolutely sickened and ashamed of this country.

OP posts:
TreaterAnita · 30/11/2013 00:11

You are being totally unreasonable. The right to a fair trial is both a tenet of our (mostly excellent) criminal justice system and also a core human right in any civilised society. Human rights have to be universal (a concept that our current Home Secretary struggles to get her head around) or they are worthless. I feel very sorry for Lee Rigby's family that they face the ordeal of a trial, as I do for every family under such circumstances, but the defendants are entitled to mount a defence and to have it considered by a jury of their peers. And the fact that they were caught on video killing him does not mean that they don't have a potential defence to a charge of murder as it is a specifically defined crime and you can be found not guilty if murder even in circumstances when the jury finds that you did kill the victim. I don't imagine that that will happen here by the way, but at the end of the day that's not for you, or I, or the media to decide, it's a decision to be made by 12 people who have heard all of the evidence.

nauticant · 30/11/2013 00:15

Or to put it pragmatically, I have no problem with the scum of the earth being tried with due process because if ever I'm unlucky enough to be fitted up for something I'll have a chance to defend myself too.

MrsTerryPratchett · 30/11/2013 00:17

Human rights have to be universal or they are worthless. Absolutely.

People find that concept so hard to grasp. If I can decide that human rights don't apply to child abusers or murderers then someone else can decide they don't apply to gay people or black people. They are absolute or they aren't human rights, rather human privileges.

Bogeyface · 30/11/2013 00:22

Today Mairead Philpott made history because her appeal against her 17 year sentence was the first outside London to be televised.

Do I believe she should rot in hell for her hand in the murder of 6 of her children? Yes.

Do I believe that she should have had the right to appeal? Yes.

TreaterAnita · 30/11/2013 00:38

Absolutely MrsTP

It might take him 7 pages to make his point, but I defy anyone to read this speech by Lord Bingham and not agree that the Human Rights Act is a bloody good thing:

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/media/articles/pdfs/lord-bingham-speech-final.pdf

Mellowandfruitful · 30/11/2013 00:55

They have the right to make whatever plea they like. I wish the media coverage of whatever they say would be minimized though. Avoid giving them the oxygen of publicity and so on.

Mellowandfruitful · 30/11/2013 00:55

They have the right to make whatever plea they like. I wish the media coverage of whatever they say would be minimized though. Avoid giving them the oxygen of publicity and so on.

shootingstar1234 · 30/11/2013 01:03

I used to be against the death penalty however I feel a slow and painful death is the only appropriate punishment for these two.

MeMySonAndI · 30/11/2013 01:15

Death penalty is not justice but vengeance. Didn't they say "an eye for an eye" and all that rubbish when they were killing Rigby? why would we like to become like them demanding the same? I think they will find life in prison far worse than other inmates.

Imagine the constant fear, extending over years, of being hurt/killed by other inmates? or leaving in complete isolation in order to be safe? That's the hell ahead of them.

MeMySonAndI · 30/11/2013 01:16

leaving? good grief, I better go to bed... "living" I meant to say!

Bogeyface · 30/11/2013 01:18

Derek Bentley is one of many reasons why we have abolished the death sentence in the UK.

If the death penalty had been abolished before his trial he wouldnt have needed a pardon, his conviction would have been quashed.

HettiePetal · 30/11/2013 01:26

Absolutely sickened and ashamed of this country

So, would having a system where no trial is necessary, just sling 'em in jail & let 'em rot make you feel less "ashamed"?

How about nothing but show trials - where defendants are told how to plead, not allowed to defend themselves & the outcome is predetermined?

Well, there are countries in the world with "justice" systems just like this, but I promise you that you would not want to live there.

Bogeyface · 30/11/2013 01:37

Totally agree with Hettie

Join Amnesty International, you will learn a lot Insanity

Caitlin17 · 30/11/2013 01:59

If they were going to enter a plea of not guilty due to insanity or diminished responsibility or any of the special pleas such as self defence or provocation that should have been lodged by now.

I'm assuming they will not be calling any defence witnesses, who could there possibly be? They do not of course have to take the stand themselves although I'm assuming they will. However unless they have anything to say which is actually relevant to what they did, e.g they didn't do it or you've got the wrong man the judge will not allow them to turn it into a propaganda piece.

Caitlin17 · 30/11/2013 02:22

I don't know about English law but I'm assuming that like Scots Law if they wanted to rely on any of the special defences, (alibi,self-defence incrimination,automatism or coercion) the same principle applies that you have to give the Crown notice before the trial starts you will be leading that defence.

So far as insanity and diminished responsibility they must be pled in advance and in Scots law it's for the person pleading these to prove it not for the Crown to disprove as the law assumes sanity. So whatever they are intending they won't be pulling rabbits out of hats in the witness box.

intitgrand · 30/11/2013 02:26

what about procedural error? Can thry argue a technicality?

intitgrand · 30/11/2013 02:27

what about procedural error? Can thry argue a technicality?

intitgrand · 30/11/2013 02:27

what about procedural error? Can thry argue a technicality?

intitgrand · 30/11/2013 02:28

what about procedural error? Can thry argue a technicality?

notnagging · 30/11/2013 04:28

Yabu and a bit hysterical. The trial has not been made a big deal of because they don't want them glorified by other nutters. Shooting them dead us what they wanted. It's better they plead not guilty as they'll get a longer sentence. Of course there is a jury. I read the transcripts yesterday & the details are horrific. These men are deranged.

Poppy67 · 30/11/2013 05:53

It is disgusting and vile but the people to blame are these murdering lowlifes and their lawyers who are no doubt pleased as they can rack up even bigger legal bills which I guess the taxpayer will pick up ultimately..... There should be a cap on legal aid for this type of thing. I'm fed up of little kids being denied medical treatment and women being unable to get free legal advice to escape abusive husbands when scum, which is too good a word for idiots like this, think they are justified in their actions and unacceptable not guilty plea, and cost the country money.

MissMarplesBloomers · 30/11/2013 06:02

On a separate note who the he'll would WANT to defend them?!

By pleading not- guilty they will prolong the agony of the family by going over the details in court.:(

But it is still a fair system just horrible to see in this case.

OrangePixie · 30/11/2013 06:16

I've never seen such a ridiculous argument. Yes, let's find people guilty without bothering with a trial.

As for the publicity, meh. They'll get a month or so, however long the trial lasts, and they they'll get forgotten about for the next five decades they're wallowing in prison.

Goldenhandshake · 30/11/2013 06:30

memysonandI if only their lives in prison were to be feared but I highly doubt this is the case. Look at the recent report of the growing problem of Muslim 'gangs' in prison, plenty of these have fundamentalist nutters at their core so my fear is these two will be welcomed with open arms by one of these and hailed as heroes. I fervently hope not but sadly I know a bit too much about some of our high security prisons to doubt it.

That aside, i absolutely stand by their right to enter whatever plea they wish, I have faith that the overwhelming evidence will overshadow their rants about retaliation and an 'eye for an eye' that is no doubt to come.

thepig · 30/11/2013 06:35

So want the kind of justice system that fundamentalists want too OP? Wink

Btw pleading not guilty to 'murder' is not the same as pleading not guilty to 'killing', which you seem to be under the impression of.

What makes me despair about this country and life in general is people like them AND people like you and your reaction to people like them.