Evans happy to sit on the Breakfast sofa and complain, but 'unavailable' to face Paxman.
To be honest, neither of us knows his schedule for the day. We don't know whether Breakfast's invitation came before Paxo's and we don't know what he was doing between Breakfast at around 9am and Newsnight at 11pm.
He might have been well and truly knackered by 11pm, who knows. Paxo can be very challenging but Evans' can take it surely.
The CPS used a very highly paid QC - why should he not have done the same?
As I pointed out earlier Mr Evans had a choice. He choose the private lawyer route, therefore it is his bill to pay. he could have had a legal aid lawyer, and it is insulting to assume that legal aid lawyers are rubbish. The sense of entitlement is annoying.
As I pointed out earlier Mr Evans had a choice. He choose the private lawyer route, therefore it is his bill to pay. he could have had a legal aid lawyer, and it is insulting to assume that legal aid lawyers are rubbish. The sense of entitlement is annoying.
But not good enough for the CPS who employed a top barrister which the taxpayer pays for. We pay the prosecution who lost the case and the defender (who had no choice but to go to court) loses his life savings!
But not good enough for the CPS who employed a top barrister which the taxpayer pays for. We pay the prosecution who lost the case and the defender (who had no choice but to go to court) loses his life savings!
The taxpayer always pays for the prosecution, they are afterall working for the state. I repeat, it was Mr Evans choice, other defendants would not necessarily have had that option to privately pay for lawyers. Mr Evans was fortunate to have that option, he chose it and he will be re-imbursed to the value of a legal aid lawyer as we all would be in similar circumstances.
But not good enough for the CPS who employed a top barrister which the taxpayer pays for. We pay the prosecution who lost the case and the defender (who had no choice but to go to court) loses his life savings!
However, it is worth pointing out that Nigel Evans is, in part, the author of his own misfortune. After all, he willingly and voluntarily voted for swingeing cuts to the UK's legal aid provisions which he might well have benefited from had they remained in place:
Further to a comment someone else has made and what hypocrisy Mr Evans has got as here is a Tory Toff who gets cleared of all charges and says his bills should be footed by the tax payer, yet for who?, ah yes Non Fatcats the Tories have cut Legal Aid.
One rule for Tory Toffs and another for the poor, and I'm not sure about the rest but as for Bill/William Roach and what party does he support?, the Tories and he has the Hamilton's as his friends.
Having said that in the case of Dave Lee Travis and Jimmy Saville and years ago and no offence meant to those affected but in Radio 1's heyday fans wanted to get pictures taken with lots of the presenters as it was cool to be with them, and nothing was said at the time but now people are coming forward and you must ask why?.
Could it be money is involved somewhere although I am not excusing what Jimmy Saville did in any way and I feel really sorry for all those affected by his behaviour and how the hell he should have been allowed to get away with it is beyond me, then again it comes down to the institutions of the time. I mean just look at Hillsborough.
Further to a comment someone else has made and what hypocrisy Mr Evans has got as here is a Tory Toff who gets cleared of all charges and says his bills should be footed by the tax payer, yet for who?, ah yes Non Fatcats the Tories have cut Legal Aid.
One rule for Tory Toffs and another for the poor, and I'm not sure about the rest but as for Bill/William Roach and what party does he support?, the Tories and he has the Hamilton's as his friends.
Having said that in the case of Dave Lee Travis and Jimmy Saville and years ago and no offence meant to those affected but in Radio 1's heyday fans wanted to get pictures taken with lots of the presenters as it was cool to be with them, and nothing was said at the time but now people are coming forward and you must ask why?.
Could it be money is involved somewhere although I am not excusing what Jimmy Saville did in any way and I feel really sorry for all those affected by his behaviour and how the hell he should have been allowed to get away with it is beyond me, then again it comes down to the institutions of the time. I mean just look at Hillsborough.
The taxpayer always pays for the prosecution, they are afterall working for the state. I repeat, it was Mr Evans choice, other defendants would not necessarily have had that option to privately pay for lawyers. Mr Evans was fortunate to have that option, he chose it and he will be re-imbursed to the value of a legal aid lawyer as we all would be in similar circumstances.
It still doesn't sound fair to me that the prosecution can spend an unlimited amount but the defence can only claim up to the legal aid limit. That isn't a level playing field.
It's ironic that he voted to cut legal aid but now thinks its wrong. The only way to a fair system is to charge all MPs with anything and watch them scramble to change legal aid so they can get a free defence.
Comments
To be honest, neither of us knows his schedule for the day. We don't know whether Breakfast's invitation came before Paxo's and we don't know what he was doing between Breakfast at around 9am and Newsnight at 11pm.
He might have been well and truly knackered by 11pm, who knows. Paxo can be very challenging but Evans' can take it surely.
As I pointed out earlier Mr Evans had a choice. He choose the private lawyer route, therefore it is his bill to pay. he could have had a legal aid lawyer, and it is insulting to assume that legal aid lawyers are rubbish. The sense of entitlement is annoying.
But not good enough for the CPS who employed a top barrister which the taxpayer pays for. We pay the prosecution who lost the case and the defender (who had no choice but to go to court) loses his life savings!
The taxpayer always pays for the prosecution, they are afterall working for the state. I repeat, it was Mr Evans choice, other defendants would not necessarily have had that option to privately pay for lawyers. Mr Evans was fortunate to have that option, he chose it and he will be re-imbursed to the value of a legal aid lawyer as we all would be in similar circumstances.
However, it is worth pointing out that Nigel Evans is, in part, the author of his own misfortune. After all, he willingly and voluntarily voted for swingeing cuts to the UK's legal aid provisions which he might well have benefited from had they remained in place:
"Nigel Evans, who is £130,000 out of pocket after being cleared of sexual assault, has said he regretted his previous support for cutting legal aid."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/130000-poorer-in-fees-nigel-evans-admits-regret-for-past-support-of-legal-aid-cuts-9259579.html
CPS is really doubling down. They just be shitting themselves over the Max Clifford verdict due maybe tomorrow.
One rule for Tory Toffs and another for the poor, and I'm not sure about the rest but as for Bill/William Roach and what party does he support?, the Tories and he has the Hamilton's as his friends.
Having said that in the case of Dave Lee Travis and Jimmy Saville and years ago and no offence meant to those affected but in Radio 1's heyday fans wanted to get pictures taken with lots of the presenters as it was cool to be with them, and nothing was said at the time but now people are coming forward and you must ask why?.
Could it be money is involved somewhere although I am not excusing what Jimmy Saville did in any way and I feel really sorry for all those affected by his behaviour and how the hell he should have been allowed to get away with it is beyond me, then again it comes down to the institutions of the time. I mean just look at Hillsborough.
Nigel Evans a 'toff'? Since when?
The line from Labour HQ is that all Tories are "toffs".
You know how it is. Tory = toff, Labour = salt of the earth hard working lower mid class person
It still doesn't sound fair to me that the prosecution can spend an unlimited amount but the defence can only claim up to the legal aid limit. That isn't a level playing field.
It's ironic that he voted to cut legal aid but now thinks its wrong. The only way to a fair system is to charge all MPs with anything and watch them scramble to change legal aid so they can get a free defence.