Conservative MP Mark Jenkinson criticized lawyers for representing 'unsavoury' clients, suggesting it shows moral deficiency. He questions if Sir Keir Starmer's actions for such clients were pro-bono or involved international work exempt from rules.
Anyone who sympathises with child murderer most likely will be sympathetic to pedophiles too. If you decided to pick up arms and slaughter innocent civilians including children the rule of law shouldn’t be applied to you. If you are defending terrorists, you are the problem here https://t.co/twDO5G8ntz
Choosing to represent terrorists in a foreign country, for free and outwith any ‘cab rank rule’ rule, would show serious moral deficiency. That goes without saying to the vast majority of people. https://t.co/Izzl1M68kb
In this thread, a Conservative MP confirms that he believes lawyers should be criticised for representing “unsavoury” clients. He believes that barristers should simply refuse to act for “particular clients”, in breach of their professional code of ethics. https://t.co/BsQBWRaxlJ
I think @SBarrettBar is bang on, particularly some of those lawyers on Twitter. While you’re here, does the cab rank rule apply to pro-bono work? Were any of Sir Keir’s actions for unsavoury characters pro-bono? Was any of it international work to which it also didn’t apply? https://t.co/Kcq8UB1rNv
The second you decide to attack innocent civilians just trying to live their life, you forfeit all human rights. This should be universal. If you were turned into a real life version of a human centipede in your interrogation or punishment, no one should even bat an eye.