Phil Shiner Human Rights Lawyer ' struck off ' for misconduct.

Totally agree !

I think the soldiers he pursued and whose lives were ruined should get together and sue him collectively to ensure he doesn't retain any of his ill gotten gains.

Well said POGS. I remember the support he got, disgraceful, but I'm sure they still think he was right.

Totally agree, how did they allow this to go on for so long. They should get compensation and Shiner a long prison sentence.

I agree with all of you - wonder whether we'll hear from any of his previous supporters?

Well said POGS I am pleased he is discredited, and so sorry for the soldiers that have had years of misery because of him.

I agree POGS

I am sure he will get off relatively lightly for what he has done but I think his punishment should be to send him into a war zone and see how he fares.

Now I will wait for my own share of flack

I hope this serves as an example to all the other legal firms that have jumped on this bandwagon, for Shiners weren't the only ones. No wonder morale in the Army is at an all time low and recruiting is the worst it's been for years in spite of the government cut in numbers required. No point in putting yourself in the front line if you risk being thrown to the wolves.

Jalima dropped in some hot spot...with or without parachute!

I for one feel that, disgraceful as war is, we should be able to maintain a certain level of civilised behaviour in our military.

Not all Human Rights lawyers are crooks.

Of course, but we are talking about this particular lawyer.

Perhaps not but we are taking about Shiner. I see you have not condemned Shiner.

MaizieD I think in the main we do especially in comparison to the military of some other countries.
And anyone who has not been in the terrible conditions of a conflict, seeing comrades blown up by mines etc etc can really judge what happens in the heat of a battle.

However, bribing people as he did to give false testimony is disgusting.

I'm not defending Shiner. Just hoping that not all Human Rights lawyers are tarred with the same brush.

I really don't see why I should be obliged to condemn Shiner, Firecracker. I didn't realise that this was solely a 'condemn Shiner' thread.

Perhaps a clue might have been the title and the OP.

Of course MaizieD not all Human Rights lawyers are dishonest. However, it is true that some other practices did jump on the bandwagon to sue soldiers, using legal aid. Shiner was perhaps the worst in that he actually sent people into the field to find "victims".

I was listening to a soldier on the radio this morning who had gone through years of worry because of Shiner. He and his colleagues were accused of beating and torturing captured soldiers, when in fact as soon as the hostilities ceased the British medics were treating the wounded captives. The claims against him and his colleagues were eventually dismissed.

As I said before I believe all the soldiers he hounded should sue him collectively so he loses all the money he made - that will hurt him much more than a long prison sentence

MaizieD Fri 03-Feb-17 14:16:34

"I for one feel that, disgraceful as war is, we should be able to maintain a certain level of civilised behaviour in our military.

Not all Human Rights lawyers are crooks."
--

We should be able to maintain a certain level of civilised behaviour in our legal system too don't you think?

Nobody has said all Human Rights Lawyers are crooks but Phil Shiner had many who backed him, helped him and condoned him did they not?

The net should be widened in my opinion.

No, it wasn't. The whole case brings into question the relevance of the concept of Human Rights in a a military situation and the danger of condemning all attempts to keep military action relatively 'civilised' on the strength of a rogue individual.

I do apologise for not following the herd.

I think that Mr Shiner is the worst kind of hypocrite - making out he's helping the underdog and shining a light on injustices when all along he was peddling lies and enusring he lined his own pocket.

I think he has said that if he is suded for damages he won't be able to pay.

I expect he is transferring all his assets into his wife's name even as I type...........

so he loses all the money he made but leave him enough to live a modest lifestyle, eg as much as an average Army pension, and to keep a small house. I would not like to think that I would have to support him on benefits.

Excellent post Pogs agree with everything you have said

He hasn't helped to "keep the military civilised". He has made a precedent for people to say when someone else is charged with a genuine offence, "I don't believe it, it is all lies - remember that Paul Shiner who was proved to have fabricated evidence. This case is the same"

MaizieD.I'm assuming then that you defend the inprisonment of Alexander Blackman.

Maizie D

I am not being arguementative but I don't follow your post of 14.42.