To the legal aid apologists on here

[NicD]

This is why some of us give your quasi union activities short thrift:

Child killers Mick and Mairead Philpott were given more than £350,000 of taxpayer money to fund a legal team that included four barristers

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3123203/Hu...

[robemcdonald]

What's the alternative? Poor people get no legal representation and therefore no fair trial?

No thanks.

[Jasandjules]

The day you are accused of kiddy fiddling and all your friends and family shun you and stop you having access to your money, is the day you are grateful for legal aid.

[robemcdonald]

It doesn't even need to be as dramatic as that. Basically this is another Daily Mail story designed to make us hate the people in society who have the least.

I wonder what cutting legal aid would do to help balance the books?

[NicD]

Are you defenders so bereft of thinking ability?

There should be a salaried corps of public defenders available to those who don't or can't pay for their own choice.
Cab rank assignment, no special favours for high profile cases, no four pricy barristers, as in this case.

Why should these sts get a service I could never afford myself?

[will_]

NicD said:

Are you defenders so bereft of thinking ability?

There should be a salaried corps of public defenders available to those who don't or can't pay for their own choice.
Cab rank assignment, no special favours for high profile cases, no four pricy barristers, as in this case.

Why should these sts get a service I could never afford myself?

Eh? If you couldn't afford it, then it would be provided for you. That's the point.

[4rephill]

will_ said:

NicD said:

Are you defenders so bereft of thinking ability?

There should be a salaried corps of public defenders available to those who don't or can't pay for their own choice.
Cab rank assignment, no special favours for high profile cases, no four pricy barristers, as in this case.

Why should these sts get a service I could never afford myself?

Eh? If you couldn't afford it, then it would be provided for you. That's the point.

He's not that through has he!

[bladebloke]

NicD said:

Are you defenders so bereft of thinking ability?

There should be a salaried corps of public defenders available to those who don't or can't pay for their own choice.
Cab rank assignment, no special favours for high profile cases, no four pricy barristers, as in this case.

Why should these sts get a service I could never afford myself?

Sounds sensible. I'm guessing that you'd set the salaries for the corps of public defenders much lower than the market rate in order to make it cost effective. You know, especially considering that if the defenders were full time employees rather than retained according to demand then there would inevitably be times when they don't have cases on, to ensure there was enough spare capacity for busy periods.

And I'm sure that there'd be plenty of barristers who'd be happy to take a low salary instead of earning the market rate.

And I'm sure the unqualified cab rank system you suggest would work fine too. I mean, why should a defendant who stands to spend decades in prison have an experienced barrister to defend him. I'm sure it'd make more sense if it was luck of the draw and that guy got somebody who'd just qualified whilst the bloke in the courtroom next door who's looking at a short suspended sentence had the QC on his case.

Bereft of thinking ability. Riiiiiight.

[TooMany2cvs]

NicD said:

There should be a salaried corps of public defenders available to those who don't or can't pay for their own choice.

And having a bunch of lawyers and barristers on staff at all times wouldn't cost just as much money?

You've got to persuade those people that they want to work for you rather than privately - so you've still got to pay competitively.
You've then got people on staff with a more limited view of the world = less effective representation = greater likelihood of appeal.

Basically, your whole objection seems to be that people you don't like shouldn't get fair trials.

[anonymous-user]

will_ said:

NicD said:

Are you defenders so bereft of thinking ability?

There should be a salaried corps of public defenders available to those who don't or can't pay for their own choice.
Cab rank assignment, no special favours for high profile cases, no four pricy barristers, as in this case.

Why should these sts get a service I could never afford myself?

Eh? If you couldn't afford it, then it would be provided for you. That's the point.

I don't think that's quite true. If you can't afford ANYTHING you might get aid. If you have something, you'll need to blow it before you get second rate defence and don't expect costs even if you're innocent.

I do wonder whether the Philpotts would have been so well represented if the story hadn't been so attractive to certain newspapers and their 'readers'.

[anonymous-user]

4rephill said:

will_ said:

NicD said:

Are you defenders so bereft of thinking ability?

There should be a salaried corps of public defenders available to those who don't or can't pay for their own choice.
Cab rank assignment, no special favours for high profile cases, no four pricy barristers, as in this case.

Why should these sts get a service I could never afford myself?

Eh? If you couldn't afford it, then it would be provided for you. That's the point.

He's not that through has he!

Did you? (Read your post........)

[TwigtheWonderkid]

OP, the next step in your argument is surely "Look, we know they did it, why spend all that money on a trial?"

[supersingle]

Yes, everyone needs representation if they're accused of a serious crime, but £350k? It does seem like rather a lot.

I wonder how much the prosecution lawyers were paid?

[Countdown]

Could we not just throw them into a mill-pond and then, if they drown they're innocent / float they're guilty?

It's a well known fact that the devil looks after his own

[4rephill]

REALIST123 said:

4rephill said:

will_ said:

NicD said:

Are you defenders so bereft of thinking ability?

There should be a salaried corps of public defenders available to those who don't or can't pay for their own choice.
Cab rank assignment, no special favours for high profile cases, no four pricy barristers, as in this case.

Why should these sts get a service I could never afford myself?

Eh? If you couldn't afford it, then it would be provided for you. That's the point.

He's not that through has he!

Did you? (Read your post........)

Oops! Let's try that again! - This time in proper English!:

He's not thought that through has he!

(Damned My eagerness to submit! I shall now write out, by hand, 100 times: "I must learn to use preview!" )

[NicD]

TooMany2cvs said:

And having a bunch of lawyers and barristers on staff at all times wouldn't cost just as much money?

You've got to persuade those people that they want to work for you rather than privately - so you've still got to pay competitively.
You've then got people on staff with a more limited view of the world = less effective representation = greater likelihood of appeal.

Basically, your whole objection seems to be that people you don't like shouldn't get fair trials.

People who say 'basically' then make up a load of stuff should keep it to themselves.

This is 'basically' what I meant: we should not have to pay anything like £350k to a bunch of overpaid legals for an open and shut case.

[ATG]

NicD said:

People who say 'basically' then make up a load of stuff should keep it to themselves.

Do you have a sense of irony? Or indeed any sense at all?

[LoonR1]

NicD said:

TooMany2cvs said:

And having a bunch of lawyers and barristers on staff at all times wouldn't cost just as much money?

You've got to persuade those people that they want to work for you rather than privately - so you've still got to pay competitively.
You've then got people on staff with a more limited view of the world = less effective representation = greater likelihood of appeal.

Basically, your whole objection seems to be that people you don't like shouldn't get fair trials.

People who say 'basically' then make up a load of stuff should keep it to themselves.

This is 'basically' what I meant: we should not have to pay anything like £350k to a bunch of overpaid legals for an open and shut case.

I agree. I think we should abolish trials in general and simply have trial by public opinion, with the facts presented by a sensationalist tabloid.

[rscott]

LoonR1 said:

I agree. I think we should abolish trials in general and simply have trial by public opinion, with the facts presented by a sensationalist tabloid.

Could we not put them on Jeremy Kyle and have a viewer text vote? Then 'justice' would be profitable..

[singlecoil]

Is there no possible middle ground here?

Does it really have to be a choice between £350,000 of public money, or no trial at all?