Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1 2
4 5 ... 32 33
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

Hoofy

56,187 posts

168 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Out of interest... are there any spare bedrooms in the Ecuadorian Embassy? biggrin

whoami

9,678 posts

126 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Zod said:
That's the pub bore's argument. Extradition is a big issue. Anyone, however evil, should be represented in relation to an extradition hearing.

We are a free democracy under the rule of law. We don't abrogate the rule of law just because the person we are dealing with is obviously an evil sack of st.

Edited by Zod on Wednesday 26th September 18:16
Any system of law which permits so many challenges and appeals needs to be changed then (as does the legal aid system which I understand has funded most of it).

Pesty

30,725 posts

142 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
What does it take to get these s out of here ffs.

Anyway last minute appeals. The defence say they have something new worth to appeal with.

Are they going to claim the queen interfered as a reason for appeal?

Gargamel

7,203 posts

147 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Indeed where legal aid capped at say £250,000 for anyone individual case, then it would perhaps focus the minds of all concerned.

I would be happy if a similar system applied to crown cost, as it would also focus there minds.

The legal system, barristers and silks is a closed shop monopoly, they charge whatever they like and everyone has to wear it or give up. Perhaps if more competition was introduced we might start to see some sanity in the costs.

Breadvan72

19,756 posts

49 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Sorry to intrude with boring old facts, but the fees paid for publicly funded legal work are set by the government and are not negotiable. They are well below market rates. For example, when I represent the government against a terrorist suspect or similar, as I sometimes do, I am paid a rate set over 16 years ago and not raised since, which is about 25% of my market rate. Legal aid rates are lower still. There is plenty of competition for the work, which is one reason why the rates stay low.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 26th September 20:18

Advertisement

Breadvan72

19,756 posts

49 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
whoami said:
Breadvan72 said:
This is only an interim stay on extradition pending a hearing next week. There has been no ruling on the merits of the latest challenge. I wager that the court next week will take a lot of persuading not to approve the extradition.
But how many more times can he appeal?
If he loses next week, he will need permission to appeal.

I think that this is his last throw.

Bear in mind that the legal games are part of a guerilla strategy, designed to cause hassle and to make us doubt our own values, which are infinitely preferable to his. We afford our enemies rights, because we are superior to them. We must not descend to their level.

Hamza would laugh at those of you who clamour for legal systems akin to those he would have in his dream State.


Ozzie Osmond

16,221 posts

132 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
I am paid a rate set over 16 years ago and not raised since, which is about 25% of my market rate. Legal aid rates are lower still.
This means nothing without the figures.

Scuffers

14,340 posts

160 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
Sorry to intrude with boring old facts, but the fees paid for publicly funded legal work are set by the government and are not negotiable. They are well below market rates. For example, when I represent the government against a terrorist suspect or similar, as I sometimes do, I am paid a rate set over 16 years ago and not raised since, which is about 25% of my market rate. Legal aid rates are lower still.
not suggesting your wrong, but how does this fit with several million quid on this one 'person'?

Breadvan72

19,756 posts

49 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Ozzie Osmond said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am paid a rate set over 16 years ago and not raised since, which is about 25% of my market rate. Legal aid rates are lower still.
This means nothing without the figures.
My government rate is 120 an hour, which equates to about 40 net of expenses and taxes. My market rate is 450 an hour, which is about 160 net.

I am lucky, as that's the top rate for government work. Legal aid rates tend to be daily rather than hourly, and are lower.To get net figures, knock off about 30 percent for expenses (more like 60 to 70 per cent for solicitors), and then deduct tax and NI.

Is the million quid on this case, or the firm's overall legal aid income from all cases?

Ozzie Osmond

16,221 posts

132 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
My government rate is 120 an hour, which equates to about 40 net of expenses and taxes. My market rate is 450 an hour, which is about 160 net.

I am lucky, as that's the top rate for government work. Legal aid rates tend to be daily rather than hourly, and are lower.To get net figures, knock off about 30 percent for expenses (more like 60 to 70 per cent for solicitors), and then deduct tax and NI.
Which begs a huge question, what sort of person works for £120 if he can make £450 for the same work?

See also, NHS consultants.

Breadvan72

19,756 posts

49 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
I regard it as a form of public service. My other work subsisdises my government work. The work can be interesting.

NHS Consultants tend to have a strong sense of vocation.

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

62 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
when I represent the government against a terrorist suspect or similar, as I sometimes do,
A couple of questions if you don't mind...

Do you get chosen for these jobs or go after them?

When representing the likes of a terror suspect, particularly, do you generally believe their version of events or suspect they do have something to answer, or do they sometimes let things out in private that convince you that they are lying/likely to be guilty?

If you think they are guilty do you try to steer them or the handling of the case to accomodate/accept and maybe mitigate their 'work' and/or get a preferable sentence or do you defend them as fully as possible even if this means representing things in a certain way or hiding facts etc. to strengthen their plea, to do your job as well as possible - even if this means the outcome seems likely to be, or is in the event, 'wrong'?

Ozzie Osmond

16,221 posts

132 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
I regard it as a form of public service. My other work subsisdises my government work. The work can be interesting.

NHS Consultants tend to have a strong sense of vocation.
This argument holds absolutely no water. Don't the low paid teachers and nurses also claim they do it for the strong sense of vocation?

If lawyers and consultants want to do some real public service they should IMO stop pocketing so much cash, train more young people and share the work.

Breadvan72

19,756 posts

49 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
I do train people, and also do quite a lot of work for free. Do you?

I am not responsible for teachers and nurses and others being underpaid.

PS: I know several NHS consultants, and they are all motivated by a strong public service ethos. Few other people that I know are thus motivated.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 26th September 20:47

spaximus

2,066 posts

139 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
I read that the apeal is because of his mental condition. So he is scared of going where they will ock him away for a long time so now this. Look out for a lenghty investigation as to his mental state. As others have said we are a laughing stock, he should have been sat on a plane waiting the decision and then away he goes. Don't forget when he goes we will still be stumping up for his kids and wife for ever.

Captain Cadillac

2,926 posts

73 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Such a waste.

A bullet behind the ear is much cheaper.

whoami

9,678 posts

126 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
I do train people, and also do quite a lot of work for free. Do you?

I am not responsible for teachers and nurses and others being underpaid.

PS: I know several NHS consultants, and they are all motivated by a strong public service ethos. Few other people that I know are thus motivated.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 26th September 20:47
Well, it's a subjective view but then again, I know several who are not at all motivated by a public service ethos at all.

Breadvan72

19,756 posts

49 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Lost_BMW said:
Breadvan72 said:
when I represent the government against a terrorist suspect or similar, as I sometimes do,
A couple of questions if you don't mind...

Do you get chosen for these jobs or go after them?

When representing the likes of a terror suspect, particularly, do you generally believe their version of events or suspect they do have something to answer, or do they sometimes let things out in private that convince you that they are lying/likely to be guilty?

If you think they are guilty do you try to steer them or the handling of the case to accomodate/accept and maybe mitigate their 'work' and/or get a preferable sentence or do you defend them as fully as possible even if this means representing things in a certain way or hiding facts etc. to strengthen their plea, to do your job as well as possible - even if this means the outcome seems likely to be, or is in the event, 'wrong'?
Please read my post more carefully. I don't represent terrorist suspects, but I have represented the government against a couple (in judicial review cases). I, like all barristers, am a taxi on a rank, and don't choose my work. I don't do criminal work at all, and so have never had to defend someone accused of a crime, but it is not a lawyer's job to decide on guilt. A conscientious lawyer does his or her best to represent a client but without misleading the court. Not all lawyers are conscientious, but some are; probably more than the public think.

Breadvan72

19,756 posts

49 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Dr Johnson put it better than I can:-

Boswell: "But what do you think of supporting a cause which you know to be bad?" Johnson: "Sir, you do not know it to be good or bad until the judge determines it. I have said that you are to state facts fairly; so that your thinking, or what you call knowing, a cause to be bad, must be from reasoning, must be from your supposing your arguments to be weak and inconclusive. But, Sir, that is not enough. An argument which does not convince yourself, may convince the Judge to which you urge it; and if it does convince him, why, then, Sir, you are wrong and he is right. It is his business to judge; and you are not to be confident in your own opinion that a cause is bad, but to say all you can for your client, and then hear the Judge's opinion." Boswell: "But, Sir, does not affecting a warmth when you have no warmth, and appearing to be clearly of one opinion, when you are in reality of another opinion, does not such dissimulation impair one's honesty? Is there not some danger that a lawyer may put on the same mask in common life, in the intercourse with friends?" Johnson: "Why no, Sir. Everybody knows you are paid for affecting warmth for your client; and it is, therefore, properly no dissimulation: the moment you come from the bar you resume your usual behaviour. Sir, a man will no more carry the artifice of the bar into the common intercourse of society, than a man who is paid for tumbling upon his hands will continue to tumble on his hands when he should walk on his feet."

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

62 months

[news] 
Wednesday 26th September 2012 quote quote all
Breadvan72 said:
Lost_BMW said:
Breadvan72 said:
when I represent the government against a terrorist suspect or similar, as I sometimes do,
A couple of questions if you don't mind...

Do you get chosen for these jobs or go after them?

When representing the likes of a terror suspect, particularly, do you generally believe their version of events or suspect they do have something to answer, or do they sometimes let things out in private that convince you that they are lying/likely to be guilty?

If you think they are guilty do you try to steer them or the handling of the case to accomodate/accept and maybe mitigate their 'work' and/or get a preferable sentence or do you defend them as fully as possible even if this means representing things in a certain way or hiding facts etc. to strengthen their plea, to do your job as well as possible - even if this means the outcome seems likely to be, or is in the event, 'wrong'?
Please read my post more carefully. I don't represent terrorist suspects, but I have represented the government against a couple (in judicial review cases). I, like all barristers, am a taxi on a rank, and don't choose my work. I don't do criminal work at all, and so have never had to defend someone accused of a crime, but it is not a lawyer's job to decide on guilt. A conscientious lawyer does his or her best to represent a client but without misleading the court. Not all lawyers are conscientious, but some are; probably more than the public think.
Oh, sorry, flitting between screens/work/Ph too quickly and skim read - badly.
1 2
4 5 ... 32 33
Reply to Topic