Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms
Discussion
So, not being a lawyer or having any skin in this game, and living in France which has a somewhat dubious law system at the best of times, napoleonic, guilty unless proven otherwise stuff:
It matters not what any other countries spend on their legal Aid, their society is not as bound to a concept of the Law as the Brits have lived under since the Magna Carta. The Americans also spend less on Legal Aid.
Justice should be available to all citizens, and if those citizens cannot afford it then those who can should pay. This is one of those tenets that helps to create a worthwhile society.
As with most things that get interfered with by politicians they refuse to change the system so that it works, instead they try to change the factors within that system. This never works.
There is no doubt that the system needs changing, but few politicians have the cojones to do so.
I do not understand those who do well out of our society and then wish to dismantle the infrastructure that creates that society, and the English legal system is as much a part of the UK's infrastructure as trains, education, policing, etc. It appears that the UK is descending into an I 'm alright jack society in which it is wrong to give back, especially to those we deem " undeserving".
Yes just like any other public service the Legal Aid system should give value for money, but not by denying representation of the finest kind to those who are wronged but poor.
IT appears ok to want to slash public services that affect the poor, such as welfare and legal aid but not on other items , mortgage interest deductions, means testing pensions, means testing child benefit,
( apparently 165,000 high earners who claim child benefit have not registered those payments) means testing winter fuel allowance, etc etc.
THere are huge problems with the way legal aid is distributed, but it is the system that needs looking at.
For a start non citizens should not have access to legal aid. The asylum system should be looked at so that asylum seekers are not eligible, if they are now. You should not need a solicitor to tell you if you need legal aid, that surely can be done cheaper. etc etc
I am off for a verre de vin
It matters not what any other countries spend on their legal Aid, their society is not as bound to a concept of the Law as the Brits have lived under since the Magna Carta. The Americans also spend less on Legal Aid.
Justice should be available to all citizens, and if those citizens cannot afford it then those who can should pay. This is one of those tenets that helps to create a worthwhile society.
As with most things that get interfered with by politicians they refuse to change the system so that it works, instead they try to change the factors within that system. This never works.
There is no doubt that the system needs changing, but few politicians have the cojones to do so.
I do not understand those who do well out of our society and then wish to dismantle the infrastructure that creates that society, and the English legal system is as much a part of the UK's infrastructure as trains, education, policing, etc. It appears that the UK is descending into an I 'm alright jack society in which it is wrong to give back, especially to those we deem " undeserving".
Yes just like any other public service the Legal Aid system should give value for money, but not by denying representation of the finest kind to those who are wronged but poor.
IT appears ok to want to slash public services that affect the poor, such as welfare and legal aid but not on other items , mortgage interest deductions, means testing pensions, means testing child benefit,
( apparently 165,000 high earners who claim child benefit have not registered those payments) means testing winter fuel allowance, etc etc.
THere are huge problems with the way legal aid is distributed, but it is the system that needs looking at.
For a start non citizens should not have access to legal aid. The asylum system should be looked at so that asylum seekers are not eligible, if they are now. You should not need a solicitor to tell you if you need legal aid, that surely can be done cheaper. etc etc
I am off for a verre de vin
santona1937 said:
It matters not what any other countries spend on their legal Aid, their society is not as bound to a concept of the Law as the Brits have lived under since the Magna Carta. The Americans also spend less on Legal Aid.
I do not understand those who do well out of our society and then wish to dismantle the infrastructure that creates that society, and the English legal system is as much a part of the UK's infrastructure as trains, education, policing, etc
PRTVR said:
Something must be wrong if the amount we spend is massively different to everyone else.
Doesn't that rather discount the notion that the extra money we spend to give people proper legal representation is what makes our system better than the others? More expensive? Maybe. Better? Yes.10 Pence Short said:
PRTVR said:
Something must be wrong if the amount we spend is massively different to everyone else.
Doesn't that rather discount the notion that the extra money we spend to give people proper legal representation is what makes our system better than the others? More expensive? Maybe. Better? Yes.Can we prove we have a better system? who is it better for? not your normal taxpayer who is funding it,most of them who are exempt from the service. I feel the whole legal system has lots of faults in it,
I shake my head when I hear things like going to appeal to a higher court, all at the tax payers expense, why can not a verdict just be given and that's it.
10 Pence Short said:
Doesn't that rather discount the notion that the extra money we spend to give people proper legal representation is what makes our system better than the others? More expensive? Maybe. Better? Yes.
The £64m question is "Can we afford better or will adequate suffice?". We don't expect a BUPA-level of service from the NHS or Eton-service from State schools so why should we pay more for legal aid? Btw the £64m question is now only £12 4s 8d (or 34 matabele gumbo beads).
PRTVR said:
10 Pence Short said:
PRTVR said:
Something must be wrong if the amount we spend is massively different to everyone else.
Doesn't that rather discount the notion that the extra money we spend to give people proper legal representation is what makes our system better than the others? More expensive? Maybe. Better? Yes.Can we prove we have a better system? who is it better for? not your normal taxpayer who is funding it,most of them who are exempt from the service. I feel the whole legal system has lots of faults in it,
I shake my head when I hear things like going to appeal to a higher court, all at the tax payers expense, why can not a verdict just be given and that's it.
The current legal aid system is not Rolls Royce, or even Ford. It has already been cut and cut again. The latest round of cuts will make it a broken down old banger. The savings that the cuts will produce are quite small in national budget terms, but may have a disproportionate impact on the whole legal system, not least because more cock ups may occur, producing more appeals, and ultimately cancelling out some of the savings.
Breadvan72 said:
PRTVR said:
10 Pence Short said:
PRTVR said:
Something must be wrong if the amount we spend is massively different to everyone else.
Doesn't that rather discount the notion that the extra money we spend to give people proper legal representation is what makes our system better than the others? More expensive? Maybe. Better? Yes.Can we prove we have a better system? who is it better for? not your normal taxpayer who is funding it,most of them who are exempt from the service. I feel the whole legal system has lots of faults in it,
I shake my head when I hear things like going to appeal to a higher court, all at the tax payers expense, why can not a verdict just be given and that's it.
The current legal aid system is not Rolls Royce, or even Ford. It has already been cut and cut again. The latest round of cuts will make it a broken down old banger. The savings that the cuts will produce are quite small in national budget terms, but may have a disproportionate impact on the whole legal system, not least because more cock ups may occur, producing more appeals, and ultimately cancelling out some of the savings.
You say its hard to win on appeal, then could it be considered a waste of money, yes Courts make mistakes but the numbers are small, I wonder would the clients be going to appeal if they had to pay for it, I do think they should be a filter on who gets legal aid.
Jasandjules said:
PRTVR said:
A fine sentiment, but can we afford a Rolls style system, should we not be looking at a Ford grade system, cuts are being made in lots of areas, I do not think the legal side should be exempt.
Would you still think this if you were accused of a serious crime?PRTVR said:
If Was accused of a serious crime I would not be entitled to legal aid, the same as most tax paying people of the UK, so the argument is about the level of service that should be made available to people who are unable to pay, some think its wrong to only allow a minimum representation, myself I think if I was not paying why would I expect anything but a basic service.
Oh well if you feel only the rich deserve to have justice - fair enough.I personally believe we are all entitled to justice.
Quite a few people appear to adopt the position that because they would not be eligible for legal aid, no one else should be either. Whilst I agree that legal aid should in an ideal world be available to a wider income group than it is at present, I don't think that a policy based on "if I can't have it then nor can you" would be very principled.
santona1937 said:
...
For a start non citizens should not have access to legal aid. The asylum system should be looked at so that asylum seekers are not eligible, if they are now. You should not need a solicitor to tell you if you need legal aid, that surely can be done cheaper. etc etc
....
What if a non citizen is accused of a serious crime? Why should he or she not have access to a defence?For a start non citizens should not have access to legal aid. The asylum system should be looked at so that asylum seekers are not eligible, if they are now. You should not need a solicitor to tell you if you need legal aid, that surely can be done cheaper. etc etc
....
As for assessing need, what system do you propose?
Jasandjules said:
PRTVR said:
If Was accused of a serious crime I would not be entitled to legal aid, the same as most tax paying people of the UK, so the argument is about the level of service that should be made available to people who are unable to pay, some think its wrong to only allow a minimum representation, myself I think if I was not paying why would I expect anything but a basic service.
Oh well if you feel only the rich deserve to have justice - fair enough.I personally believe we are all entitled to justice.
I was not saying there should be no legal aid ,just it should be a limited service,
Perhaps we are in a society were only the poor can afford justice, I was reading about DLT selling his house, using all his savings to attempt to prove he is innocent, but if it keeps going at least when he has been made poor by the legal system he will get legal aid.
PRTVR said:
If Was accused of a serious crime I would not be entitled to legal aid, the same as most tax paying people of the UK, so the argument is about the level of service that should be made available to people who are unable to pay, some think its wrong to only allow a minimum representation, myself I think if I was not paying why would I expect anything but a basic service.
This is simply not true. All people will get Legal Aid for serious crimes, some may have to pay a contribution and some may have to pay the costs if found guilty, but all are entitled. 95% of all criminal work is Legal Aid work, the other 5% are either idiots as they get the same quality of lawyer as if they went privately, or do not want the government prying into their finances to see if they should contribute, wonder why they would not want that? The rules are changing so those with very high disposable income can't get legal aid but the amount is something ridiculous like £30k disposable income which very few people in the UK will have. The latest proposed changes (not LASPO) are all about cutting the cost of Criminal work not the volume of work itself or any ones eligibility (none of the propose eligibility will actually apply to anyone, there only there as political sops to the Daily Mail).
Lot of miss-information being put out by those who want the gravy train to keep going, no-one else cares because these changes will not effect them or anyone else they know.
All publicly funded services should be ONLY basic.
If a premium service would be for the good of the majority of the country, like certain educational institutions, then fine. otherwise, not.
Reform the court system so the magistrates investigate (as in Europe) and get rid of most lawyers/barristers
There should be no right to sue for any publicly provided service. Create an accident compensation fund like in New Zealand.
Stop the gravy train with my hard earned taxes!
If a premium service would be for the good of the majority of the country, like certain educational institutions, then fine. otherwise, not.
Reform the court system so the magistrates investigate (as in Europe) and get rid of most lawyers/barristers
There should be no right to sue for any publicly provided service. Create an accident compensation fund like in New Zealand.
Stop the gravy train with my hard earned taxes!
Should the NHS provide only basic services? Should we apply a majority benefit test to healthcare for non productive people such as the elderly or long term disabled? What about treatments for rare illnesses that affect just a few people? Let those people die?
Do you not think that an effective criminal justice system provides a public benefit?
Have you any experience of how the French legal system works? I have, and would say that it is not what we would regard as a fair system. It gives a lot of power to the State, and is inimical to British traditions of rights and liberties. Have you followed the Amanda Knox case in Italy? Would you like us to have that system?
If a public body breaks the law, or inflicts harm through carelessness (or even deliberately), should there be no right to sue? Do you think that governments would act with restraint if not subject to any balancing by courts? How does that work out in countries that have no judicial review of government action?
If you get rid of most lawyers (and, BTW, barristers are lawyers), do you suppose that market prices (where the market operates - it does not in the legal aid context) will rise or fall?
Is a trained graduate professional who, after several years of expensive training, earns about 30K-60K a year a gravy guzzler?
(I add that luckily for me I get my gravy from the private sector, which pays me a good market rate based on the market's estimation of my price. I have zero reliance on legal aid and (nowadays) almost no public sector clients, but I care about legal aid because I care about stuff that does not affect me financially but affects our society.)
Do you not think that an effective criminal justice system provides a public benefit?
Have you any experience of how the French legal system works? I have, and would say that it is not what we would regard as a fair system. It gives a lot of power to the State, and is inimical to British traditions of rights and liberties. Have you followed the Amanda Knox case in Italy? Would you like us to have that system?
If a public body breaks the law, or inflicts harm through carelessness (or even deliberately), should there be no right to sue? Do you think that governments would act with restraint if not subject to any balancing by courts? How does that work out in countries that have no judicial review of government action?
If you get rid of most lawyers (and, BTW, barristers are lawyers), do you suppose that market prices (where the market operates - it does not in the legal aid context) will rise or fall?
Is a trained graduate professional who, after several years of expensive training, earns about 30K-60K a year a gravy guzzler?
(I add that luckily for me I get my gravy from the private sector, which pays me a good market rate based on the market's estimation of my price. I have zero reliance on legal aid and (nowadays) almost no public sector clients, but I care about legal aid because I care about stuff that does not affect me financially but affects our society.)
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 9th March 08:24
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff