Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms
Discussion
NicD said:
Stop the gravy train with my hard earned taxes!
The oddity about that particular gravy is that it's spread so unfairly. As such, I have little time for it. DLT has been acquitted - says he had to sell his house to pay the lawyers.
To my mind the worst aspect of the system is not just the "per hour" costs but the sheer length of time taken up by trials. It's all very well huge companies suing each other for billions and spending months in court but that's no use whatsoever to the general population. IMO there should for most cases, criminal and civil, be a short and fixed period of time for each side to make its case.
Take, for example, the Lee Rigby killings. How much taxpayer money was spent on lengthy court hearings? Three full weeks of paying judge, lawyers for both sides, police, etc etc. Then the jury delivered their "guilty" verdicts almost instantly.
Large companies suing each other for bazillions make up one of the UK's invisible export markets. London is a commercial litigation centre for companies from all over the World, because the legal system is seen as fair and efficient in comparison with those available elsewhere. The London legal market employs thousands of people (not just lawyers) and generates a lot of economic activity and tax revenue. Oligarchs sue each other here because both sides know that neither side can bribe the Judge.
Guillotines and time limits are employed in civil cases, but when dealing with criminal cases the system tends to allow defendants to run out rope in order to avoid allegations of unfairness. The Rigby murderers were just grandstanding for their foolish and doomed ideology. It did them no good. Putting up with such nonsense is a fairly small price to pay for being mostly free.
Guillotines and time limits are employed in civil cases, but when dealing with criminal cases the system tends to allow defendants to run out rope in order to avoid allegations of unfairness. The Rigby murderers were just grandstanding for their foolish and doomed ideology. It did them no good. Putting up with such nonsense is a fairly small price to pay for being mostly free.
I have seen a career thief with over 100 convictions opt for crown court trial for shoplifting, to value of less than £100. A 2 day trial ensued, which I sat through, at the end of which he was found guilty ( surprise surprise). There was no discernible defence offered. It is farces like this that are a complete waste of public funds.
Breadvan72 said:
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?
>> Please relate this to a 'basic' service. No one needs to die before their time. If we save s
tloads on public 'service' managers, law suits, judges, overseas aid, assorted ponces etc, there will be more for those genuine deserving and in need.
Do you not think that an effective criminal justice system provides a public benefit?
>> Please demonstrate that Britain has an effective legal system - certainly NOT cost effective.
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?
>> Smoke and mirrors I am afraid. When an ordinary person needs the our legal system it is not there in any affordable way.
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?
>> There must be strong controls but not any that incentivise legal action and the vultures that tag along.
>> make it criminal with the managers of the public bodies personally liable instead
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?
>> It will settle at the market rate. Since no normal person in their right mind would contemplate legal action in the UK, frankly I don't care.
Is a trained graduate professional who, after several years of expensive training, earns about 30K-60K a year a gravy guzzler?
>> yes, if paid by the state (i.e. from taxation), for a non job
(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.)
>> I am, pleased for you, and enjoy your frequent contributions on PH
>> Please relate this to a 'basic' service. No one needs to die before their time. If we save s
tloads on public 'service' managers, law suits, judges, overseas aid, assorted ponces etc, there will be more for those genuine deserving and in need.Do you not think that an effective criminal justice system provides a public benefit?
>> Please demonstrate that Britain has an effective legal system - certainly NOT cost effective.
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?
>> Smoke and mirrors I am afraid. When an ordinary person needs the our legal system it is not there in any affordable way.
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?
>> There must be strong controls but not any that incentivise legal action and the vultures that tag along.
>> make it criminal with the managers of the public bodies personally liable instead
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?
>> It will settle at the market rate. Since no normal person in their right mind would contemplate legal action in the UK, frankly I don't care.
Is a trained graduate professional who, after several years of expensive training, earns about 30K-60K a year a gravy guzzler?
>> yes, if paid by the state (i.e. from taxation), for a non job
(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.)
>> I am, pleased for you, and enjoy your frequent contributions on PH
Edited by Breadvan72 on Sunday 9th March 08:24
XCP said:
I have seen a career thief with over 100 convictions opt for crown court trial for shoplifting, to value of less than £100. A 2 day trial ensued, which I sat through, at the end of which he was found guilty ( surprise surprise). There was no discernible defence offered. It is farces like this that are a complete waste of public funds.
It was his right to opt for trial by jury. Perhaps some either way offences should be made summary only? I suspect the effect of this, however, would be an increase the instances of appeals to the Crown Court, where there would be an entire retrial in front of judge and a couple of magistrates. That would seem counter productive.NicD, you appear to be very ill informed about the legal system, and appear not to be interested in finding out about what is is for and what it does and does not do, and this rather limits the scope for meaningful discussion.
Your idea of criminalising public sector managers who make mistakes strikes me as a very unhelpful idea.
As for European legal systems, you suggested we should adopt them. I pointed out that they do not work very well. You say that this is smoke and mirrors, but it was you suggestion to adopt those systems, and it is for you to explain how they are better than our system. Some relevant experience or some accurate information about both would be a useful basis for opining, but I suspect that you have neither. I may be wrong.
If we close down the legal system as you appear to suggest, what do you then suggest we install in the economy to replace the economic and tax hole that doing so will create? See above re invisible exports. What shall we do with all those empty office buildings in London and other cities that used to house law firms, and what will happen to all the businesses around them that used to service the law firms and their staff (from stationers to couriers to pubs and cafes)?
Is conducting a criminal trial defending someone who might lose their liberty if you fail a non job? What about prosecuting someone who might be a danger to society if not potted? Have you much experience of doing this work yourself? If not, on what do you base your comment? I only do civil trials, where what is at stake tends to be money or something related to money, rather than liberty, but even though I am quite experienced and reasonably proficient I don't find that work easy. Perhaps that is a non job as well.
As for markets, when a commodity becomes scarce the price of it tends to increase, so having fewer lawyers is not likely to reduce prices.
Your stance seems to be "anything that does not affect me personally is not important". That seems to me a somewhat short sighted way of looking at things.
Your idea of criminalising public sector managers who make mistakes strikes me as a very unhelpful idea.
As for European legal systems, you suggested we should adopt them. I pointed out that they do not work very well. You say that this is smoke and mirrors, but it was you suggestion to adopt those systems, and it is for you to explain how they are better than our system. Some relevant experience or some accurate information about both would be a useful basis for opining, but I suspect that you have neither. I may be wrong.
If we close down the legal system as you appear to suggest, what do you then suggest we install in the economy to replace the economic and tax hole that doing so will create? See above re invisible exports. What shall we do with all those empty office buildings in London and other cities that used to house law firms, and what will happen to all the businesses around them that used to service the law firms and their staff (from stationers to couriers to pubs and cafes)?
Is conducting a criminal trial defending someone who might lose their liberty if you fail a non job? What about prosecuting someone who might be a danger to society if not potted? Have you much experience of doing this work yourself? If not, on what do you base your comment? I only do civil trials, where what is at stake tends to be money or something related to money, rather than liberty, but even though I am quite experienced and reasonably proficient I don't find that work easy. Perhaps that is a non job as well.
As for markets, when a commodity becomes scarce the price of it tends to increase, so having fewer lawyers is not likely to reduce prices.
Your stance seems to be "anything that does not affect me personally is not important". That seems to me a somewhat short sighted way of looking at things.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 9th March 15:26
Breadvan72 said:
NicD, you appear to be very ill informed about the legal system, and appear not to be interested in finding out about what is is for and what it does and does not do, and this rather limits the scope for meaningful discussion.
pompous indeed.Edited by Breadvan72 on Sunday 9th March 15:26
I am very aware, thank you. Two out of three of my life partners were lawyers.
what I am not interested in, is sustaining an expensive failure, more so when the chief beneficiaries are those employed within it.
The UK has far too many who pretend the only important thing is to deliver the ultimate quality to all (because of our proud history etc), while falling far short, and at huge expense with no comeback for abject failure.
We could widen this discussion to include the criminal bankers and their apologists, but they too clever to prance about in public to be ridiculed.
Nic
10 Pence Short said:
It was his right to opt for trial by jury. Perhaps some either way offences should be made summary only? I suspect the effect of this, however, would be an increase the instances of appeals to the Crown Court, where there would be an entire retrial in front of judge and a couple of magistrates. That would seem counter productive.
So in essence you are quite happy for this kind of piss taking to continue. Perhaps when a defendant reaches 30 previous convictions they should lose the right to waste a crown courts time and let the magistrates decide.XCP said:
So in essence you are quite happy for this kind of piss taking to continue. Perhaps when a defendant reaches 30 previous convictions they should lose the right to waste a crown courts time and let the magistrates decide.
How do you know they are not innocent on the 31st time?It is unlikely I accept, but still, I would prefer people not to be jailed because they can't get legal representation.
NicD said:
The UK has far too many who pretend the only important thing is to deliver the ultimate quality to all (because of our proud history etc), while falling far short, and at huge expense with no comeback for abject failure.
Whilst I specifically do not agree with all of your posts in this thread, that particular point is well made.One thing is certain, not everyone gets "ultimate quality" and it often seems to be the least deserving who do benefit. I again draw attention to the massive public expense of the Lee Rigby trial which, in effect, achieved nothing except to state the bleedin' obvious. Namely, the two men who were filmed brutally murdering Lee Rigby, and never denied deliberately killing him, were eventually convicted of .... murdering Lee Rigby.
NicD, I suggest that "two of my exes are lawyers" hardly affords much insight into how the legal system works, at least judging by the sublime tabloidy ignorance of your comments above, but I gather from another thread that you are a 'kipper (I had already inferred from your posts that you might be), so that explains things. Don't let Nige know that you are a fan of le Code Napoleon, as that might sour his pint.
Ozzie, what alternative was there to a trial given that the killers of Fusilier Rigby refused, for political reasons, to plead guilty? If we have a "well we all know they are guilty and it was on the telly and everything, so just get on with it" approach, who decides which cases qualify for that treatment and which don't?
Leave aside for present purposes the symbolic value of a civil society asserting its principles in the face of ideological scumbags who would like to destroy that society, although that value should perhaps not be discounted.
Leave aside for present purposes the symbolic value of a civil society asserting its principles in the face of ideological scumbags who would like to destroy that society, although that value should perhaps not be discounted.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 10th March 12:02
Breadvan72 said:
Ozzie, what alternative was there to a trial given that the killers of Fusilier Rigby refused, for political reasons, to plead guilty?
I agree, probably none - just like the Norwegians with their Anders Breivik nutter. However, this still leaves the problem that large amounts of money are spent on "foregone conclusions" while justice is unavailable for others.Great service for a minority while everyone else is left to fend for themselves doesn't feel right.
Breadvan72 said:
NicD, I suggest that "two of my exes are lawyers" hardly affords much insight into how the legal system works, at least judging by the sublime tabloidy ignorance of your comments above, but I gather from another thread that you are a 'kipper (I had already inferred from your posts that you might be), so that explains things. Don't let Nige know that you are a fan of le Code Napoleon, as that might sour his pint.
I didn't say exes. My current partner has spent her entire working life in the law as CPS and law enforcement.For myself, I indeed have limited experience, this is a blessing when it comes to assessing pros and cons though. I did serve on a two back to back Crown Court juries where I was elected foreman, quite harrowing.
I work in IT. I spend my life analysing and improving process.
The courts (and legislative process) in the UK are an expensive, antiquated joke. I honestly don't where to start, there are so many obvious targets to aim at.
If you don't get it, I am sorry for you.
Re UKIP, my observations are that common sense is paramount, so see no issue with Mr Farage and imported ideas.
What we don't want are spongers flooding in as for the last decade, we want to benefit ourselves, and in return help others.
Nic
and just when you think it can't get worse:
Top judge who was soft on foreign criminals sacked after it emerged he was living with an illegal immigrant
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2577274/To...
Top judge who was soft on foreign criminals sacked after it emerged he was living with an illegal immigrant
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2577274/To...
Jasandjules said:
XCP said:
So in essence you are quite happy for this kind of piss taking to continue. Perhaps when a defendant reaches 30 previous convictions they should lose the right to waste a crown courts time and let the magistrates decide.
How do you know they are not innocent on the 31st time?It is unlikely I accept, but still, I would prefer people not to be jailed because they can't get legal representation.
Top Daily Mailing skillz! An Immigration Judge is hardly a "Top Judge". That bloke sounds like a wazzock. Naturally his case proves that the whole system is utterly broken. Is that how it works in IT? One computer has a wobbly, so we'd better throw away the whole network and import an even more broken one from Europe.
There is much that is wrong with the legal system here, but it is far more functional than the tabloids want the credulous types who read tabloids to believe. Does your CPS partner think it a good idea to have low paid and underskilled defence lawyers clogging up the system? Have you looked at how that approach works in the US? Will that serve society and make things run smoother and cheaper overall? I doubt it.
There is much that is wrong with the legal system here, but it is far more functional than the tabloids want the credulous types who read tabloids to believe. Does your CPS partner think it a good idea to have low paid and underskilled defence lawyers clogging up the system? Have you looked at how that approach works in the US? Will that serve society and make things run smoother and cheaper overall? I doubt it.
You really do not want le Code Napoleon if you want to save money and maintain fairness ( although technically the Napoleonic code only applies to civil cases, Le Code Penal applies to criminal law) Aside from anything else there is often a trial before the trial to determine which law applies, as there is no reliance on unwritten or case law.
Also Investigating judges can hold folks on remand for as long as they wish with no trial date set, and no evidence of guilt required.
I cannot recall the exact case but a judge in the last few years ( 2006/7/8) held 13 people on remand for 3 years while investigating their case. They were all found innocent IIRC. It has been in the local papers here recently as part of a discussion about legal reforms.
Also Investigating judges can hold folks on remand for as long as they wish with no trial date set, and no evidence of guilt required.
I cannot recall the exact case but a judge in the last few years ( 2006/7/8) held 13 people on remand for 3 years while investigating their case. They were all found innocent IIRC. It has been in the local papers here recently as part of a discussion about legal reforms.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff