Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms
Discussion
TKF said:
NicD said:
. Two out of three of my life partners were lawyers.
Why call them life partners? They obviously weren't 
ETA Divorcing a lawyer sounds akin to playing tonsil hockey with a Great White Shark. Anybody who does it twice must have balls as big as.... Sorry I've run out of metaphors.....
ETA Buster Gonads!! (Phew, remembered in the nick of time
)Edited by Countdown on Monday 10th March 21:04
My team have been busy reviewing the latest changes to legal aid because CMD has now become aware these effect his bothers lively hood.
Anyone that cares about Democracy/Anti corruption in the UK should pencil FOI requests asking for access to emails that occured on this Thursday afternoon between the cabinet office and senior civil servants at the MoJ.
The proposed changes I have seen remove the hated high cost case scheme and guarantee high earnings for the most senior barristers but sacrifice earnings for more junior advocates.
Go UK!
Anyone that cares about Democracy/Anti corruption in the UK should pencil FOI requests asking for access to emails that occured on this Thursday afternoon between the cabinet office and senior civil servants at the MoJ.
The proposed changes I have seen remove the hated high cost case scheme and guarantee high earnings for the most senior barristers but sacrifice earnings for more junior advocates.
Go UK!
PlankWithANailIn said:
My team have been busy reviewing the latest changes to legal aid because CMD has now become aware these effect his bothers lively hood.
Anyone that cares about Democracy/Anti corruption in the UK should pencil FOI requests asking for access to emails that occured on this Thursday afternoon between the cabinet office and senior civil servants at the MoJ.
The proposed changes I have seen remove the hated high cost case scheme and guarantee high earnings for the most senior barristers but sacrifice earnings for more junior advocates.
Go UK!
Can someone make this understandable please?Anyone that cares about Democracy/Anti corruption in the UK should pencil FOI requests asking for access to emails that occured on this Thursday afternoon between the cabinet office and senior civil servants at the MoJ.
The proposed changes I have seen remove the hated high cost case scheme and guarantee high earnings for the most senior barristers but sacrifice earnings for more junior advocates.
Go UK!
There will be another review of Criminal Legal Aid published in a few weeks so its likely these changes will be rolled into the outcome of these findings.
Delaying cuts to the junior Bar is unexpected but these proposals were for a couple of % on top of cuts already written into law of about 15%.
Still not sure what's happening to VHCC as the latest proposals I have seen, to just fund them as normal cases, would have resulted in a further 30% cut when they were intended to be cost neutral. Must be a tough time to work in policy at the MoJ!
The interim payments for Solicitors looks good until take into account how they work and how solicitors bill. Currently for these schemes solicitors for reason known only to themselves take on average 2 months to request payment after completion of work, it then takes the LAA about 20 days to process them. The interim bill rules mean they can now submit a request for payment about 10 days earlier on average than they can now i.e. they could get better cash flow by just getting off their arses and billing for the work they have done as soon as they can.
Delaying cuts to the junior Bar is unexpected but these proposals were for a couple of % on top of cuts already written into law of about 15%.
Still not sure what's happening to VHCC as the latest proposals I have seen, to just fund them as normal cases, would have resulted in a further 30% cut when they were intended to be cost neutral. Must be a tough time to work in policy at the MoJ!
The interim payments for Solicitors looks good until take into account how they work and how solicitors bill. Currently for these schemes solicitors for reason known only to themselves take on average 2 months to request payment after completion of work, it then takes the LAA about 20 days to process them. The interim bill rules mean they can now submit a request for payment about 10 days earlier on average than they can now i.e. they could get better cash flow by just getting off their arses and billing for the work they have done as soon as they can.
Edited by PlankWithANailIn on Thursday 27th March 19:36
To me, that means we must simplify and radically speed up the system, NOT pay for more legal parasites.
And if the 'justice' is not always perfect, well then that is life. It isn't always fair and we all understand that.
After all, for most of us tax payers who would never qualify for legal aid, we would rather cut off our arm than take a case to court.
What a crazy hide bound country this is.
And if the 'justice' is not always perfect, well then that is life. It isn't always fair and we all understand that.
After all, for most of us tax payers who would never qualify for legal aid, we would rather cut off our arm than take a case to court.
What a crazy hide bound country this is.
Children are being exposed more often and for longer to bitter disputes and uncertainty because their warring parents have no legal advice and cases take longer to resolve, but this does not have any effect on your life, so you say tough luck. A person with relevant training and experience who could help make the dispute less bitter and less protracted (a person who does so for payment - I assume you always work for nothing, by the way) is in your view simply a "parasite". How do you propose to speed up a system in which a lot of angry and inarticulate people are arguing with one another, with no one to give them objective advice?
I thought I explained that, at least the approach.
Take away the adversarial system. Have a state sponsored advocate investigate and decide the outcome for the good of the child.
Reduce the possible appeal process to the minimum.
Use a process and engineering approach.
Don't know why i bother, this country will forever be rooted in the unfair past.
Frankly, i just want to keep away from the bureaucratic, top heavy, self congratulatory numpties who 'run' the country. To name only a few, the 'lords and 'ladies, the quanqocrats, MPs, judges, and not forgetting the businessmen and charity bosses who live it up large.
Nic
Take away the adversarial system. Have a state sponsored advocate investigate and decide the outcome for the good of the child.
Reduce the possible appeal process to the minimum.
Use a process and engineering approach.
Don't know why i bother, this country will forever be rooted in the unfair past.
Frankly, i just want to keep away from the bureaucratic, top heavy, self congratulatory numpties who 'run' the country. To name only a few, the 'lords and 'ladies, the quanqocrats, MPs, judges, and not forgetting the businessmen and charity bosses who live it up large.
Nic
I suggest that you do some research on systems that operate as you suggest. They aren't better than the system here. In any event, even in continental systems, the process works more quickly and efficiently (which makes it cheaper for the public purse) when the parties have access to advice and representation, and it is usual for them to have this. Those systems have lots of lawyers, and they tend in my experience to be less efficient than English lawyers. You appear to have a view of how the UK is governed that verges on a teenage caricature, but who do you suggest should run the country? Paul Dacre?
Breadvan72 said:
Come up with some arguments based on evidence and experience rather than ignorance, prejudice and tabloidy nonsense, and people might take what you say more seriously.
are you 'people'?I almost descended to your pompous, personal and insulting style, but frankly haven't got the time.
You keep telling yourself this country has the best legal system in the world, one that cannot be improved or provided to more in a cost effective fashion.
NicD said:
are you 'people'?
I almost descended to your pompous, personal and insulting style, but frankly haven't got the time.
You keep telling yourself this country has the best legal system in the world, one that cannot be improved or provided to more in a cost effective fashion.
Point of order; the English legal system generally is considered the benchmark for legal systems. For example, why do you think Russian Oligarchs choose London for their multi-billion pound disputes?I almost descended to your pompous, personal and insulting style, but frankly haven't got the time.
You keep telling yourself this country has the best legal system in the world, one that cannot be improved or provided to more in a cost effective fashion.
I never said that the system is perfect or cannot be improved. The system has many flaws and is subject to abuses and errors, but it works far better than tabloid reporting suggests. It's not just oligarchs but also international corporations that choose the English legal system to resolve their disputes, generating millions of pounds of invisible export earnings, employment, and tax revenue. This to you is all just parasitism, I gather.
I add that the law is not just for oligarchs and large corporations. It's also for the victim of domestic abuse, the tenant unlawfully evicted, the genuine refugee threatened with deportation, the genuinely disabled person wrongly deprived of benefits, and so on, and those people are losing access to legal services and therefore access to justice.
I add that the law is not just for oligarchs and large corporations. It's also for the victim of domestic abuse, the tenant unlawfully evicted, the genuine refugee threatened with deportation, the genuinely disabled person wrongly deprived of benefits, and so on, and those people are losing access to legal services and therefore access to justice.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 31st March 07:33
Karma versus Dogma?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/1300...
Lawyers, eh? Total scumbags. Until you happen to need one.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/1300...
Lawyers, eh? Total scumbags. Until you happen to need one.
t right?http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/culture-chang...
Why bother with those tiresome lawyers with their years of training, independent statutory regulation, compulsory insurance against negligence, code of professional conduct, compulsory refresher training, and all that blah? Just pay someone who is untrained, unregulated, uninsured, and subject to no code of professional behaviour. Plan!
Why bother with those tiresome lawyers with their years of training, independent statutory regulation, compulsory insurance against negligence, code of professional conduct, compulsory refresher training, and all that blah? Just pay someone who is untrained, unregulated, uninsured, and subject to no code of professional behaviour. Plan!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff