Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms
Discussion
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
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.
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
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
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.
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 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?
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.
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!
Just to clarify, the Law Society is the Trade Union for solicitors. It is no longer a regulator. The SRA regulates solicitors, the BSB regulates barristers (the Bar Council is the Trade Union), and various other bodies regulate the various other types of lawyer that exist in the UK. The paid McKenzie Friends are unregulated.
The Ministry of Justice has just been found by the High Court to have acted unfairly and unlawfully in relation to legal aid cuts. The MoJ then tweeted that this is a "technicality". The twittersphere has not reacted well to this.
https://twitter.com/MoJPress/status/51295846421864...
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/sep/19/crimina...
https://twitter.com/MoJPress/status/51295846421864...
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/sep/19/crimina...
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/legal-aid-...
Morale at the criminal bar continues to plummet. 28K after expenses, and hourly rates on some gigs (eg 80 odd quid for a summary trial) that can drop below minimum wage. I am lucky, as I don't do legal aid work, or criminal work of any kind. I would need a much more mahoosive sense of vocation than I possess to do the crim gigs. Luckily, some have that sense of vocation, but I wouldn't blame anyone for Jacking it in.
Morale at the criminal bar continues to plummet. 28K after expenses, and hourly rates on some gigs (eg 80 odd quid for a summary trial) that can drop below minimum wage. I am lucky, as I don't do legal aid work, or criminal work of any kind. I would need a much more mahoosive sense of vocation than I possess to do the crim gigs. Luckily, some have that sense of vocation, but I wouldn't blame anyone for Jacking it in.
Barristers in private practice are self employed. I am not sure what your point is. The article gives the average gross figure and suggests that the average net is 28K. The article is a tad unclear whether that figure is pre tax or post tax. I assume the latter. Either way, these are not big bucks, for people doing a professional job after a long period of training.
The US Public Defender system is notoriously flawed. Miscarriages of justice caused by inadequate representation at trial are quite frequent. Would any such system here be properly funded? The CPS is not properly funded, so what chance that a public defender system would be?
The US Public Defender system is notoriously flawed. Miscarriages of justice caused by inadequate representation at trial are quite frequent. Would any such system here be properly funded? The CPS is not properly funded, so what chance that a public defender system would be?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff