Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms

[singlecoil]

RYH64E said:

The universities and colleges are turning out loads of law graduates, most of whom will have taken on significant debt to pay for their degree, they have good reason to feel let down imo.

The same could be said for any line of work, the demand for which is drying up. On the point about debt, is it not the case that they don't have to pay it back unless or until their earnings rise above a certain level?

[RYH64E]

PRTVR said:

but is that not the case with most degrees, there just isn't the work out there.

Indeed, it's ridiculous to think that sending 50% of children to university would mean that 50% of available jobs would become graduate jobs. All that's happened is that we have a large number of heavily indebted, over qualified, unemployed (or at best, under employed) young adults. Madness.

When I went to university, 30 years ago, a degree of almost any kind had a value in the jobs market. Today, kids need a good degree, in a good subject, from a good university, in order to have any chance of differentiating themselves from their peers.

[McWigglebum4th]

RYH64E said:

PRTVR said:

but is that not the case with most degrees, there just isn't the work out there.

Indeed, it's ridiculous to think that sending 50% of children to university would mean that 50% of available jobs would become graduate jobs. All that's happened is that we have a large number of heavily indebted, over qualified, unemployed (or at best, under employed) young adults. Madness.

When I went to university, 30 years ago, a degree of almost any kind had a value in the jobs market. Today, kids need a good degree, in a good subject, from a good university, in order to have any chance of differentiating themselves from their peers.

And those that don't have a degree are viewed as worthless

[RYH64E]

McWigglebum4th said:

And those that don't have a degree are viewed as worthless

At least they're not dismissed as over qualified when they apply for the jobs that are out there (and contrary to popular belief, there are jobs out there).

[Countdown]

Jasandjules said:

Quite right.

So should doctors, MPs, Plumbers, Electricians etc..

Problem solved.

You make an interesting point.

If any of those groups insisted that their funding stream HAD to be be maintained at a certain level "for the Public Good" would you not be a tad suspicious about the real motives?

It's lik Bob Crow claiming to be concerned about Public Safety when LU propose reductions in workforce. No it isn't you transparent tit, you're concerned primarily about the earnings of your members and indirectly about the loss in subscription income.

[Jasandjules]

Countdown said:

If any of those groups insisted that their funding stream HAD to be be maintained at a certain level "for the Public Good" would you not be a tad suspicious about the real motives?

You do realise how much legal aid rates are don't you?

[Countdown]

Jasandjules said:

You do realise how much legal aid rates are don't you?

I have a vague idea (my eldest is a trainee solicitor). However my view is that we need to prioritise public spending and, in my view, I don't think legal aid is a priority. The fact that it's the legal profession who are doing so much of the "protesting" makes me a bit cynical.

[singlecoil]

Countdown said:

Jasandjules said:

You do realise how much legal aid rates are don't you?

I have a vague idea (my eldest is a trainee solicitor). However my view is that we need to prioritise public spending and, in my view, I don't think legal aid is a priority. The fact that it's the legal profession who are doing so much of the "protesting" makes me a bit cynical.

Not only that, but there has been a noticeable degree of arrogance in the pronouncements made by the legal lobby in support of their desire to be exempted from the cutbacks that have been affecting everybody else.

[RYH64E]

Countdown said:

I have a vague idea (my eldest is a trainee solicitor). However my view is that we need to prioritise public spending and, in my view, I don't think legal aid is a priority. The fact that it's the legal profession who are doing so much of the "protesting" makes me a bit cynical.

If asked to rank in order of importance things like health care, education, legal aid, housing, food, etc, I think legal aid would come bottom of the list. It may be desirable, but it's not as fundamental as the other basic services and could usefully be trimmed back (a lot, imo). I'm not saying that legal aid should be abolished, or that it isn't useful to many people, but personally - I'd cut it right back.

[10 Pence Short]

singlecoil said:

Not only that, but there has been a noticeable degree of arrogance in the pronouncements made by the legal lobby in support of their desire to be exempted from the cutbacks that have been affecting everybody else.

The biggest victims of the cutbacks won't be lawyers.

There are a far greater number of people who cannot afford representation in court who will not now get justice. This could be criminal or civil.

Turning it to a crusade of envy against lawyers earning money is missing the point entirely.

[singlecoil]

10 Pence Short said:

singlecoil said:

Not only that, but there has been a noticeable degree of arrogance in the pronouncements made by the legal lobby in support of their desire to be exempted from the cutbacks that have been affecting everybody else.

The biggest victims of the cutbacks won't be lawyers.

There are a far greater number of people who cannot afford representation in court who will not now get justice. This could be criminal or civil.

Turning it to a crusade of envy against lawyers earning money is missing the point entirely.

If anyone was doing that, then they would indeed be missing the point. Always handy to have someone state the bleeding obvious.

[anonymous-user]

Pat H said:

...

I was never really bothered that I was only paid half what I might get as a commerical lawyer. Criminal advocacy was a vocation that I enjoyed.

Representing child molesters was never much fun, but looking after society's lost souls was quite satisfying. The mentally ill, the addicts, those with learning difficulties etc all needed a voice, even if their behaviour was often reprehensible.

I've been doing it for the thick end of twenty years.

But a couple of months ago I cashed in my chips and walked away from it.

Pat, thanks for sticking with the thankless task for so long. You won't win many plaudits here on PH for providing a service to the flotsam of society, but someone has to do it, if we are to call ourselves civilised, and some of us at least are grateful to you for your efforts.

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

Not only that, but there has been a noticeable degree of arrogance in the pronouncements made by the legal lobby in support of their desire to be exempted from the cutbacks that have been affecting everybody else.

SC, that simply is not the argument that is being made. Please take the time to explore what the real issues in the debate are. Crude caricatures of the arguments on any issue take the debate nowhere.

[singlecoil]

Breadvan72 said:

singlecoil said:

Not only that, but there has been a noticeable degree of arrogance in the pronouncements made by the legal lobby in support of their desire to be exempted from the cutbacks that have been affecting everybody else.

SC, that simply is not the argument that is being made. Please take the time to explore what the real issues in the debate are. Crude caricatures of the arguments on any issue take the debate nowhere.

Irony of the first magnitude!

Thank you for so clearly reinforcing my point.

[XCP]

Breadvan72 said:

Pat, thanks for sticking with the thankless task for so long. You won't win many plaudits here on PH for providing a service to the flotsam of society, but someone has to do it, if we are to call ourselves civilised, and some of us at least are grateful to you for your efforts.

The trouble is that a lot of the flotsam cases involve defending the indefensible, often at huge public cost. I recall a 2 day CC trial for a man stealing a blazer. He had over 100 previous for theft and kindred offences and I recovered the stolen item from his wardrobe, the offence having been witnessed by a store detective through a 2 way mirror. When this sort of nonsense occupies 2 barristers and a court for 2 days, one wonders how on earth the country can afford it. Run your stupid NG plea if you like, but don't expect the tax payer to fund it, would be my answer.
The flotsam don't care, it is as much a benefit to the feckless as any other. It's the people in the middle who cannot afford representation and do not get legal aid who suffer. Which includes me and virtually everyone I know.

[PRTVR]

XCP said:

Breadvan72 said:

Pat, thanks for sticking with the thankless task for so long. You won't win many plaudits here on PH for providing a service to the flotsam of society, but someone has to do it, if we are to call ourselves civilised, and some of us at least are grateful to you for your efforts.

The trouble is that a lot of the flotsam cases involve defending the indefensible, often at huge public cost. I recall a 2 day CC trial for a man stealing a blazer. He had over 100 previous for theft and kindred offences and I recovered the stolen item from his wardrobe, the offence having been witnessed by a store detective through a 2 way mirror. When this sort of nonsense occupies 2 barristers and a court for 2 days, one wonders how on earth the country can afford it. Run your stupid NG plea if you like, but don't expect the tax payer to fund it, would be my answer.
The flotsam don't care, it is as much a benefit to the feckless as any other. It's the people in the middle who cannot afford representation and do not get legal aid who suffer. Which includes me and virtually everyone I know.

Very well said, just had a look at the legal aid site, if I was claiming asylum I could have an income of £2600 a month and still get aid. (On the right hand side of the page is a link to eligibility)

https://www.gov.uk/legal-aid/overview

[Pat H]

XCP said:

The trouble is that a lot of the flotsam cases involve defending the indefensible, often at huge public cost.

Yep.

The prospect of paying privately soon focuses the mind.

Would sir rather pay a £150 for a quick guilty plea in the magistrates court or perhaps £2000 to elect trial in the Crown?

But those on benefits make up such a large proportion of the punters that the prospect of having to pay rarely enters the equation.

And many of them have lived a lifetime on benefits and have no concern for what publicly funded services cost.

Stipes and Judges often put a huge amount of pressure on punters to put their hands up, which is fair enough.

But until you remove the right to plead not guilty, then there will always be some who want a trial. A few might even be innocent.

It isn't, however, the two day theft trials which are the real problem, expensive though they are.

It is the huge drugs conspiracies. Several defendants, tens of thousands of pages of evidence, long trials. The legal aid bill for each solicitor can be over £50k. And there might be ten defendants, each separately represented. Then there are the barristers. And the cost of running the courts. The total costs are eyewatering.

The overwhelming majority of criminal cases, however, are dealt with as guilty pleas in the magistrates courts. Of those that are legally aided, the cost to the fund is typically a fixed fee of £220+VAT. That represents really good value for the taxpayer.

It is pretty clear that the current legal aid spend isn't sustainable. What is important is to make sure the cuts are focused and not just imposed across the board.

But I have no expectation that this will happen.

[Jasandjules]

And how many innocent people will plead guilty because they can't afford it?

In much the same way as they try with Speeding cases etc.

[XCP]

Jasandjules said:

And how many innocent people will plead guilty because they can't afford it?

In much the same way as they try with Speeding cases etc.

I can't afford legal representation. I would not get legal aid. Does that mean I would plead to something I haven't done? Nonsense.

[escargot]

XCP said:

Jasandjules said:

And how many innocent people will plead guilty because they can't afford it?

In much the same way as they try with Speeding cases etc.

I can't afford legal representation. I would not get legal aid. Does that mean I would plead to something I haven't done? Nonsense.

Even if they made it clear that by pleading guilty you would get a suspended sentence, but by pleading not guilty, you were likely to get jail time (if the CPS win obv). Tough decision I'd argue.