'Legal aid is not for foreigners to fight cases..'
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
NicD, no win no fee can help a bit, but, even leaving aside the deleterious effects it may have on professional ethics and judgment, a no win no fee business needs critical mass to be economic, and doesn't work if the case is difficult and risky. Assume that the Polish worker has a case that is essentially meritorious but faces a legal obstacle because of a badly drafted regulation. His case might need to be argued up to appeal level. The no win no fee shop may say no thanks, too much commercial risk.
'professional ethics and judgment' ho ho hoYour poor Polish chap suffering from a 'badly drafted regulation' would be out of luck if he couldn't pay or convince someone of his case, just like I would be.
Unless of course, one of your colleagues did some pro bono work
Coming from another country, he is likely used to much worse than this.
If the world was indeed universally fair, I would have no problem. Unfortunately, it is over fair to the wealthy and connected and strangely enough, the strident 'poor'
The middle (and top rate) pays for this charade yet benefits little.
So, should we just lower our standards to those of less developed countries? Why not apply that to plumbing? Hey, lots of people have no clean water; we could all get used to it. Or do we just say: low standards are OK for foreigners, they're used to it, but better stuff for us, please?
Legal aid used to be available to people in the middle, but years of cuts have indeed reduced to it the level where only the very poor can get it. Is the answer, however, to say "because I can't have it, no one should have it"? That question can be applied to a variety of social issues, not just legal aid.
PS: pro bono - I reckon that I and my colleagues are doing a fair chunk more pro bono work these days than we did, say, ten or twenty years ago. That may be just because we CBA more, but I suspect that it's because there's more need for it now.
Legal aid used to be available to people in the middle, but years of cuts have indeed reduced to it the level where only the very poor can get it. Is the answer, however, to say "because I can't have it, no one should have it"? That question can be applied to a variety of social issues, not just legal aid.
PS: pro bono - I reckon that I and my colleagues are doing a fair chunk more pro bono work these days than we did, say, ten or twenty years ago. That may be just because we CBA more, but I suspect that it's because there's more need for it now.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 21st April 08:26
Breadvan72 said:
So, should we just lower our standards to those of less developed countries? Legal aid used to be available to people in the middle, but years of cuts have indeed reduced to it the level where only the very poor can get it. Is the answer, however, to say "because I can't have it, no one should have it"? That question can be applied to a variety of social issues, not just legal aid.
yes, that is it exactly.Britain can't afford grandiose delusions as there are no longer colonies.
The odd bit of pomp and circumstance is fine but not the troughing. Has to stop.
NicD, can we apply that across the board? Let's assume that you don't use social services. So, why should they exist? Some of us can afford to buy private health care and schooling, so why do we need to have an NHS or State schools? Back on topic, shall we say that access to justice is simply not a public good that should be supported by the State?
Breadvan72 said:
Can we apply that across the board: let's assume that you don't use social services. So, why should they exist? Some of us can afford to buy private health care and schooling, so why do we need to have an NHS or State schools? Shall we say that access to justice is simply not a public good that should be supported by the State?
yes, if your not a British citizen or a 100% legal (NOT EU) resident, then no, your not getting access to our public services.one of the reasons the NHS and education budgets are so screwed up is the mass influx of foreigners that then take full advantage of our 'free' services.
No, I am not xenophobic, I'm just feed up with the UK being taken for a ride by every wafe and stray, we have enough home-grown free-loaders thanks.
So a French citizen who pays tax in the UK and contributes to the UK economy by working and living here can't access UK public services? How is that fair? How is that other than a xenophobic rule?
Also, I was addressing the more general point of "if I can't have it, no one should have it".
Also, I was addressing the more general point of "if I can't have it, no one should have it".
Breadvan72 said:
NicD, can we apply that across the board? Let's assume that you don't use social services. So, why should they exist? Some of us can afford to buy private health care and schooling, so why do we need to have an NHS or State schools? Back on topic, shall we say that access to justice is simply not a public good that should be supported by the State?
BV, you have slightly skewed my words, not a criticism, but to clarify. Whether I use a service is not the criteria, it is whether I, and millions like me COULD. I also mentioned the folly that the UK should pretend to be a leading light to other 'less developed' countries at huge cost to the tax payer.
But as always, follow the money.
Breadvan72 said:
So a French citizen who pays tax in the UK and contributes to the UK economy by working and living here can't access UK public services? How is that fair? How is that other than a xenophobic rule?
Also, I was addressing the more general point of "if I can't have it, no one should have it".
how is the French person here?Also, I was addressing the more general point of "if I can't have it, no one should have it".
if he's been here for years, earning a living and paying tax (much like the Italian immigrants from the 60's etc) then no problem.
NicD said:
BV, you have slightly skewed my words, not a criticism, but to clarify. Whether I use a service is not the criteria, it is whether I, and millions like me COULD.
I also mentioned the folly that the UK should pretend to be a leading light to other 'less developed' countries at huge cost to the tax payer.
But as always, follow the money.
Fair enough, Nic, but I am not convinced that we are too skint to fund public services that are widely accessible. In terms of Imperial delusions, if we scaled down our spending on nukes and State of the art fighter jets, we could still have effective infantry (properly equipped, supported, and paid and with their own hospitals etc), and still afford fairer access to schools, healthcare, etc. I also mentioned the folly that the UK should pretend to be a leading light to other 'less developed' countries at huge cost to the tax payer.
But as always, follow the money.
We arguably worry about things that are relatively small ticket items such as benefits chicanery and migrancy, and don't worry enough about the really big ticket stuff. The public conversation is skewed by media focus on benefits scroungers and dodgy migrants. Both exist, and should be dealt with, but neither group is actually overwhelming us and neither is the big issue.
As for paying for things that we cannot use, the argument there is that if there is a wider social benefit from doing so, we should do so. On legal aid, I suggest that we look past the abusive cases and look at the cases that hold Government to account, and in the criminal law context look at the enhancement to social peace that comes from spending on police, courts, prosecutors, defenders, prisons, probation officers etc.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 21st April 08:58
Scuffers said:
Breadvan72 said:
So a French citizen who pays tax in the UK and contributes to the UK economy by working and living here can't access UK public services? How is that fair? How is that other than a xenophobic rule?
Also, I was addressing the more general point of "if I can't have it, no one should have it".
how is the French person here?Also, I was addressing the more general point of "if I can't have it, no one should have it".
if he's been here for years, earning a living and paying tax (much like the Italian immigrants from the 60's etc) then no problem.
Breadvan72 said:
Scuffers said:
Breadvan72 said:
So a French citizen who pays tax in the UK and contributes to the UK economy by working and living here can't access UK public services? How is that fair? How is that other than a xenophobic rule?
Also, I was addressing the more general point of "if I can't have it, no one should have it".
how is the French person here?Also, I was addressing the more general point of "if I can't have it, no one should have it".
if he's been here for years, earning a living and paying tax (much like the Italian immigrants from the 60's etc) then no problem.
Look, before EU open borders, the rules were pretty clear and straight forward.
if you were a visitor to the UK - from say France, we had reciprocal agreements with them to treat their citizens if they fell ill whilst in the UK.
if they wanted to come and live here, and meet the criteria for residency, then once again there were clear rules to cover this.
the problem comes with EU open borders and the like.
it's not like it's even reciprocated, try waling into a hospital in Spain and see how far you get without a credit card...
or do you think it's right that the UK taxpayer should provide the NHS service to the rest of the EU?
the NHS is a national asset, not an EU one.
Scuffers said:
Your in a minority then...
Legal aid should only be for British citizens to help support them in the British courts.
Why all British citizens? I'm from Yorkshire. I fail to see why my hard-earned coppers should be used for t'pay for t'southern nancy-boy court malarkeys. In fact I want legal aid restricted t' Royal Borough of Heckmondwike.Legal aid should only be for British citizens to help support them in the British courts.
Siko said:
Much of this argument seems to be Breadvan et al "not voting for Christmas" 
I get we have a decent legal system, I don't get paying for the world and it's chums to get it aswell. Just seems to be a massive self-licking lollypop for lawyers.....
Of course it is exactly that. I get we have a decent legal system, I don't get paying for the world and it's chums to get it aswell. Just seems to be a massive self-licking lollypop for lawyers.....
Countdown said:
Scuffers said:
Your in a minority then...
Legal aid should only be for British citizens to help support them in the British courts.
Why all British citizens? I'm from Yorkshire. I fail to see why my hard-earned coppers should be used for t'pay for t'southern nancy-boy court malarkeys. In fact I want legal aid restricted t' Royal Borough of Heckmondwike.Legal aid should only be for British citizens to help support them in the British courts.
then people would need to have health insurance, fine if you can afford it.
how many in Yorkshire could not? (I suspect less than the average population of Surrey for example)
Jasandjules said:
People need to understand that this Govt is using any excuse to reduce the ability of the UK Citizens to challenge it's decisions in Court. This is a very worrying state of affairs.
We see in the article that Grayling's criticism is that the:". . . justice system is being abused by pressure groups and law firms using legal aid to profit from cases aimed at blocking Government decisions."
If we ignore the dig at profits for lawyers, we can see, quite clearly, that he's upset that, if the courts are challenging unfair laws, they are performing their function.
Scuffers said:
OK, let's disband the NHS and go back to pay-as-you-go then?
then people would need to have health insurance, fine if you can afford it.
how many in Yorkshire could not? (I suspect less than the average population of Surrey for example)
Good. No spongers allowed in Yorkshire.then people would need to have health insurance, fine if you can afford it.
how many in Yorkshire could not? (I suspect less than the average population of Surrey for example)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff