'Legal aid is not for foreigners to fight cases..'
Discussion
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.....
Assumptions are dangerous things. I derive zero per cent of my income from legal aid. Still, why let fact checking get in the way of a good old prejudice, eh? 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.....
Scuffers said:
as I am sure you realise, you just being silly now...
...
I realise no such thing. Besides, who is being silly? You said in plain terms: no public services for EU nationals. You hadn't thought that through, so you then changed your "no EU" rule to say that an EU national who has been resident in the UK for some undefined and arbitrary period of time would qualify for public services. I then put to you the case of a recent EU arrival who is a full contributor to the UK economy and State, but by your rule can't use the NHS. Your position has neither logic nor principle in its favour. ...
I am talking of residents, not visitors, but, as a visitor, I have used the NHS equivalents in Spain and France. I encountered no problems, and the systems seemed very efficient.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 21st April 11:51
The main argument is that the cuts that have already been made over the last several years have achieved the savings and reforms needed (or have already gone too far) and that further cutting risks rendering the system more dysfunctional and creating advice deserts in some parts of the country that suffer from disproportionate levels of socio-economic disadvantage.
The system has already been pared down, and the next round of headline savings proposed are not that large; but the effects on the functioning of the courts may be considerable. Litigants in person clog up the courts with duff points (paying customers are kept waiting by this, and some of them may take their business to New York, Sydney, or Toronto if they are international corporates that want a quick service). Children are already suffering in family cases where parents without lawyers fight to the end instead of doing deals, as they would be more likely to do if advised. More mistakes may be made at first instance and more appeals ensue, so the savings may be somewhat illusory.
The system has already been pared down, and the next round of headline savings proposed are not that large; but the effects on the functioning of the courts may be considerable. Litigants in person clog up the courts with duff points (paying customers are kept waiting by this, and some of them may take their business to New York, Sydney, or Toronto if they are international corporates that want a quick service). Children are already suffering in family cases where parents without lawyers fight to the end instead of doing deals, as they would be more likely to do if advised. More mistakes may be made at first instance and more appeals ensue, so the savings may be somewhat illusory.
Mr_B said:
What cuts/reforms have been proposed by the opponents to legal aid cuts ?
Seehttp://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media-centre/in-parli...
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/representation/policy...
On the criminal legal aid side, a snippet from the prosecutors at the Old Bailey, talking about the impact on the defence side (so nothing to do with Christmas, as Old Bailey prosecutors don't do defence work.)
Old Bailey Treasury Counsel Team said:
The Treasury Counsel team at the Old Bailey considers that:
(1) These proposals come as publicly funded fees for criminal advocacy are in the middle of a
very steep, downward trajectory (25% savings over 4 years and continuing), the end point and
consequences of which are neither complete nor known or understood by policymakers;
(2) the current commercial state of the criminal Bar is precarious, as a result of previous policy implementation, so that even small changes in income will now have very significant effects;
(3) there is no demonstrable need further to cut the very low rates for advocacy under the VHCC scheme and by doing so both the quality and, more importantly, the supply of appropriate advocacy services will be badly affected, probably immediately on implementation;
(4) each of the optional proposals to reduce AGFS is based on flawed analysis, so that their true deleterious effect has not been worked out or understood;
(5) the Ministry of Justice admittedly has no proper basis for the steady state assumptions upon which these proposals have been worked up and considered;
You might think that prosecutors would welcome a weakening of the defence side, but they don't, because they know that the system works better in the public interest when there is some degree of equality of arms.(1) These proposals come as publicly funded fees for criminal advocacy are in the middle of a
very steep, downward trajectory (25% savings over 4 years and continuing), the end point and
consequences of which are neither complete nor known or understood by policymakers;
(2) the current commercial state of the criminal Bar is precarious, as a result of previous policy implementation, so that even small changes in income will now have very significant effects;
(3) there is no demonstrable need further to cut the very low rates for advocacy under the VHCC scheme and by doing so both the quality and, more importantly, the supply of appropriate advocacy services will be badly affected, probably immediately on implementation;
(4) each of the optional proposals to reduce AGFS is based on flawed analysis, so that their true deleterious effect has not been worked out or understood;
(5) the Ministry of Justice admittedly has no proper basis for the steady state assumptions upon which these proposals have been worked up and considered;
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 22 April 08:10
Breadvan72 said:
I am a barrister but I do not do any legal aid cases. The pay is too low for my taste. I am concerned about legal aid changes not because they affect my income, but because I think the changes are not in the wider public interest.
OK, then, ignoring any political intent here, how would you propose to stop the piss-taking cases being run on legal aid?I'm thinking the Public Interest Lawyers cases, Arani and Co’s cases (think Abu Hamza, Dhiren Barot, Asif Hanif etc.)
Breadvan72 said:
I am talking of residents, not visitors, but, as a visitor, I have used the NHS equivalents in Spain and France. I encountered no problems, and the systems seemed very efficient.
Scuffers said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am a barrister but I do not do any legal aid cases. The pay is too low for my taste. I am concerned about legal aid changes not because they affect my income, but because I think the changes are not in the wider public interest.
OK, then, ignoring any political intent here, how would you propose to stop the piss-taking cases being run on legal aid?I'm thinking the Public Interest Lawyers cases, Arani and Co’s cases (think Abu Hamza, Dhiren Barot, Asif Hanif etc.)
Having said that, unpopular causes may still need arguing. The Qatada case, for example, involved taking a stand about complicity in torture. Sometimes we do need people to stand up for deeply unpopular clients.
When I was Treasury Counsel on the civil side (defending the Government in judicial review cases) I had to deal with many of the usual suspects among the radical lawyer world. I found some of them to have an elastic idea of what is ethical and professional. They seemed to think that if you are, as they would say, speaking truth unto power, then anything goes. They may mean well, but they are a bit blinded by their own convictions. I don't think that many of them are deeply cynical, and most of them don't get as rich on the proceeds as is generally supposed. I still think that they misbehave, run bad points, and lose the wood for the trees.
BTW, the Government is a pretty sucky litigant these days. Unwilling to take advice, often contemptuous and arrogant in its attitude to the Courts, and prepared to pull fast ones of its own. This is why we still need effective judicial review of Government action. Grayling is using abusive legal aid cases to push through restrictions on judicial review, that should concern the public, but don't, as the story is so spun.
Breadvan72 said:
Scuffers said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am a barrister but I do not do any legal aid cases. The pay is too low for my taste. I am concerned about legal aid changes not because they affect my income, but because I think the changes are not in the wider public interest.
OK, then, ignoring any political intent here, how would you propose to stop the piss-taking cases being run on legal aid?I'm thinking the Public Interest Lawyers cases, Arani and Co’s cases (think Abu Hamza, Dhiren Barot, Asif Hanif etc.)
Having said that, unpopular causes may still need arguing. The Qatada case, for example, involved taking a stand about complicity in torture. Sometimes we do need people to stand up for deeply unpopular clients.
RYH64E said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am talking of residents, not visitors, but, as a visitor, I have used the NHS equivalents in Spain and France. I encountered no problems, and the systems seemed very efficient.
I was stitched up and drugged up by a hot babe doctor and two hot babe nurses in a spotless and well equipped treatment room at Padua University Hospital after a skiing (actually apres skiing) crack up. I was asked to show my passport and pay 10 Euros. Waiting time about ten minutes. My daughter was seen by a helpful Spanish GP who came to our hotel (it was up a country road about ten klicks from his base) and charged nowt.
RYH64E said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am talking of residents, not visitors, but, as a visitor, I have used the NHS equivalents in Spain and France. I encountered no problems, and the systems seemed very efficient.
When I ski I always buy the extra insurance on the lift pass, as even though I am covered by my charge card policy I want to have the insurance easily visible to the piste rescue dudes if I have a prang. No one wants a wallet biopsy while being stretchered off the mountain. So far, I have never had a prang on the slopes that was bad enough to warrant medical intervention, but there's always the next time.
Breadvan72 said:
When I ski I always buy the extra insurance on the lift pass, as even though I am covered by my charge card policy I want to have the insurance easily visible to the piste rescue dudes if I have a prang. No one wants a wallet biopsy while being stretchered off the mountain. So far, I have never had a prang on the slopes that was bad enough to warrant medical intervention, but there's always the next time.
Completely agree. Even if the hospital is covered by EHIC, the helicopter certainly isn't! And the rescue cover on the lift pass is not extortionate.I'm slightly less concerned about skiing than I am about mountain biking - some of the jumps can go horribly wrong. Like you, I've been lucky, but after 20+ years of this stuff I'm aware that I'm (a) no longer getting better (b) less able to bounce back a crash than I was in my 20s. And after a crash last year that snapped my frame I realise I was extremely close to The Big One.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff