Barristers strike over pay

[Evanivitch]

skwdenyer said:

and so on. There are no fundamental rights in the UK model, only favours granted us by the Crown and removable at any time by Parliament. As we see right now, even super-national treaties such as the ECHR can simple be derogated from if Parliament wishes.

But that's how the law works. Written Constitutions aren't written in stone, they're not immune from being ammended.

Even the Basic German law allows for ammendments.

[Amateurish]

If the current crisis over Wade v Roe shows us anything, it's that the American constitutional model does not work.

[skwdenyer]

Evanivitch said:

skwdenyer said:

and so on. There are no fundamental rights in the UK model, only favours granted us by the Crown and removable at any time by Parliament. As we see right now, even super-national treaties such as the ECHR can simple be derogated from if Parliament wishes.

But that's how the law works. Written Constitutions aren't written in stone, they're not immune from being ammended.

Even the Basic German law allows for ammendments.

Constitutions can’t be amended without a much bigger majority than UK legislation, and in some cases requiring a majority. Very different.

[skwdenyer]

deckster said:

skwdenyer said:

There are no fundamental rights in the UK model, only favours granted us by the Crown and removable at any time by Parliament. As we see right now, even super-national treaties such as the ECHR can simple be derogated from if Parliament wishes.

Whilst I agree with your basic point, we do have the significant advantage of a certain agility in our legislation. We are all familiar with the constitutional wrangling and heart-ache over what a two-hundred-year-old document may or may not mean in a modern context, whereas our combination of primary legislation and case law does mean that we seem to ultimately get to the right answer, most of the time. At the very least, "our way" is not obviously worse than any of the alternatives and I don't see any compelling reason to change it in any significant manner.

Sorry, but human rights don’t need agility. They need certainty. Otherwise they’re not rights.

If your rights cause a problem for Government, that’s Government’s problem; you shouldn’t give up your rights to suit their agenda

[deckster]

skwdenyer said:

Sorry, but human rights don’t need agility. They need certainty. Otherwise they’re not rights.

If your rights cause a problem for Government, that’s Government’s problem; you shouldn’t give up your rights to suit their agenda

I'd prefer agility over certainty when your certainties are based on a 200-year old document.

[kowalski655]

skwdenyer said:

Sorry, but human rights don’t need agility. They need certainty. Otherwise they’re not rights.

If your rights cause a problem for Government, that’s Government’s problem; you shouldn’t give up your rights to suit their agenda

Someone needs to point that out to the current lot in charge

[skwdenyer]

deckster said:

skwdenyer said:

Sorry, but human rights don’t need agility. They need certainty. Otherwise they’re not rights.

If your rights cause a problem for Government, that’s Government’s problem; you shouldn’t give up your rights to suit their agenda

I'd prefer agility over certainty when your certainties are based on a 200-year old document.

I'd call nonsense. The rights in that 200 year old document are still your rights. You can't lose them easily. We don't need agility to be protected from arbitrary detention, lack of due process, and so on. That's the whole point of fundamental rights.

If you mean it isn't so easy to add new rights, at least there are some rights. Roe v Wade shows us that our own model offers no protection - abortion is now in play precisely because it can be changed at the whim of legislatures - just like *every single one* of our "rights".

To take that example (abortion) in a UK context, it is legal in the UK. That can change on a simple majority vote in the HoC. A Tory MP this week said in the chamber that he did not agree that women should have autonomy over their bodies. When asked in questions whether abortion should be included in the new bill of rights, Raab specifically said the matter was solely for MPs voting with their conscience. We're only a small moral shift away from the US on that.

The difference? Every one of our so-called rights is only a small moral shift away from being wiped out. A constitution would prevent that.

[skwdenyer]

Reported this afternoon:



So the collective efforts have so far got a promise to implement the rise that was recommended *may years ago* by the independent review body. Whilst it is something, I really do hope barristers dig in and hold out for more (along with commitments to properly increase funding to the rest of the CJ system).

[anonymous-user]

skwdenyer said:

fblm said:

skwdenyer said:

....

We desperately need that here. The US constitution is not the only model for how that should be done.

Why do we need it and which model is so much better?

Because it is unconscionable in the 21st century that we have no human or other rights protected in law against the will of a majority of MPs elected by a minority of voters.

Worse still, we've enshrined in law the ability of ministers to make very significant "primary" legislative changes by secondary legislation.

There is nothing to stop our government from, for example:

- extending the period between elections to 10 years, 20 years, or effectively never
- restricting the rights of some people to vote
- removing a woman's rights to an abortion
- curtailing press freedom
- prohibiting peaceful assembly (in fact they've just done so for the n'th time)
- instituting arbitrary detention (in fact they have)
- unreasonably delaying trial (we have that right now - there's no right to speedy justice)
- presuming somebody guilty (reverse onus - a feature of some UK law)
- restricting the right to trial by jury (long since done)

and so on. There are no fundamental rights in the UK model, only favours granted us by the Crown and removable at any time by Parliament. As we see right now, even super-national treaties such as the ECHR can simple be derogated from if Parliament wishes.

In terms of which model is best, that's an interesting question, upon which there needs to be a whole thread I suspect But the least we should aim for is probably the German basic law.

Well thanks for the detailed reply, it's not something I've ever really read or thought about. I'm struggling with this idea that we "desperately need" a constitution and bill of rights when the very same basis for legal rights elsewhere is causing some of the very issues, and more besides, that you want one to solve. A solution looking for a problem, but one which has it's own problems then. I know absolutely zip about German law but can't say I've ever once laid awake wishing I had the same rights as my German friends. Slightly ironic that for the last 20 years they've strategically aligned themselves with the greatest threat to human rights in Europe since, well, them.

The application of human rights laws in the UK has been it's own worst enemy; there must surely be a way to enshrine "rights" sensibly in our legal system without leaving it wide open to people taking the pi55 further down the line. Right to a family life, lovely, couldn't agree more; right for a piece of st violent foreign criminal to continue living in the UK because they have a kid that they never see and don't help raise, not so much. Right to peaceful enjoyment, absolutely; buy a house next to a race track, get it shut down, just fck off! The absolute stshow that are US gun laws have to be one of the most egregious examples of "rights" but I digress. Seems to me the idea is to have a set of "rights" that can't be changed by a government one doesn't like, only amended by one, one agrees with when applicable.

In the mean time properly funding the criminal justice system would probably fix half the stuff on your list.

[valiant]

Electro1980 said:

Biggus thingus said:

valiant said:

Electro1980 said:

NuckyThompson said:

That’s the daily mails job mate. The standard stance of these people shouldn’t be asking for a pay rise look what nurses get. Not questioning why nurses are paid so poorly by the government in the first place.

I wonder how much longer they can keep up the pretence that it’s workers and not employers that are the problem once most of the workforce in this country is on strike.

Railway workers and barristers done, teachers incoming, airline staff and NHS workers.

Plus bus drivers, council workers, university and HE staff. Plus probably many more.

FBU (firefighters) are recommending that members turn down a pay offer of 2%.

Add them to the list.

Postal workers will also be on strike soon

Also airport workers and doctors.

BT workers balloting now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62000848

[legzr1]

valiant said:

BT workers balloting now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62000848

I wonder how this will affect those who can ignore rail strikes because they can work from home…

[XCP]

skwdenyer said:

Reported this afternoon:



So the collective efforts have so far got a promise to implement the rise that was recommended *may years ago* by the independent review body. Whilst it is something, I really do hope barristers dig in and hold out for more (along with commitments to properly increase funding to the rest of the CJ system).

I have never known a barrister do any work at a police station. That is done by solicitors/clerks.

No mention of Crown court cases in this document?

[skwdenyer]

XCP said:

I have never known a barrister do any work at a police station. That is done by solicitors/clerks.

No mention of Crown court cases in this document?

In fairness, that was just the summary on a news site; I didn't dig for further info I'm afraid.

[Miserablegit]

Countdown said:

Are the barriers to entry that hard? My cousin (northern mill town upbringing, daughter of a taxi driver, went to a Comprehensive rather than the local Grammar school) managed it.

The barriers to entry, above any academic requirements, are financial.
On top of university fees the fee for the bar course is around £13,000-20,000 with accommodation and living expenses on top of that.
A survey has estimated total training costs to be £100-130,000.

After the academic stage there is then a huge hurdle to overcome in obtaining a pupillage at a set of chambers. A pupillage is the final stage of training and consists of two six month terms.

The first term is unpaid but in the second term the pupil has an opportunity to undertake paid work. Of course the pupil needs to find a way to afford to live during this period.

There are many more applicants than places available and this gets worse each year.

To assist pupils civil sets of chambers now make financial awards to pupils - My set pays them an amount comparable to or slightly more than trainee solicitors which comes out of the pockets of the barristers in chambers and the senior clerk.

It’s an odd system as all the barristers are self employed and so the benefit of bringing pupils on board is to assist the continued growth of chambers but there’s no real financial incentive for the other barristers. It’s a “duty” in a way. Very different to a law firm where the junior staff generate income for the firm and are paid a salary.

After pupillage the pupil has to apply for tenancy and is not always successful - there’s no guaranteed position at the end of all this.

It’s a very different story at the criminal bar. Same training costs but disgraceful rates of pay and those I know who went to the criminal bar didn’t do so for the money. The cuts have become so bad that it’s no longer really viable.
As many above have said, read the Secret Barrister link to get the full story. Good luck to them.

What is common throughout is the tardiness of many clients in paying fees…no doubt as a result of some of the views here - “he charged x for an hour’s conference”.

It might have been an hour’s conference but Counsel spent three hours ploughing through your stream of consciousness delivered by email…

I generally don’t work for individuals for this very reason.

[anonymous-user]

Miserablegit said:

Countdown said:

Are the barriers to entry that hard? My cousin (northern mill town upbringing, daughter of a taxi driver, went to a Comprehensive rather than the local Grammar school) managed it.

The barriers to entry, above any academic requirements, are financial..

My Mrs went to the crappiest of crap comps, long since closed now. She got a scholarship though that covered 100% of bar school. Miserablegit isn't kidding about the odds of getting a place at Chambers though; very few of her bar school friends made it.

[Countdown]

Miserablegit said:

Countdown said:

Are the barriers to entry that hard? My cousin (northern mill town upbringing, daughter of a taxi driver, went to a Comprehensive rather than the local Grammar school) managed it.

The barriers to entry, above any academic requirements, are financial.
On top of university fees the fee for the bar course is around £13,000-20,000 with accommodation and living expenses on top of that.
A survey has estimated total training costs to be £100-130,000.

Thanks for that - quite interesting.

Would she have the same financial pressures if she trained via the CPS? I think they paid her while she was training and she was iiving with her parents at the time so I imagine she didn't have too many other financial pressures. I remember her saying that, as part of her training she HAD to attend 12(?) formal dinners in London which sounded quaint

[Miserablegit]

Countdown said:

Thanks for that - quite interesting.

Would she have the same financial pressures if she trained via the CPS? I think they paid her while she was training and she was iiving with her parents at the time so I imagine she didn't have too many other financial pressures. I remember her saying that, as part of her training she HAD to attend 12(?) formal dinners in London which sounded quaint

“I don’t know” is my honest answer about training with the CPS. This is a link https://www.cps.gov.uk/careers/life-prosecutor-cro... which seems to indicate applicants still had to pay their way through bar school.

The difference being, as a CPS-employed barrister you are an employee and don’t operate out of chambers and so it is likely to be less precarious for new entrants.

As for the formal dinners- I think it was something like 18 when I qualified - additional expense I could ill-afford at the time. I believe the number was reduced to 12 to lower the burden (slightly) on those studying outside London.
When I was qualifying there was only one bar school. It was opened up to BPP and others who were able to charge vast sums to many students who stood very little chance of a career at the bar.

Edited by Miserablegit on Friday 1st July 14:28

[skwdenyer]

Countdown said:

she was iiving with her parents at the time so I imagine she didn't have too many other financial pressures.

I can't believe there seem to be some on this thread defending a situation in which people have to rely upon living with their parents in order to be able to afford to train, and then earn (net) £13k a year whilst potentially carrying crippling debts.

Sorry to be blunt, but is everyone here completely resigned to the idea that social mobility is not worth it, that a legal profession full of people from entitled backgrounds is good?

Don't forget, barristers become judges.

Not for the first time, I think the biggest problem with the UK (England, especially) is that we're still conditioned to think in terms of "our betters" - those from money should somehow be afforded greater respect, opportunity and influence in our society purely because of an accident of birth. Certainly some of the replies on this thread seem to suggest just that.

Is it really any surprise we're in the mess we're in if that's how people think?

[Miserablegit]

Social mobility is, IMHO, the biggest issue at the Bar.

It’s not just the qualification aspect - it’s the lifestyle as well that challenges those who don’t have savings etc.

Massive debts from training and no guaranteed salary
- having to wait months, even years to be paid for work. It’s not an option for many people and that’s a bad thing but it’s a self-employed profession. It’s difficult to see how to improve the situation. We offer a significant award but we use it to pick the “best” candidate on paper - I’m not on the pupillage committee as I’d be less interested in mooting skills and more interested to see if a candidate had ever had a part-time job.

[rxe]

legzr1 said:

I wonder how this will affect those who can ignore rail strikes because they can work from home…

I’ve got Starlink. Most people have 4G.