FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Barristers on Strike
Barristers on Strike
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Grossly over primdonna's with their heads so far up their own arses they've forgotten what daylight and real life is like"
None of the criminal barristers I know would fit that description. Should we stop defending against criminal charges now and go straight to guilty if accused? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Grossly over primdonna's with their heads so far up their own arses they've forgotten what daylight and real life is like"
If they are protesting about legal aid changes that could actually help the "little people". It's not like a barrister would ever get legal aid and criminal defence is going to be required regardless.
I haven't actually heard what it's all about but it sounds like it might be trying to prevent changes that will make life more difficult for the less well off.
None of the barristers I know have their heads up their arses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
"Grossly over primdonna's with their heads so far up their own arses they've forgotten what daylight and real life is like
None of the criminal barristers I know would fit that description. Should we stop defending against criminal charges now and go straight to guilty if accused?"
No, no but they shouldn't be paid. They should do it for the love of the job. Never mind the years of study, the training on minimal pay, the exams and the constant need to keep up with new legislation and case law.
It's not like the greedy, over-paid primadonnas do anything to earn their pay.
Obviously. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Grossly over primdonna's with their heads so far up their own arses they've forgotten what daylight and real life is like"
That's not my experience at all...generally a funny (ha ha,not peculiar) bunch that recognise both the absurdities of the law at times but also that we have the best legal system in the world.
And the fact that they're not striking for themselves, speaks volumes! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"until you mentioned it no one knew, just shows how little they will be missed."
It is on the national news. I didn't post that they were planning to strike last month or last week because I didn't expect anyone to know about it then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Difficult one. Most public sector roles have faced huge reform, but this profession has managed to avoid much? ( stand to be corrected ).
No doubt their wages and lifestyles will be grossly over exaggerated by media, but should they not have to tighten their belts too ?
There will be much prejudice on this one I think. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
" Difficult one. Most public sector roles have faced huge reform, but this profession has managed to avoid much? ( stand to be corrected ).
No doubt their wages and lifestyles will be grossly over exaggerated by media, but should they not have to tighten their belts too ?
There will be much prejudice on this one I think. "
It is not really about tightening their belts but the restrictions being placed on Legal Aid. Whether it is a simple case or complex case they are now being treated as a flat rate. The client is the one who loses.
Then if there is a miscarriage of justice the person is turned out of prison with no support and less than £40 in their pocket.
Serco and G4S aren't experiencing a huge cut in their bit of the criminal justice system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Difficult one. Most public sector roles have faced huge reform, but this profession has managed to avoid much? ( stand to be corrected ).
No doubt their wages and lifestyles will be grossly over exaggerated by media, but should they not have to tighten their belts too ?
There will be much prejudice on this one I think.
It is not really about tightening their belts but the restrictions being placed on Legal Aid. Whether it is a simple case or complex case they are now being treated as a flat rate. The client is the one who loses.
Then if there is a miscarriage of justice the person is turned out of prison with no support and less than £40 in their pocket.
Serco and G4S aren't experiencing a huge cut in their bit of the criminal justice system."
True re G4s etc...but that's another story re private companies and the criminal justice system....a bad on in my opinion.
You're far more informed than I on this but I seem to recall a figure of 212 million is the cost for the legal aid annually? Peanuts in thegrand sscheme of things although sadly there will be evidence of it being abused.
I hesitate to debate any further as I'm ill informed, but its an important aspect of modern democracy, even when they represent the guilty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
" Difficult one. Most public sector roles have faced huge reform, but this profession has managed to avoid much? ( stand to be corrected ).
No doubt their wages and lifestyles will be grossly over exaggerated by media, but should they not have to tighten their belts too ?
There will be much prejudice on this one I think.
It is not really about tightening their belts but the restrictions being placed on Legal Aid. Whether it is a simple case or complex case they are now being treated as a flat rate. The client is the one who loses.
Then if there is a miscarriage of justice the person is turned out of prison with no support and less than £40 in their pocket.
Serco and G4S aren't experiencing a huge cut in their bit of the criminal justice system.
True re G4s etc...but that's another story re private companies and the criminal justice system....a bad on in my opinion.
You're far more informed than I on this but I seem to recall a figure of 212 million is the cost for the legal aid annually? Peanuts in thegrand sscheme of things although sadly there will be evidence of it being abused.
I hesitate to debate any further as I'm ill informed, but its an important aspect of modern democracy, even when they represent the guilty. "
That is the point - disabling and dismantling the defence side of criminal justice dismantles he justice system and democracy.
All but one of the 18 Old Bailey courts is closed. I am trying to find out what's happening in the one that is operating.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *igSuki81Man
over a year ago
Retirement Village |
"Legal aid still exists? With any more changes it surely won't  "
Legal Aid should always exist but having been in legal wranglings recently i do think the system is open to abuse and needs to be controlled better. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In an unexpected turn of events, it transpires attendances in the House of Commons are up this morning as barristers take advantage of a morning off to go to the 'other' job."
So many Barristers have entered the Labour party too...Blair...Brown.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"In an unexpected turn of events, it transpires attendances in the House of Commons are up this morning as barristers take advantage of a morning off to go to the 'other' job.
So many Barristers have entered the Labour party too...Blair...Brown...."
Gordon Brown was called to the English Bar?
That'll come as a shock to his biographers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In an unexpected turn of events, it transpires attendances in the House of Commons are up this morning as barristers take advantage of a morning off to go to the 'other' job.
So many Barristers have entered the Labour party too...Blair...Brown....
Gordon Brown was called to the English Bar?
That'll come as a shock to his biographers."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Barristers on strike ?
The one in the costa I'm sat in just made me a lovely coffee!  
Boom boom!
Good to see you are back to work today."
I'm always working! 
(Just not always that hard!!  ) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Barristers on strike ?
The one in the costa I'm sat in just made me a lovely coffee!
Boom boom!
Good to see you are back to work today.
I'm always working!
(Just not always that hard!! )"
I imagine being you is work.
Now back to the barristers.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Haven't heard of the strike til now. I no longer work in a law firm (left it recently) so really don't know what's been happening. But just before i left, there were so many changes the government was bringing in.
For example, the Jackson Reform was introduced. That completely changed everything - i ended up losing clients, needed to find a way to manage costs and the funding, a whole new system to manage the workload and bringing the clients in etc...and all this, because of the bloody finance sector (i.e. insurance companies)!
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I heard the Chancellor say that barristers shouldn't think that they are exempt from cuts in these austere times. Just like the MPs with their 11% pay rise. Fuckers! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"I heard the Chancellor say that barristers shouldn't think that they are exempt from cuts in these austere times. Just like the MPs with their 11% pay rise. Fuckers! "
It's not cuts to barristers as such but the one size, cut price, everyone is guilty anyway attitude to criminal justice that is sickening. We have such a complex legal system and need trained lawyers and not just trainee solicitors and pupil barristers on cases.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I heard the Chancellor say that barristers shouldn't think that they are exempt from cuts in these austere times. Just like the MPs with their 11% pay rise. Fuckers! "
Not that I agree with any pay rise they get (I'm a public sector worker) but that rise is in place of the rediculous amount they can claim on expenses. No wonder the big names have publicly announced they don't want it! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I heard the Chancellor say that barristers shouldn't think that they are exempt from cuts in these austere times. Just like the MPs with their 11% pay rise. Fuckers!
Not that I agree with any pay rise they get (I'm a public sector worker) but that rise is in place of the rediculous amount they can claim on expenses. No wonder the big names have publicly announced they don't want it!"
How is the rise 'in place' of expenses? I thought there was something about 'tightening up' some expenses, not replacing them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I heard the Chancellor say that barristers shouldn't think that they are exempt from cuts in these austere times. Just like the MPs with their 11% pay rise. Fuckers!
Not that I agree with any pay rise they get (I'm a public sector worker) but that rise is in place of the rediculous amount they can claim on expenses. No wonder the big names have publicly announced they don't want it!
How is the rise 'in place' of expenses? I thought there was something about 'tightening up' some expenses, not replacing them."
You're right. I should not have said 'in place'. What they can claim for now is within a rigid framework. Most will loose out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Good! But they'd be a long way down the line of public sector workers I think are due a pay rise. Perhaps they should approve the rise in principle but only effect it after the pay freeze for the rest of public sector workers has ended - they can think of it as a performance related incentive..oh and of course in the meantime expenses should be tightened up anyway as part of the 'all in it together' cut backs.
That's a carrot and a stick for them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
cuts cuts cuts, I despair of this country I really do.
Cuts to the poorest and most vunerable while mp's and big buisness are loving up. Then you get stupid tv programs like what was on tonight just to try reinforce the whole 'poor people are scum and deserve the cuts they are bleeding our country dry' properganda when infact the welfare bill is a drop in ocean compared to the amount of money large corporations avoid paying in tax.
There's alot of hatred being stirred up in this country and it's sad to see people being sucked in by it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Ps Good on the barristers for standing up for legal aid, everyone should have access to legal representation, even the poorest in society."
It started with the Poor Mans Lawyer/community law movement and I suspect that is what we are heading back to. We can't ship the convicted to Australia anymore though so the privatisation of and profit making prisons will have to return too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ps Good on the barristers for standing up for legal aid, everyone should have access to legal representation, even the poorest in society.
It started with the Poor Mans Lawyer/community law movement and I suspect that is what we are heading back to. We can't ship the convicted to Australia anymore though so the privatisation of and profit making prisons will have to return too."
And that's what this goverment want to do, privatise everything, because privatising public services has been so successful so far hasn't it? It's a disgrace, peoples rights are slowly being eroded and most people cannot see it because the politicians and media are feeding them this bs about the welfare state/immigration etc. Ive seen parts of oublic services privatised at the expense of it's workers a d the standard of service, I dread to think of prisons being privatised.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Its a knee jerk reaction to the findings of a couple of years ago where it was found that some were ripping off the system and earning obscene amounts of money,As said earlier we have the best Judicial system in the world and as one who has benefited from this more than once i begrudge them nothing, in my humble view its for the overseers of the system to regulate and prosecute those abusing it not take the easy way out
Irate of Ingatestone |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Ps Good on the barristers for standing up for legal aid, everyone should have access to legal representation, even the poorest in society.
It started with the Poor Mans Lawyer/community law movement and I suspect that is what we are heading back to. We can't ship the convicted to Australia anymore though so the privatisation of and profit making prisons will have to return too.
And that's what this goverment want to do, privatise everything, because privatising public services has been so successful so far hasn't it? It's a disgrace, peoples rights are slowly being eroded and most people cannot see it because the politicians and media are feeding them this bs about the welfare state/immigration etc. Ive seen parts of oublic services privatised at the expense of it's workers a d the standard of service, I dread to think of prisons being privatised.
"
Some have been in all but name. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Seems to me that only a fool would think that's all well with the governments handling of the justice system when barristers stop working thus closing down the courts for half a day in order to highlight how the government is restricting the rights of the poor to access justice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Completely unprecedented but criminal barristers and solicitors are on strike today.
Any thoughts?"
They wont loose a day's pay will they. They are just refusing to attend any court cases. Contempt of court should be thrown at them.
They object to the legal aid being changed, so they will have less time on the golf course.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
People who think they are on strike for the little people are deluded...
They are puerly on strike for their own benifits. Mentioning the little people just gets them just makes them look as if they care.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not that goin on strike is likely to achieve much more than to piss off the people it will inconvenience because they aren't doing their job"
I always found the world runs better with out the lawyers anyway at least on this side of the pond. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Grossly over primdonna's with their heads so far up their own arses they've forgotten what daylight and real life is like
That's not my experience at all...generally a funny (ha ha,not peculiar) bunch that recognise both the absurdities of the law at times but also that we have the best legal system in the world.
And the fact that they're not striking for themselves, speaks volumes!"
They are- they want more money from the Legal Aid system |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"If we don't pay barristers doing criminal work on Legal Aid a decent brief and refreshers, the good ones will concentrate on civil work where the money will be more lucrative."
Exactly! We will be left with the muddle through brigade and trainees.
Of course no one is ever falsely accused though so it doesn't matter.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Not that goin on strike is likely to achieve much more than to piss off the people it will inconvenience because they aren't doing their job
I always found the world runs better with out the lawyers anyway at least on this side of the pond."
Everyone thinks the world could do without lawyers till they need one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
It's worth noting that (in Scotland) the two top Advocates in terms of legal aid income in 2010-2011 were Gordon Jackson QC on £400,000 and Donald Findlay QC on £330,000.
That's roughly £1,000 every day of the year, Saturdays, Sundays, Bank Holidays, Christmas, Easter and so on.
Nice work if you can get it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ps Good on the barristers for standing up for legal aid, everyone should have access to legal representation, even the poorest in society."
Agreed... We are going back in time with the have and havenots... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hmmm quite a hard one really .
For the first time in history The Lord chancellor has no legal training and simply does not understand the legal system , if you look at all the press and radio tv interviews he's not in any of them, because if he was to go up against of the barristers he would loose hands down ,, so he sits in his tower sending out his pawns to defend his cuts , this is the first of many strikes to raise public a weariness , what people seem to forget that barristers are self unplloyed. And take instructions from layers, so they only get paid when the layers get paid . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Hmmm quite a hard one really .
For the first time in history The Lord chancellor has no legal training and simply does not understand the legal system , if you look at all the press and radio tv interviews he's not in any of them, because if he was to go up against of the barristers he would loose hands down ,, so he sits in his tower sending out his pawns to defend his cuts , this is the first of many strikes to raise public a weariness , what people seem to forget that barristers are self unplloyed. And take instructions from layers, so they only get paid when the layers get paid . "
Yes! The Lord Chancellor appointment
Two barristers I know have had to put their homes up for sale and move out of London as the cash flow meant they were owed so much with nothing coming in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It has been a little while since my last post, which linked for your pleasure/despair my response to Grayling’s second go at the Transforming Legal Aid consultation paper.
Such was the kryptonite-esque energy-sapping quality of the Ministry of Justice’s shameful claptrap, combined with the most inefficiently managed and morale-and- resource-wasteful 5 week trial in history that was still going at day 51 (details to be revealed in due course), that I virtually shrivelled to a corpse and only avoided utter meltdown by doing a very daring, highly contentious and totally frowned-upon thing…..
…..I took myself and Mrs CDB off on holiday, courtesy of the extended limit on my credit card.
Equally daring is my public admission of such extraordinary decadence, which would no doubt send the Daily Mail into complete apoplexy at the thought of (whisper it) a criminal legal aid barrister squandering hard-working taxpayers’ coin on a two week jolly to the beach whilst the most expensive legal system in the world buckles under its own weight in gold.
After yesterday’s magnificent stand by barristers and solicitors, who already slog their guts out for poor remuneration that is far from adequate, in protest at Chris Grayling’s latest savagery of our criminal justice system, the Daily Mail today embraced its position as the government’s snivelling snitch with a headline of which it should be ashamed and a wholly unnecessary attack on a female barrister for which the only appropriate sanction is unprintable here.
I won’t peddle the Daily Mail’s insult by linking to the article (it’s still available online at the time of writing), but in short, some journalist wag has spotted that a protesting barrister yesterday was carrying “a £1,100 Mulberry Bayswater handbag” and thought it not at all demeaning to the issue of the collapse of the criminal justice system to insinuate, once more, that barristers must be raking it in because they can afford swanky accessories. The headline: “The most privileged picket line ever?”
What’s worse is that the journalist knew exactly (having been told) how the barrister came to own such a handbag, knew full well that it was not funded by legal aid fat-cattery, yet went ahead with the story nonetheless.
What next will flow from the Mail, spreading effluence about the Bar’s affluence?
“Criminal Legal Aid Barrister takes holiday – lives it up in sweltering sun-drenched beach resort whilst hardworking taxpayers sit at home in freezing damp flooded England”
Or, maybe:
“Barrister representing legally aided criminal drives to court in air-conditioned car as hardworking tax paying public suffer tube overcrowding, rail fare hikes and the ignominy of walking places”
Or this:
“Crafty counsel travels 200 miles to court the night before legal aid trial and stays overnight in 3 star luxury, whilst former hardworking taxpayers fallen on hard times sleep rough on the streets eating cardboard”
Utter utter nonsense, but how long before we see it?
So beware, fellow lawyers.
It doesn’t matter that you are “hardworking taxpayers” yourselves.
The Mail and the MoJ will continue to deceive the general public by peddling statistics about a minority of the Criminal Bar with a six figure turnover after their 20-plus years in practice conducting the most serious cases with the gravest responsibility day in, day out – and suggesting that this minority is representative of every barrister’s income.
We all know it’s not so – but make no mistake…….you are being watched.
Cover up your fake Rolex; leave at home your Mont Blanc pen that was a gift from your family for your 30th birthday; abandon your velvet collared overcoat that you’ve been wearing for at least seven years because you can’t afford a new one.
Or the Daily Mail will call you “privileged” and the public will call you “Fat Cat” – regardless of the truth of it.
You have been warned.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't pay barristers doing criminal work on Legal Aid a decent brief and refreshers, the good ones will concentrate on civil work where the money will be more lucrative.
Exactly! We will be left with the muddle through brigade and trainees.
Of course no one is ever falsely accused though so it doesn't matter. "
Falsely or mistakenly ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"If we don't pay barristers doing criminal work on Legal Aid a decent brief and refreshers, the good ones will concentrate on civil work where the money will be more lucrative.
Exactly! We will be left with the muddle through brigade and trainees.
Of course no one is ever falsely accused though so it doesn't matter.
Falsely or mistakenly ?"
Oooooooooooo! Nice one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If we don't pay barristers doing criminal work on Legal Aid a decent brief and refreshers, the good ones will concentrate on civil work where the money will be more lucrative.
Exactly! We will be left with the muddle through brigade and trainees.
Of course no one is ever falsely accused though so it doesn't matter.
Falsely or mistakenly ?
Oooooooooooo! Nice one."
But irrelevant if you can't afford to defend yourself, as the outcome will be the same. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't pay barristers doing criminal work on Legal Aid a decent brief and refreshers, the good ones will concentrate on civil work where the money will be more lucrative.
Exactly! We will be left with the muddle through brigade and trainees.
Of course no one is ever falsely accused though so it doesn't matter.
Falsely or mistakenly ?
Oooooooooooo! Nice one.
But irrelevant if you can't afford to defend yourself, as the outcome will be the same."
Very true, I was trying to clarify a very pertinent point though.
Juxtaposing here....if we invested more heavily in the prosecution system, maybe they wouldn't make mistakes, and defence lawyers wouldn't be needed as all convictions are safe......humour me on this one ? Its been highlighted that if they aren't paid well enough the barristers will leave criminal law for civil law ? Are the cps lawyer's paid comparative rates, why do they do it ? Genuine question. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"If we don't pay barristers doing criminal work on Legal Aid a decent brief and refreshers, the good ones will concentrate on civil work where the money will be more lucrative.
Exactly! We will be left with the muddle through brigade and trainees.
Of course no one is ever falsely accused though so it doesn't matter.
Falsely or mistakenly ?
Oooooooooooo! Nice one.
But irrelevant if you can't afford to defend yourself, as the outcome will be the same."
Albert Haddock managed quite well |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What about paying everyone's legal costs to be defended, then if they are found guilty after fighting a case then they have to repay it on top of court costs and fines ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If we don't pay barristers doing criminal work on Legal Aid a decent brief and refreshers, the good ones will concentrate on civil work where the money will be more lucrative.
Exactly! We will be left with the muddle through brigade and trainees.
Of course no one is ever falsely accused though so it doesn't matter.
Falsely or mistakenly ?
Oooooooooooo! Nice one.
But irrelevant if you can't afford to defend yourself, as the outcome will be the same.
Albert Haddock managed quite well "
I admit I had to Google him ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" What about paying everyone's legal costs to be defended, then if they are found guilty after fighting a case then they have to repay it on top of court costs and fines ?"
Repay it with what?
As for your other question, as far as I'm aware, the pecking order if you want to earn serious dough is: Civil, Defence, CPS, in that order. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" What about paying everyone's legal costs to be defended, then if they are found guilty after fighting a case then they have to repay it on top of court costs and fines ?
Repay it with what?
As for your other question, as far as I'm aware, the pecking order if you want to earn serious dough is: Civil, Defence, CPS, in that order."
Repay it by whatever means. We fine people in courts now when there are no apparent means for them to honour it. Yes I believe its "means" tested with respect to how much they pay at a time.
We digress....I'm playing devils advocate......make those found guilty after pleading not guilty, contribute into the legal advice fund ?
Why should tax payers fund people who are obviously guilty, in getting legal representation? Many in court know they're guilty but refuse to face up to their actions and fight cases knowing their guilt.
Those genuinely innocent will be happy to fight a case, whilst the guilty will think again due to the added financial penalty? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" What about paying everyone's legal costs to be defended, then if they are found guilty after fighting a case then they have to repay it on top of court costs and fines ?
Repay it with what?
As for your other question, as far as I'm aware, the pecking order if you want to earn serious dough is: Civil, Defence, CPS, in that order.
Repay it by whatever means. We fine people in courts now when there are no apparent means for them to honour it. Yes I believe its "means" tested with respect to how much they pay at a time.
We digress....I'm playing devils advocate......make those found guilty after pleading not guilty, contribute into the legal advice fund ?
Why should tax payers fund people who are obviously guilty, in getting legal representation? Many in court know they're guilty but refuse to face up to their actions and fight cases knowing their guilt.
Those genuinely innocent will be happy to fight a case, whilst the guilty will think again due to the added financial penalty? "
Because one of the joys of trial by jury and expensive defence barristers with far more of an invested interest than their CPS adversaries, is that even if you're guilty as sin, you might just get away with it!
I've sat on juries 3 times and on 2 of those occasions it was a miracle how they ever came to trial so the poor fuckers had to plead not guilty in the first place! On the other occasion it was attempted murder and I knew the guy and I knew he'd done it (it happened in the flat over the butchers shop my ex in-laws owned), so I had to declare it and leave the jury |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" What about paying everyone's legal costs to be defended, then if they are found guilty after fighting a case then they have to repay it on top of court costs and fines ?
Repay it with what?
As for your other question, as far as I'm aware, the pecking order if you want to earn serious dough is: Civil, Defence, CPS, in that order.
Repay it by whatever means. We fine people in courts now when there are no apparent means for them to honour it. Yes I believe its "means" tested with respect to how much they pay at a time.
We digress....I'm playing devils advocate......make those found guilty after pleading not guilty, contribute into the legal advice fund ?
Why should tax payers fund people who are obviously guilty, in getting legal representation? Many in court know they're guilty but refuse to face up to their actions and fight cases knowing their guilt.
Those genuinely innocent will be happy to fight a case, whilst the guilty will think again due to the added financial penalty?
Because one of the joys of trial by jury and expensive defence barristers with far more of an invested interest than their CPS adversaries, is that even if you're guilty as sin, you might just get away with it!
I've sat on juries 3 times and on 2 of those occasions it was a miracle how they ever came to trial so the poor fuckers had to plead not guilty in the first place! On the other occasion it was attempted murder and I knew the guy and I knew he'd done it (it happened in the flat over the butchers shop my ex in-laws owned), so I had to declare it and leave the jury "
True, and interesting point....and anecdote.
I've also seen cases dismissed where a defendant was blatantly guilty but CPS didn't wish to run it.
It is what it is and until there's a better option the system works hard to get it right....both sides do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" What about paying everyone's legal costs to be defended, then if they are found guilty after fighting a case then they have to repay it on top of court costs and fines ?
Repay it with what?
As for your other question, as far as I'm aware, the pecking order if you want to earn serious dough is: Civil, Defence, CPS, in that order.
Repay it by whatever means. We fine people in courts now when there are no apparent means for them to honour it. Yes I believe its "means" tested with respect to how much they pay at a time.
We digress....I'm playing devils advocate......make those found guilty after pleading not guilty, contribute into the legal advice fund ?
Why should tax payers fund people who are obviously guilty, in getting legal representation? Many in court know they're guilty but refuse to face up to their actions and fight cases knowing their guilt.
Those genuinely innocent will be happy to fight a case, whilst the guilty will think again due to the added financial penalty?
Because one of the joys of trial by jury and expensive defence barristers with far more of an invested interest than their CPS adversaries, is that even if you're guilty as sin, you might just get away with it!
I've sat on juries 3 times and on 2 of those occasions it was a miracle how they ever came to trial so the poor fuckers had to plead not guilty in the first place! On the other occasion it was attempted murder and I knew the guy and I knew he'd done it (it happened in the flat over the butchers shop my ex in-laws owned), so I had to declare it and leave the jury
True, and interesting point....and anecdote.
I've also seen cases dismissed where a defendant was blatantly guilty but CPS didn't wish to run it.
It is what it is and until there's a better option the system works hard to get it right....both sides do."
Precisely, which is why, for all it's faults and the lynch mob mentality you tend to find on pretty much any forum you go on, it's the best judicial system in the world.
The lynch mobs love the American system because emotions are allowed to be bought into play (hence the Jackson's being able to try and sue his promotors...it wouldn't have even got to court in this country as it was obvious that in their eyes, the doctor they had hired was competent, hence no grounds for a negligence claim), whereas here, the law is the law. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"until you mentioned it no one knew, just shows how little they will be missed.
It is on the national news. I didn't post that they were planning to strike last month or last week because I didn't expect anyone to know about it then."
Never had a TV or Radio, and certainly don't buy papers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"If we don't pay barristers doing criminal work on Legal Aid a decent brief and refreshers, the good ones will concentrate on civil work where the money will be more lucrative.
Exactly! We will be left with the muddle through brigade and trainees.
Of course no one is ever falsely accused though so it doesn't matter.
Falsely or mistakenly ?"
A nice point. I like it.
As to your paying if found guilty, the onus is still on proving guilt and the payment could well be prison.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
In one sense I think it's crazy to reduce spend on legal aid. It'll definitely come back to bite us.
In another sense, any business or industry whose entire income depends on the whim of government is eventually going to get bitten. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"In one sense I think it's crazy to reduce spend on legal aid. It'll definitely come back to bite us.
In another sense, any business or industry whose entire income depends on the whim of government is eventually going to get bitten."
As we see with the NHS, prisons, social services... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
