Kaos, again, this is only about legal aid. The justice system existed prior to the introduction of legal aid. It is right that the country considers whether the amount being spent ON LEGAL AID is appropriate. The cuts are very deep - too deep in my opinion, but can’t you accept that reforms are needed?
I think it is unfair to suggest that the justice system existed before legal aid, as if this has continued unabated for centuries.
Prior to legal aid miscarriages of justice were common, there was a two tier legal system (as still exists to some degree in the Civil courts) where those with money were far better off than those without money.
I cannot accept that reforms are needed without evidence beyond the monetary.
I cannot see an argument that it costs too much as being a valid argument. It costs what it costs. We absolutely need a proper criminal justice system, we need skilled and intelligent people within that system, and you know what, that costs money.
You want a Barrister with enough skill, education, experience and knowledge to run a fraud case that runs for 3 months and takes 6 months to prepare?
Well you are going to have to pay for it, and yes you are going to have to pay a lot for it, because it is a lot of hard work and a lot of pressure, and if you don’t pay for it, then you won’t get people capable of doing it.
Another point on pay.
Top Barristers earn more than the Prime Minister and more than Doctors.
That is the headline, but what is under the headline?
Barristers are self-employed, they are not constantly in work, they have no pension, they have no sick pay, they have no holiday pay, other than those they pay for privately to protect themselves.
There is a difference between a Barrister and an employed Doctor, who earns the same each week, each month, each year, with salary guaranteed, with generous sick pay and a civil service pension, with annual holiday each year, for which they are paid.
To compare the two and argue that it isn’t fair that one earns more than the other is to ignore the context of their employment.
I only wanted a 5 minute argument. 
I was trying to point out that the legal aid system is not so intrinsically linked into the justice system that the whole thing collapses if your try and reform the way that legal aid is funded. It seems you think the two ARE connected that powerfully.
As for “it costs what it costs” - OK I see your point of view - but the budget of this country (and therefore the legal aid budget) is measured in fiscal, not emotional terms. I’d like to see more money for the NHS, or for education, or policing, or pensions and so on, but actually all those things have a budget and saying “it costs what it costs” doesn’t work.
I think it depends on how you attempt to save money.
No one is suggested an unlimited budget, but cutting legal aid, which is intrinsically linked to the justice system is not the way forward.
I do think that legal aid and the justice system are linked in a more fundamental way than you accept. If a person is not represented their chances of success are manifestly weaker. The State in any prosecution has a massive advantage compared to the individual, the police investigate, the CPS has the manpower and expertise to prosecute, the Prosecution has the resources to bring in witnesses.
The individual is at a massive disadvantage, and this has long been recognised. Legal aid addresses that imbalance and attempts to redress that balance by ensuring that every individual has representation and solicitors that can carry the burden and give balance to a clearly unbalanced situation.
£1bn for civil legal aid, a lot of that is family work, very little is commercial, that which is commercial is spent on not paying court fees. Allowing even the poor to bring a case against a company to enforce their legal rights without paying Court fees.
I don’t think, although I am willing to be proven wrong, that people get Legal aid for Barristers to bring Commercial claims against Tesco (personal injury cases are not commercial).
You may say that it presents frivolous cases being brought, but the Court system is well versed in dealing with such cases, and I don’t think they are as common as the Government would have you believe.
I don’t think legal aid should be cut from family cases. These are usually tragic and emotional cases that on a case by case individual basis you would agree with.
Should the wife who is getting beaten be allowed to file for divorce?
Shouldn’t the children being abused be protected by the Courts?
Shouldn’t families torn apart have some recourse to settle their differences, for the welfare of the children?
Perhaps the court is not the best place for that, and I am all for reform in this area.
Cutting money from those budgets simply on the basis that it costs to much isn’t really an answer.
Thanks for signing by the way people.
Up to 50,000 signatures almost, which is halfway there.
Another point on pay.
Top Barristers earn more than the Prime Minister and more than Doctors.
That is the headline, but what is under the headline?
Barristers are self-employed, they are not constantly in work, they have no pension, they have no sick pay, they have no holiday pay, other than those they pay for privately to protect themselves.
There is a difference between a Barrister and an employed Doctor, who earns the same each week, each month, each year, with salary guaranteed, with generous sick pay and a civil service pension, with annual holiday each year, for which they are paid.
To compare the two and argue that it isn’t fair that one earns more than the other is to ignore the context of their employment.
[/quote]
What would you do if the “skilled” decorator started charging you several hundred pounds an hour for his “SKILLS”
Kaos… skills are skills… the sooner it is understood, that your years spent learning latin ARE AS VALUABLE as his years learning how to stop damp rot on an unusually damp bed… somethign the average lawyer knows FAAK all about demonstrating the value of the skill the lawyer DOES NOT POSSESS… the sooner you and your ilk will understand just why you are NOT popular with these sort of ludicrous snobbish attitudes… why is your “skill” superior to the builders “skill” … are they not both “skills” are they not both earnt through years of hard labour, education and effort… are they not both incomprehensible to the “unskilled” … your snobbery is embarrassing… who the **** do you think you are… are you honestly trying to say, that you work harder than everyone else… just cos you’re “legally trained”… ? REALLY? Who the **** do you think you are?
You ever heard of interior decorators have you?
Some of them earn a great deal of money, those with the skill of course.
It is a silly comparison anyway, but just pointing out that even decorators can earn lots of money.
I didn’t reply to the rest of your post, because it was so incoherent and nonsensical that it didn’t really warrant a response.
Who said that I work harder because I was legally trained?
Who said that the legal training was more important than any other training?
Your whole post appears to be replying to someone else and was accidentally put in this thread.
If you want to make accusations about what I have said, or make comparisons, then draw out what I have said and show me how this somehow implies what you have written.
At the moment you have just gone off on a pointless rant that has nothing to do with anything I have said.
Toby, there is honestly no point in entering into any topic with him.
Dammit why didn’t you tell me that before I dismantled him…
I could have spent a useful 5 making a cuppa!
Baz man! Always good to see you!
Oi Kaos
Any of these to$$ers legally trained by any chance… what the whole cabinet. and oooh the whole opposition too?
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/44225
Don’t you see how stupid you sound?
Oooh wow… what, they want more money… are they SO SKILLED that we can’t do without them? Have they got the brightest minds in Britain… eh?
IF THAT’S THE CASE WHY IS THIS COUNTRY IN SUCH A **** STATE.
You lot remind me of footballers…
We’re the best… pay us the most…
But can you win…
**** NO, WE’RE JUST GREEDY HIGHLY TRAINED, EXCEPTIONALLY SKILLED CUNTS
Kaos… you are on thin fucking ice sunshine…
I don’t think the point here is the validity of the changes themselves, but more fundamentally that any significant changes to any area of legislation such as this should be openly debated in Parliament, so as to ensure that all and any worries are aired and addressed appropriately.
This government seems all to keen to find ways around the laws governing what must be debated in Parliament and keeps bringing in sweeping changes through the back door. The more of these proposals that the public can force a debate on the better, regardless of what people’s individual opinions on them may be.
You should pull your head out of your ass Toby and read what I write, instead of what you think I am writing.
You really don’t half talk drivel.
Dismantled me? With the sort of nonsense you just posted?
You sound like a drunk on the street corner shouting at a lamppost for banging into you.
please don’t think my lack of belief in Kaos as a gent, means I disagree with the original petition… he is SOOOO right, that this is NOT the way forward… but woods and trees is a big issue for Kaos and I am an unpleasantly annoying git when it comes to pointing out unnoticed hypocritical issues in meaningful and conclusive opinions… I myself am riddled with them, but it scares me when people spout, unaware of their own ignorance and all they reveal with “internet opinions”
Laughing my ass off! :laugh: Toby, I think you need to pour yourself something a little stronger than a cuppa.
Kaos, maybe we should tax the bankers to the max. So they’ll go elsewhere, but will they? What if Britain hits them with taxes and the US then did the same. Where do they go then. Switzerland? Japan? Saudi? Reality is that the vast majority in this country have suffered due to the culture of greed that existed/exists in the banking system. They deserve to be taxed to the hilt more than anyone else I can think of. Only problem is that they won’t because of their cosy relationship with their chums in government who would prefer to paint the unemployed, the single mothers and the asylum seekers as the real villains milking the country dry. The imbalance of power and money in Britain is f***ing sickening sometimes. Can’t remember who said it (some economist I think), but the rich in this country are only rich because they have the poor. A truer word never spoken 
Let’s go through your stupid post though, because I think it will be interested and entertain me for a moment.
To put my replies in a context you can understand...SHARED EVERYWHERE…you fucking moron, did you not read those words?
The whole point is that in whatever job you look at where you need to employ human beings, the costs are high. Hence no manufacturing in this country.
I am complaining that the Government doesn’t want to lose the “brightest” in our Banking system, but don’t mind losing the “brightest” from the legal system to point out the inconsistency in Government thinking.
Your reply?
Who the **** knows. I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
My greed?Despite being told that the VAST majority of legal aid Barristers earn less than teachers.
Greed you fat lazy prick? How about enough to pay the bills you inept twat.
God you are a moronic ****, can you not see a comparison when it comes up and smashes you in the face?I am complaining that the Government doesn’t want to lose the “brightest” in our Banking system, but don’t mind losing the “brightest” from the legal system to point out the inconsistency in Government thinking.
I repeat the statement I made above, because apparently your single brain cell doesn’t seem to be able to grasp such complex issues.
Again, incoherent nonsense...wtf the are you even trying to say here? Do you read back what you write? You fucking twat.You don’t even understand what the system is, but you are defending it as if you did understand. You are a complete tosser.
Price competitive tendering will END COMPETITION you waste of fucking air, that is the biggest complaint about it, but you lack even that basic understanding of the concept…but you are destroying me of course, destroying me with your inane babbling which doesn’t understand the principles behind what you are defending.
You are the worst kind of fucking moron, the ignorant loud mouthed twat kind.
[quote] For someone legally trained, you know nothing about a good argument.... [/quote] You can argue with the stupid, but all they do is drag you down to their level.As you have here.
I hope you enjoyed the response though, I will now go pat myself on the back to some assmunch who agrees with me for no other reason than being owned in several debates by you, and tell him how I destroyed you.
I hope you sober up enough in the morning to post another of your apology posts of what an amazing dick you were last night.
No doubt you have that on your clipboard for easy cut and pasting.
I am fine with it all , higher tax on other people , legal wassits , gay marraige , NHS ,the gudderment …just aslong as none of it actually affects me .
I never denied skills, in fact I tacitly accepted them when I stated that this happens EVERYWHERE in our society.
Human beings cost money, hence our expensive NHS, Police Force, Army, Social Care etc etc.
I never said the legal system was perfect, but it is world renowned and recognised as one of the best in the world…so why make reforms simply to save a few pennies if you risk that system?
Reforms to bring about change within the system makes sense, but saving money for the sake of saving money at the expensive of a system that works, is plainly silly.