I assumed it was Evan's family that had set up the website (certainly not the victim) but its his "supporters". That was the confusion.

Not exactly sexual abuse, but today all remaining assault charges against footballer [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-30833162Ravel Morrison[/url were dropped, following his defence team having obtained CCTV of the alleged assault on his then girlfriend, which showed that, er, there wasn't one, moreover she having fallen to the ground, he in fact went over and helped her up, and helped her to a car.

In November, Morrison, who is from Manchester, was cleared of threatening to throw acid in the face of his ex-girlfriend, have her killed and blow up her house. CPS also withdrew the allegation he harassed her over four years.

So he leaves court an innocent man, but must have been really put through the mill, and faced jail, ever since the allegations were first made. He was initially refused bail, and led handcuffed down to the cells. The claims he had assaulted his girlfriend and her mother were widely reported and it must have been devastating for him. Let alone the huge cost to the taxpayer that the process will have incurred. Had the CCTV not emerged, he may well have been potted, and served more time, like Evans. Whether charges are brought against the girlfriend is something CPS will now have to consider but she must have known that the original assault outside the club never happened, yet saw him remanded in custody and persisted in her story until the truth emerged.

I expect there will be all sorts of revelations now Leon Brittain has popped his clogs.

Two potential Fernbridge witnesses dead in a week?

As for Brittan, I won't be shedding any tears. He was the Home Secretary that turned the police into a goverment-sponsored paramilitary organisation during the miners' strike.

He can rot with Thatcher

Social media will be awash with conspiracy theories.

Who's the other one?

John Stingemore

Brittan was named in certain sources ages before he died. The whole 'lost' dossier episode stinks. The government don't appear to even want to start the enquiry into establishment sex abuse but they will rush through trivial matters like plain cigarette packaging.

Kitty, I mean Cliff is in the news again. There's no smoke without fire.

You are...



...and I claim my £5.

Ha ha. I actually typed that in Keith's accent!

Smoke kills in seconds, fire kills in minutes.

Laugh or burn. Take your pick.

[urlhttp://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31720761[/url

I have no particular like or dislike of Paul Gambaccini and his radio output but he does have a point in the article linked to above, which is how long is too long to hold someone on police bail especially when that action has denied them work and an ability to earn income, this applies equally to a warehouse worker who may find that his agency don't offer him anymore shifts as it does media "celebrities" who can't even work for free when under such a shadow as historic sex abuse charges.

The other concern about the article is the quote from the DPP who simply dismisses any and all accusations placed before her - its a habit that many public bodies and especially those directly controlled by a government minister have got into, that they simply brush aside any concerns with a denial, an almost arrogant denial that they simply do not recognise that there may be a problem and that they know best and should not be questioned.

The description by Gambaccini of being used as "human fly paper" on which they hoped new accusers would stick allegations is a very apt one and still continues in the media even this week - Cliff Richards anyone ?

When you have a "Justice Secretary" who has (to date) been held by the courts to have acted unlawfully NINE times, it sort of confirms the two-raised-fingers approach now endemic. Though the number of further findings is likely to fall as Grayling is doing his best to do to Judicial Review what he so successfully did to all but kill workers' rights in Tribunals, and what from Monday he will have achieved in blocking access to the civil courts to ordinary people and small businesses who won't be able to pay nor justify the ludicrous, swingeing fee hikes. Systematically dismantling a justice system that took centuries to build.

I have a dislike of him. Along with people like Esther Rantzen he spouted off about knowing all about Savile after his death while doing nothing whatsoever about it at the time.



It's a good job for Gambaccini that ridiculous, stupid whining isn't a crime or he'd be in jail for that 5hit.

Agree with the first part but cannot agree with the second part. There are plenty of law firms out there that will take work on a no win no fee basis. The plaintiff's job is to present a solid enough case that one of these firms will take it on. This is just an evolution not a dismantling of the justice system. The policeman who has just got compensation from the gobby ex Conservative minister managed to get his case defended and there are thousands of others like him. The idea the public purse is spent defending an appeal for the likes of the two killers of Lee Rigby is bonkers and shows the old system is not fit for purpose.

The Police Federation funded his case - is this a recommendation for all employees to join a union in order that they can progress future claims ?

Ha Ha - you think I would fall for that!!

What it says is if your case is strong enough somebody will take it on without you needing to fund it.

If you think this is a sufficient bi-product for joining a union and helping to fund the final salary schemes of union officials that is your choice and long may it be so.

I've only ever been a member of one union and that was just for one month when in the 1970s I found out that someone had nominated me to join the EEPTU, they kicked me out when I wouldn't pay the subscription

Fortunately I have never been a member and never worked in place where a closed shop was in place - hideous concept.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Agree with the first part but cannot agree with the second part. There are plenty of law firms out there that will take work on a no win no fee basis. '" There are very many deserving cases that will never be decided upon by a court or tribunal, not because there are insufficient merits, but simply because the aggrieved person can't afford it. Merits don't even enter into it if you need £10,000 just to pay the Court fee to start a claim, and you don't have it. Strangely, the Court won't take your case on a "no win, no fee" basis. Quote ="Sal Paradise"The idea the public purse is spent defending an appeal for the likes of the two killers of Lee Rigby is bonkers and shows the old system is not fit for purpose.'" I see. But, who would decide that it was bonkers? A poll of Daily Mail readers? You? There is the reason our justice system is envied, it really is equally available to anyone, within the rules and laws and procedures, and that is the hallmark of a civilised legal system. But you know nothing about that appeal, and seemingly know nothing about the system either. Despite this "government" doing its damndest to dismantle justice, I'm proud we have a system where the courts will listen and rule on legal arguments based on our law, and not on how distasteful you may find an accused, or their deeds or views. Otherwise, you're just left with mob rule. www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... /2779.html

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Agree with the first part but cannot agree with the second part. There are plenty of law firms out there that will take work on a no win no fee basis. '" There are very many deserving cases that will never be decided upon by a court or tribunal, not because there are insufficient merits, but simply because the aggrieved person can't afford it. Merits don't even enter into it if you need £10,000 just to pay the Court fee to start a claim, and you don't have it. Strangely, the Court won't take your case on a "no win, no fee" basis. Quote ="Sal Paradise"The idea the public purse is spent defending an appeal for the likes of the two killers of Lee Rigby is bonkers and shows the old system is not fit for purpose.'" I see. But, who would decide that it was bonkers? A poll of Daily Mail readers? You? There is the reason our justice system is envied, it really is equally available to anyone, within the rules and laws and procedures, and that is the hallmark of a civilised legal system. But you know nothing about that appeal, and seemingly know nothing about the system either. Despite this "government" doing its damndest to dismantle justice, I'm proud we have a system where the courts will listen and rule on legal arguments based on our law, and not on how distasteful you may find an accused, or their deeds or views. Otherwise, you're just left with mob rule. www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... /2779.html

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"There are very many deserving cases that will never be decided upon by a court or tribunal, not because there are insufficient merits, but simply because the aggrieved person can't afford it. Merits don't even enter into it if you need £10,000 just to pay the Court fee to start a claim, and you don't have it. Strangely, the Court won't take your case on a "no win, no fee" basis. I see. But, who would decide that it was bonkers? A poll of Daily Mail readers? You? There is the reason our justice system is envied, it really is equally available to anyone, within the rules and laws and procedures, and that is the hallmark of a civilised legal system. But you know nothing about that appeal, and seemingly know nothing about the system either. Despite this "government" doing its damndest to dismantle justice, I'm proud we have a system where the courts will listen and rule on legal arguments based on our law, and not on how distasteful you may find an accused, or their deeds or views. Otherwise, you're just left with mob rule. www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... /2779.html'" If the case has sufficient merit and a legal team think they can cover their cost + some they will take it on - we see it every day, e.g. Saville's victims. It has very little to do with cost more about covering costs, pro-bono work is prevalent in most countries. If the practisers of law guard it with such pride then surely its worth giving up some free time to uphold its virtues? No body mentioned the court taking cases on a no win no fee basis - only you. The legal system shouldn't be a gravy train for solicitors and barristers - the public purse is not a bottomless pit of money. The funds available need to be prioritised. Pumping millions into meaningless cases - especially high profile appeal cases - surely isn't the best use of the funds. Perhaps if we spent less money on the likes of Jeremy Bamber then there would be more funds available for the worthy cases you have in mind. Legal argument appears to me to be settled on an interpretation of the law in many cases - would you not agree?

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"There are very many deserving cases that will never be decided upon by a court or tribunal, not because there are insufficient merits, but simply because the aggrieved person can't afford it. Merits don't even enter into it if you need £10,000 just to pay the Court fee to start a claim, and you don't have it. Strangely, the Court won't take your case on a "no win, no fee" basis. I see. But, who would decide that it was bonkers? A poll of Daily Mail readers? You? There is the reason our justice system is envied, it really is equally available to anyone, within the rules and laws and procedures, and that is the hallmark of a civilised legal system. But you know nothing about that appeal, and seemingly know nothing about the system either. Despite this "government" doing its damndest to dismantle justice, I'm proud we have a system where the courts will listen and rule on legal arguments based on our law, and not on how distasteful you may find an accused, or their deeds or views. Otherwise, you're just left with mob rule. www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... /2779.html'" If the case has sufficient merit and a legal team think they can cover their cost + some they will take it on - we see it every day, e.g. Saville's victims. It has very little to do with cost more about covering costs, pro-bono work is prevalent in most countries. If the practisers of law guard it with such pride then surely its worth giving up some free time to uphold its virtues? No body mentioned the court taking cases on a no win no fee basis - only you. The legal system shouldn't be a gravy train for solicitors and barristers - the public purse is not a bottomless pit of money. The funds available need to be prioritised. Pumping millions into meaningless cases - especially high profile appeal cases - surely isn't the best use of the funds. Perhaps if we spent less money on the likes of Jeremy Bamber then there would be more funds available for the worthy cases you have in mind. Legal argument appears to me to be settled on an interpretation of the law in many cases - would you not agree?

What a poor example. The number of Savile victims is totally insignificant in the general scheme of litigation, plus the firms that are doing them are almost all doing them as group or class actions, where economies of scale apply. Add the fact that it's a CERTAIN win, either against his estate, or CICA. It is not a case of "covering cost" - what on earth would be the point of doing hundreds of cases for no profit? Are you mad?


The legal profession has a long and proud tradition of pro bono work but that is rightly restricted to cases where otherwise deserving cases would have no remedy and again, whilst much pro bono is done, statistically it is not a significant proportion. Add to that recent rules which mean if you win, you can actually be paid for pro bono work and again, your point is pretty meaningless.











Thank you Mr. Grayling but nnobody is arguing for your crazy straw men. The legal system is jobs for lawyers, judges, clerks, secretaries, legal executives etc. They make hugely varying sums of money same as people do in any given trade or profession. "Gravy train"? There are readily available statistics on earnings of all trades and professions and lawyers in the main are hardly on any "gravy train". Grayling and his disingenuous stooges wil always pick out one case of one QC or Chambers which "made £x million" as if that had anything whatsoever to do with the 99.9% reality of lawyers in day-to-day business. Is that what you're trying to do?

However the most idiotic part of your post is to talk of gravy trains and bottomless pits in the context of legal aid. It is extremely well known that lawyers choosing to do legal aid work ar choosing THE lowest paid work of all legal work, and very many do it despite it being very hard to scratch a living doing normal run-of-the mill criminal, family or children cases. They are committed to what they do and provide a very valuable service when in other areas of law they could charge far higher rates. They are not the right target for cuts, and as ever with this government, the extra bonus is that it is their clients, the poorest and most disadvantaged in society, the easy targets who increasingly are unable to get AnY legal aid representation, that really "pay the price".


Utterly banal, trite soundbites never advance any discussion. The fact is, the "funds available" are whatever an administration chooses to make available. and just getting the Vodafones and Starbucks et al of this world to pay their fair tax would more than eliminate the need for ANY cuts, but they are mates with Osborne and his chums so the only thing they will throw at that problem is hot air, while quietly letting their mates and themselves milk the system.


Such isolated cases (and which cost nowhere near your absurd "millions"icon_wink.gif are totally insignificant in budgetary terms, you are just doing what the scumbag Graying does, shamelessly holding up perceived popular "outrage" examples as if they were representative. In fact, the cuts presently being savagely wielded do *NOTHING* to affect cases such as those, so why do you mention them? The cuts instead increasingly disenfranchise the poor and increasingly turn the system into a legal Ritz - open to all ... as long as they can pay.


I have no clue what your question even means.

When you have to forego over £12000 in billed costs/income from your employment when people don't pay you (but because you've billed it, you pay tax on it), you can start banging on about gravy trains.

[url=http://www.image-share.com/ijpg-2884-25.html[/url

In jail.