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.

You must have a really bad accountant Chris?

Not me - someone caught out by a tax rule change and solicitors not paying up for work done. When you're a junior barrister you can't afford to be turning work down if you want to build a practice, but you often get royally shafted.

Hope you don't mind me asking but Which tax rule change is that and does it only apply to the legal profession?

I'm not the expert but it was something to do with barristers being taxed on earnings that they [ureceived[/u and the change made it on earnings they had [ubilled[/u instead. It may actually have been a tax concession for junior barristers that ended after practicing for a certain number of years rather than a "rule" (and similar may apply to other professions).

My memory is sketchy but it did lose a friend a chunk of money as they would have been taxed on money they didn't actually have because they didn't receive it after clients were billed, so the advice was to write the fees off.

Sounds very similar to the cash accounting scheme that HMRC offered to small businesses for VAT accounting, but in reverse.

Its all designed in a civil servants mind to ease the problems of clients not paying bills that have been submitted as part of a VAT return and the ridiculous paperwork they expected you to follow up several quarters later as a "write-off" process to claim the VAT element back.

Not being a one for paperwork and civil service bollax I just simply used to issue a credit note the next quarter, same solution, no-one loses but no hoops to jump through - it passed at least three VAT inspections too although we never actually told them that thats what we did.

Contrary to popular belief, the criminal Bar is not well paid. I have friends who are 5 years qualified in Leeds and earning (on paper) £40k.

Of this, they lose 1/3 to chambers fees and expenses, and are taxed on the rest. They frequently work evenings and weekends preparing cases. You could earn more flogging photocopiers, in return for far less hours and without the high startup cost of university / postgraduate law school. And a fraction of the stress.

Solicitors often drag their heels about payment, meaning it can be several months (or even years) before you receive payment for the case you did. Chasing them is counter-productive, since you will not get further instructions if you are heavy-handed chasing up unpaid invoices.

The way the tax system works, you are taxed on what you have billed, not on what you have received. Meaning you are paying tax on money you have not yet seen, and might never see.

There are serious problems in the criminal law side of the legal profession. And it generally stems from the fact it is so poorly paid. Aspiring lawyers are not going to spend 5 years of their life and £40K in tuition fess to qualify into an area of law where the starting salary is £15K-£25K, and the absolute maximum that can be earned is about £50K, unless you are seriously good / experienced and get involved in 'VHCC' (very high cost cases). If you want to prosecute, you might be interested in working for the CPS. Who will pay you about £30K. In central London.

But who cares? Well...we all should. More and more work in criminal law is being done by people who are either not qualified (paralegals) or very junior solicitors and barristers who simply do not have the experience and competence to do the work they are being allocated. Innocent people are being put at risk of being found guilty, and the guilty are at risk of getting away with it.

Further, there are more and more solicitor-advocates knocking around the crown court. A few are excellent, some are good, but far too many are simply awful. If you ever have the misfortune of being a defendant, go and get a decent barrister. If you can find one, before they all remuster to an area of law that actually pays a decent wage.

Finally...if you earn over about £35K, or have more than about £10K equity in your house, you are not eligible for legal aid. Which means you have to pay all your own defence costs. And here is the galling thing - as a general rule, you don't get them back if you are found not guilty.

Agree with all of the above, law degree graduates new into the law employment market start on £15k in Leeds shuffling papers for solicitors, and thats where you'll stay (unless you pay for your own LPC) for they have a constant stream of eager applicants every year, its not a golden ticket to future riches.

Cyril 'Scapegoat' Smith. Liberal MP (nowhere near being in power) for a Lancashire mill town is given police/special branch/ MI5 protection. Coppers investigating him were told to drop it or face prosecution themselves under the official secrets act. Why was this man being protected? Realistically he was a political nobody.

Was he involved with other higher ranking child abusers who the establishment worried would be exposed if Smith was charged? I think so.

Are the authorities now exposing the Smith cover-up in the hope that the public will stop asking questions about other politicians who held real positions of power, some may still be alive today?

If the full political child abuse scandal was exposed it would probably cause the whole government to collapse.

I haven't looked into the details of the Smith case but from the reading I've done in the past the allegations I've heard about have all been about him spanking boys. I think he was working as a teacher or in some other job at a school.

While we're hyper-sensitive right now about all this. The fact is that hundreds of kids will have been spanked in schools. Many of them will have just been because the kid had been naughty. The problem though is that obviously some teachers/school workers might have also been spanking because it was something they wanted to do for their own gratification, and not just to instill discipline.

Have there been allegations of more serious child abuse aimed at Smith or is that it? If that's it, then IMO the cops at the time might have just been of the mind to kill all investigation rather than let him be brought down over something they considered bogus. If there are more serious allegations this obviously changes things, but I haven't seen anything. But I haven't been looking either.

The MP who is making a huge deal about Smith. I think he's from Rochdale, got a Slavic(?) name. While his campaigning might be completely honest and above board and he could genuinely be someone who is trying to right a wrong, there's also the possibility that he's simply using this to make a name for himself in politics. That suspicion is also arisen in me in that guy who had the famous disappearing dossier. The new campaigning MP always strikes me as being just that little bit odd and his Mrs is even more so. I know she recently came out with her own abuse tale and she's been to the police about it because her mother says she's lying. But the weird thing about her complaint is that the dates that she alleges the abuse are when she was aged 6-11 and the boy was 11-16. While it was certainly *something* if it did happen, it's not a clear case of child abuse and I don't even know how the legal system could even handle it.

The first recent allegations about Smith (came out a couple of years ago) were that he had a liking for spanking young boys. These were rebuffed by supporters including his family as a labour attempt to dirty his name to score political points. Since then far more serious allegations of satanic sexual abuse have surfaced. Some linking him to far more powerful politicians who were also alleged abusers in a Westminster paeophile ring. Channel 4 news broadcast an interview with an alleged victim who said that he was taken to Smith who told him to "suck him off". The victim was under 10 years old at the time.

I have also seen videos where claims have been made that he was acting alongside Jimmy Savile and also senior politicans including a recently deceased former Home Secretary.

Indeed. But doing the Bar Professional Training Course or Legal Practice Course does not massively improve your situation.

Only around 20% of BPTC graduates get pupillage (what you need to complete before you are a qualified barrister) and only around 35% of LPC graduates get a training contract (what you need to complete before you are a solicitor).

The former course will set you back a cool £15K, and the latter around £10K if you want to do it anywhere decent.

These hardly represent value-for-money.

One other thing to add, my eldest was completely disheartened during her time out in the real world of lawyers during the last year of her degree by the pace of the work and the pressure that your average solicitor is under to churn out the cases. Whereas in Uni they would be given a sample case and several days to prepare for a mock defence, in real life she found that your prep time for an average simple case (assault or a minor benefit fraud for instance) would often be a quick read through the file while waiting outside the court, admittedly most of what she saw were pre-trial hearings but the routine-ness of a solicitor defending someone on legal aid (as it was then) who barely knew the defendant even five minutes before a hearing and who would then be moving on to the next case immediately afterwards is what depressed her about the job - there is a huge pressure to keep the files moving across the desk and keep the meter running.

I can't figure out if you're simply naive or being deliberately obtuse.

Have a good trawl around the [url=http://www.exaronews.com/channel/ukExaro[/url website

Although not completely unexpected, that's the most depressing confirmation I've read in ages.

Ill-informed, I'd say. Or, if he is au fait with the facts, perhaps plain thick?

Read Exaro before you flare up in unsubstantiated self-righteousness, LGJM and comment on their findings and prove me wrong in my assessment.

I don't like trawling around searching for details about child abuse. It's just not what I call fun. Do me a favour and point to the strongest piece of evidence against Smith. I know there was a recent copper who spoke out about being removed from investigation and told to stop but to me that's just not good enough.

Point me to the strongest case against a big name that offers decent testimony. In today's climate if someone made a strong claim against a major politician and could provide supporting evidence then the police would love to make a huge arrest. If these paedo rings were so large surely someone somewhere can point the finger and get them arrested? I know there are a few already disgraced people whose names keep cropping up but they've usually already been convicted before Savile's death changed the picture.

You are a massive biased Labour supporter. Your hatred of the Tories is so huge you actually want the rumours to be true because you know it would virtually kill the party. But the allegations of a powerful gay mafia of politicians simply doesn't ring true. When I was growing up being a normal gay man was still something that many people covered up. The notion that a bunch of gays all got together to join a club that screwed under age boys is just ridiculous. I know there is the allegations against Cliff Richard and a bunch of other names over the hotel. That hotel might also be implicated in under age sex. It's patently clear that Cliff Richard is gay, even though I don't think he has come out and confirmed it. It might just be possible that Cliff Richard and the famous list all had a sex party with consenting adults, but in all honesty who GAF if they did?

The Rotherham sex scandal report has said there were at least 1,400 victims and probably more. Can I just ask how many women have come forward to the police to get their abusers sent to jail? How many arrests have been made since the story broke?

Firstly, I am not a "massive biased Labour supporter". I am a socialist, the Labour party left me years ago and a hatred for the tories does not equate to being a supporter of Labour.

Child sexual abuse is not partisan, there are politicians and VIPs of all political persuasions that have been implicated in historic cases. If you truly believe that there wasn't "some sort of club", then you have either never heard of the Paedophile Information Exchange or have deliberately chosen to ignore it. Although say that, it does seem strange that it's mostly tories and LimpDems who managed to defeat an amendment to a piece of legislation that would see whistleblowers in any CSA enquiries or investigations, offered immunity from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. One does wonder why. [url=http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5530/how-mps-voted-on-move-to-change-official-secrets-act-over-csaVoting record[/url

For your own sake and that of this forum, I suggest you quickly amend your accusations about Cliff Richard's sexuality

And that is hardly delivering justice to either party in a criminal case

cod'ead. I was calling you Labour because it was shorthand for saying socialist. I don't want to write a 10,000 word essay that I know is not going to be read anyway.

My political leaning is to simply not GAF and to ignore them all. The only thing politicians want you for is your vote. The main people to benefit from a party change at the top are the politicians themselves. Poor people are still screwed whoever is in charge, rich people are still the important ones whoever is in charge.

Having said that I trust virtually every politician about as far as I can throw them (using only the power of my mind). If I had to express my poltical leanings then I would say I am definitely a socialist/communist. But I don't want the corrupt communist and socialist system of the past, I want a transparent communism/socialism that rewards genuine great work while also making sure that the weakest in society are looked after. Having these thoughts is difficult when near 1/4 of my life has been spent inside a country that has effectively made commie/socialist a very effective insult.

I hate you. I think you have at least a massive dislike and disrespect of me. I have personality flaws that rile you. I see arrogance in you that pi55es me off and wants to fight you to the death over. You think we are both massively different. I think we see the world fairly similarly and should actually be able to enjoy great conversation and a pint together and like each other. I also know that's impossible seeing that I'm an effing mute and don't drink.



The TV stations reporting on the news about the recent life of CR basically explained that Cliff lives alone with a man (I think he used to be a priest). They pretty much called him room mate/life partner/personal assistant etc etc etc. They hinted that Cliff was gay but never came out and said it. Even though Cliff probably has a sprawling 3 bed apartment, it is my personal belief that to share on heating costs (times are tough for everyone these days) Cliff and his "friend" sleep together in the same bed.

I know I have made jibes directly towards you that are offensive. I know you probably think I'm a homophobe and transphobic. I swear to every god I don't believe in that I'm not. I just reserve the right to be a c*** to people who deserve it. I know that actually make me a bit of a c***. I can accept that.

The whole J96 campaign, Rotherham CSE, complaints about SYP that are being aggressively persued. I see a subplot of giving SYP a right kicking because they are perceived as Maggie's special attack force. The Hillsborough Commission is clearly going to implicate Maggie in the plot and is going to declare football fans 100% innocent. As I say I have zero interest in politics and have no agenda regarding Thatcher. But to say Thatcher hated football fans and was waging war with them is a lie. Maggie had the zero interest in football and just wanted the hooligans to stop causing the damage they did. She wanted football to do it themselves but football couldn't do it. Football fans were generally mainly angry that the actions of one club had damaged everyone. Heysel has been virtually erased from memory and fans carried on the same. It took Hillsborough to give the govt power to affect change and make fans wake up a little bit. Football is now a different, middle class sport and in many ways is all the better for it. As a working class man who has been priced out of the game and sees just what a massive change it's been I feel a lot has been lost. But I still love football.

I hold CFC fans partly responsible for Hillsborough. I hold innocent football fans who ran into packed stadiums even though there were clearly problems ahead partly responsible. Yes, they wanted to see a match and they were missing it. But they also should have damn well known about the trouble of overcrowding. They had a warning only 4 years previously FFS. They chose to be blind to that warning. I do hold Duckenfield hugely responsible. But he was a ignorant victim just like everyone else was. He didn't mean to cause those deaths. But this conspiracy that is being painted leading to Thatcher. It doesn't effing exist. Only 1 man was responsible for The Truth. It was that utter cretin and terrible journalist KM. That c*** pretty much deserves to die. But Maggie. Stay the eff away from her on this one, even though you really don't want to.

Anyway, I'm done ranting. I had sorted my head out over the last few days. I don't want to be messing it up again. Accept what I say in the spirit it's meant or just ignore it. I'm done with this s***.

You need to change your meds