More [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352107/Legal-aid-lawyers-milking-pointless-migrant-appeals-Nine-cases-thrown-number-reviews-soars-10-000-year.htmlammunition[/url for Chris Grayling. Personally, I hope he has a very large gun!

Although sometimes I just wish that Ministers and MPs would put away the "How to spin your statements so that its someone elses fault" book and just lay the plain facts on the table - if the situation is out of control then "This" is how "We" are going to fix it, thats all that is needed - to paraphrase from one quote in that article he says in one breath "Under the last government, blah, blah, blah" and then couples that statistic to "such claims have increased 86% in the last five years".

So thats under BOTH of the last two governments then isn't it ?

Stop trying to treat us like idiots and just put the straight facts on the table without trying to deflect any blame onto someone else.

On a slightly different tack but in a similar vein of failing appeals at the first hurdle, during a recent complaint to a major almost totally public owned banking organisation recently I was surprised to see a statistic from their own web site complaints submission page that over 75% of all complaints received by that department were upheld in favour of the client - that is by their own admission.

So the banks are working properly now then ?


And yes, my complaint was found in my favour too.

I thought this thread was going to be about the proposed pay rise that none of the MPs want, but that they're all so 'powerless' to resist.

Funny, so did I.

So far, I haven't seen one of them stick his/her head above the parapet in support of the idea.
Maybe Nadine hasn't got up yet.

Not to sure none of them want it, wasn't there an anonymous poll of 100 MP's recently that came back with a figure of between 75 and 95K as being a "reasonable" wage?

We're all in together. But some of us are more in it than others.

Another balanced article from the Wail.

Frankly I don't know why the government doesn't just go the whole hog and start deporting people without trial, tribunal or hearing.

I just hope those who are happy to bypass due process for them furriners don't find themselves needing the legal aid system at any point in the future. Once Failing Grayling has finished with it, there won't be much left and what there is won't be bothered in the slightest about right and wrong or winning and losing.

Why not? What are most of these people doing in a foreign country to start with? Were they born here? Where they invited by the state / the majority? If not, why are they here?

Mainly, to pee off bigoted racist xenophobes like you. I hope.

Strangely enough, I am in favour of paying MPs more.

However I would couple the increase to a few other changes to their contract of employment, such as:

1) Their job as MP should be their only form of remuneration. They should immediately resign all directorships and sell all shareholdings (not to family members), except those held in openly-recognisable pension funds.

2) Any fees received for TV/radio appearances or other media work should be donated to charity

3) They will receive a subsistence allowance to cover time spent away from home. This will be at a set rate and will cover any meals or accommodation. If they wish to spend more, they are welcome to pay the extra from their own pockets.

4) Travel expenses will be based on a 1.6l car at national average pump prices. If they decide to use an alternative form of transport, they can fund the difference themselves. Only those MPs living more than 200 miles from Westminster would be expensed to use air travel for commuting to and from home and that will be in the form of one return ticket (Economy class) per week.

5) Any MP found to have been fiddling his expenses to be summarily dismissed with forfeiture of all benefits.

There will be anomalies but not many and it shouldn't be difficult to work around them

The point in issue is that if people come here of their own accord, without permission / invitation why should residents pay for their legal hearings? They should pay themselves or accept they must leave if they are not British.

Does that include those who arrive claiming asylum? They are here without permission in the first instance.

Should they be denied access to legal representation and forced to conduct their own hearings in a foreign language?

How long does Grayling seriously think he can circumvent the due process of law before Strasbourg get involved? Now then I really can see advocates bills racking up.

That's the annoying thing.

HMG uses the likes of Abu Qatada as an example to run these scare stories about immigrants and legal aid costs, but if Theresa Domi-May-trix hadn't continually tried to break the law by shipping him out to a country with a reputation for extracting confessions by torture he wouldn't have had to go through so many appeals.

If they arrived in the UK after travelling overland through other "safe" countries, they should not be afforded legal assistance.

Sadly, I think the idea is to increase salaries [iand[/i stay firmly aboard the expenses/corporate toadying gravy train.

6) Put in at least 40 provable hours per week, either in the House of Commons, government offices, official meetings or surgeries in constituencies.... including during periods when Parliament is in recess.
Paid holidays to be in line with the National average.

And not to be taken on an oligarch's yacht.

Which is what he wants, another chance to have a go at "The EU"

[url=http://publiclawforeveryone.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/legal-aid-judicial-review-permission-applications-and-the-daily-mail-setting-the-record-straight/Response to the Mail's swivel-eyed histrionics[/url

He doesn't seem to mention (unless it's lost in jargon) that alot of prospective judicial reviews do not go ahead because the insturments of the state back down beforehand.

So, basically, the Daily Mail is trumpeting utter nonsense through its nether orifice.

Unfortunately, out there in Pooterland, the Mail's version will by now be considered to be unassailable, proven, iron-clad fact.

You sound surprised.

The only time I've seriously threatened judicial review, UKBA backed down pretty sharpish. Mentioning it in passing usually gets them panicking too, so I suspect you may be right