Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:41 am  

Sal Paradise wrote: 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. Sal Paradise wrote: 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. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... /2779.html

Sal Paradise wrote: 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. Sal Paradise wrote: 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. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... /2779.html

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:06 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: 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. http://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?

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: 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. http://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?

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:02 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

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.

What a pisspoor 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?

Sal Paradise wrote:

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?

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.

Sal Paradise wrote:

No body mentioned the court taking cases on a no win no fee basis - only you.

Earlier, the same Sal Paradise wrote:

wrote:
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.

Sal Paradise wrote:

The legal system shouldn't be a gravy train for solicitors and barristers - the public purse is not a bottomless pit of money.

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".

Sal Paradise wrote:

The funds available need to be prioritised.

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.

Sal Paradise wrote:

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.

Such isolated cases (and which cost nowhere near your absurd "millions") 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.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Legal argument appears to me to be settled on an interpretation of the law in many cases - would you not agree?

I have no clue what your question even means.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:09 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The legal system shouldn't be a gravy train for solicitors and barristers

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.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Fri Mar 13, 2015 3:07 pm  

In jail.

In jail.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:46 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

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.

You must have a really bad accountant Chris?

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:43 pm  

Boulder_Dash wrote:

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.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Mon Mar 16, 2015 2:06 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

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?

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:38 pm  

Ovavoo wrote:

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 received and the change made it on earnings they had billed 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.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:57 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

I'm not the expert but it was something to do with barristers being taxed on earnings that they received and the change made it on earnings they had billed 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.