The legal system - unfit for purpose but what to do?

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
Footballer granted injunction to avoid 'boos and cruel chants' at Premier League games - Telegraph

Super-injunctions for paltry reasons, terrorists rights exalted above public safety, a legal system run by lawyers, for lawyers and available only to the very rich or the very poor and a compensation culture underpinned by the worst sort of ambulance-chaser? How can this profession be put back in its box and made to serve society rather than leech off it? I think it's time they were made liable for some of their worst excesses. In 'The Man Who Would Be King' Sean Connery does someone for 'using a good law for a bad purpose'. I wonder if we could have something similar drafted with a view to putting lawyers on the back foot for once.
 
#2
I agree we need to be put back in a box or rather think of the consequences of our actions not just the money and I speak as a lawyer. The problem is the law is no longer a profession but a business and there is tremendous pressure to make money as believe it or not most non-litigation lawyer work hard but for very little fees all thanks to that Labour bloke suing the Law Society over the fees for conveyancing and wills and probate work. That coupled with the fact that there are too many lawyers and still young people try to enter the profession.

Legal aid has been cut for all but the very poor as the legal aid bill has grown hugely over the last 20 years as lawyers encouraged everyone to try to sue someone. IMHO this has led to the "blame someone else but me" culture that we now have and the march of Health and Safety madness. Society seems to have forgotten that shit happens and we are striving for a perfect world where there are no mistakes or accidents. That is an ideal world not reality and litigation lawyers are making the situation worse.
 
#4
Shakespeares King Henry VI had a good suggestion.
 
#5
"First let's kill all the lawyers"

I'm amazed at the amount of technical ignorance shown by the "Legal" experts that keep appearing on the BBC, blatantly showing they don't have a f@cking clue about the Internet, Twitter, or FaceBook
 
#6
Sensible comment from Norman Tebbit:

The law should protect family life – but not the men who ruin the lives of their family – Telegraph Blogs

If you want privacy in your family life, behave like a family man.

Simples...

Wordsmith
Seema like he's earning his paycheck from his bosses. Unless its really in the public interest, who people shag doesnt have anything to do with anyone else. You rarely see many stories about media bosses shagging around so either they are all saints or they are not so keen on the freedom of the press after all.
 
#7
that some footballer shagged some woman from big brother I don't care.
that he can get an injunction banning anyone anywhere from saying anything about it is frankly bollocks.
don't shag slappers.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
I think there's also an obsession with 'perfect justice' which translates into huge amounts of bureaucracy in the system and has a direct impact on the police and how they spend their time. Sometimes it seems as though the 'reasonable doubt' test has been binned for 'no doubt whatsoever'.

It also feels as though the courts will interpret 'uman rights' in a way that seems to be as antagonistic as possible when a foreign interest is involved, but will not be equally provocative - such as ruling the TV license to be in breach of the right to media access (or whatever the specific clause is) - when it involves the native population or when something that accords with their own prejudices and view of society is involved.

I believe that, in cases such as the one where the court ruled that it was too dangerous to send a Somalian back to Somalia just before he raped and murdered a woman before fleeing back to Mogadishu, the Judge and the Defence should face unlimited personal liability, it might make them less keen to keep a load of terrorists at large in the UK simply to show how right on they are. It should be made clear to the courts that their primary responsibility is to the safety of the UK and its citizens and that should inform any judgement. I know that they would counter that they are their to uphold the law impartially but interpretation is such a large part of the legal process that such an argument is, in my view, unsustainable.

I don't know how one would begin such a reform though, yours is the more vested of vested interests as far as professions go.


P.S The above was in reply to Albertous
 
#9
Just started talking about this in the House of Commons
 
#10
I believe that, in cases such as the one where the court ruled that it was too dangerous to send a Somalian back to Somalia just before he raped and murdered a woman before fleeing back to Mogadishu, the Judge and the Defence should face unlimited personal liability, it might make them less keen to keep a load of terrorists at large in the UK simply to show how right on they are. It should be made clear to the courts that their primary responsibility is to the safety of the UK and its citizens and that should inform any judgement. I know that they would counter that they are their to uphold the law impartially but interpretation is such a large part of the legal process that such an argument is, in my view, unsustainable.
The judge was just applying the law, its not his fault the law is so shit.
All this human rights bollocks was intended (as it always is) to protect the honest man from the state abuses. What happened (which always happens) is that criminals took advantage of it.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
Just started talking about this in the House of Commons
First the Guardian with the McCann thread, now the House of Commons addresses the issue within fifteen minutes of the thread starting - clearly Arrse sets the national agenda.
 
#12
First the Guardian with the McCann thread, now the House of Commons addresses the issue within fifteen minutes of the thread starting - clearly Arrse sets the national agenda.
Fraid so ,but Domanic Grieve most certainly is not the brightest light on the tree with technology, the MP.s are more interested in the reporting in the press .of the matters of the House and Parliamentary Privileged. and the independence of the Scottish courts
 
#13
The Speaker has now reprimanded a member for using the "Name that must not be spoken"
 
#14
I'm amazed at the amount of technical ignorance shown by the "Legal" experts that keep appearing on the BBC, blatantly showing they don't have a f@cking clue about the Internet, Twitter, or FaceBook
That's OK, the doddering old farts in wigs and stockings will keep it firmly based on the actual reality.
 
#15
I agree we need to be put back in a box or rather think of the consequences of our actions not just the money and I speak as a lawyer. The problem is the law is no longer a profession but a business and there is tremendous pressure to make money as believe it or not most non-litigation lawyer work hard but for very little fees all thanks to that Labour bloke suing the Law Society over the fees for conveyancing and wills and probate work. That coupled with the fact that there are too many lawyers and still young people try to enter the profession.

Legal aid has been cut for all but the very poor as the legal aid bill has grown hugely over the last 20 years as lawyers encouraged everyone to try to sue someone. IMHO this has led to the "blame someone else but me" culture that we now have and the march of Health and Safety madness. Society seems to have forgotten that shit happens and we are striving for a perfect world where there are no mistakes or accidents. That is an ideal world not reality and litigation lawyers are making the situation worse.
Its probably no surprise to see that many of our legislators are of the LEGAL BENT, or married to someone ala Cherie Blair, who is a Lawyer and who COINCIDENTALLY has made an absolute fortune out of the totally unnecessary "Human Rights" legislation introduced by her corrupt husband!
Even Jack Straw said that Britain has too many Lawyers :- Jack Straw says Britain has too many lawyers | Mail Online
Along with the EU which introduces thousands of often nonsensical legislation & regulations Quote "Statutory Instruments make up the bulk of all UK legislation, with an average of around 3,500 passed every year for much of the last two decades. In 2008, 3,389 Statutory Instruments were passed, while the UK Statute Law Database lists 2,414 results for the same year. With no study having been conducted on how many of those have an EU origin, it is hard to tell the percentage. However in Germany the former German President Roman Herzog and Luder Gurken of the Centrum für Europäische Politik, who used these figures to work out 84% of all German laws originate in Brussels. As Open Europe explains:
750 (directives) + 18,187 (regulations) = 18,917 EU legislative acts
1,195 (Gesetze) + 3,055 (Verordnungen) – 750 (directives) = 3,500 German legislative acts = 84%.
No wonder the law is now such a minefield & open to yet more & more bizarre interpretation, especially by many of our left leaning pc judges!
The sooner we get out of the useless & corrupt EU & scrap all its useless legislation the better!
We used to have a legal system that was the envy of the world, continuosly developed from pre Norman times, used as a basis for the legal systems in huge areas of the world today, this seems to have been scrapped for the nonsense foisted on us today!
 
#16
there is only one answer

 
#18
The judge was just applying the law, its not his fault the law is so shit.
All this human rights bollocks was intended (as it always is) to protect the honest man from the state abuses. What happened (which always happens) is that criminals took advantage of it.
Unfortunately judges no longer just uphold the law but change it to suit some dogmatic vision of how they think society should be not how it is. It all started with the Factortame case, or rather series of cases when a judge ruled that English Law was contrary to EU law and was therefore invalid if not illegal.

Yes judges should uphold the law but they have no right to change the law for their own ends, nor has any other lawyer and we should think or be trained to think of the impact that bringing cases or their judgements will have on society as a whole not just on the limited legal arguments at the time.

If you have ever been in court and heard a trail throughout you will see very quickly that cases are decided on the facts presented or not presented, and those facts are often cleverly taken out of context to suit the argument or judgement that a lawyer or a judge wants to give.

An acquaintance of mine is a now retired judge. He said to me some time ago that his experience and the experience of other judges is that he would decide very quickly which side in any case he favoured and would was invariably drawn to listen to that sides agrument more and give his summing up or judgement favouring that side. He said he knew he shouldn't but he was just human and it was very difficult not to do so. I am not a litigator but if someone wants advice on what I court will do or think I always say that it is impossible for me to say with certainty as each judge is different and the outcome may be different from one day to the next (my area of the law is more chancery so decided by judges not juries). Its not only judicial bias (which we see in the enforcement of human rights against the government etc) but our adversarial system where the facts seem irrelevant and it is a question of how good your brief is.

All that said, I agree, increasing the law appears a means unto its self and its vested interests and it is losing its purpose which is to protect individuals and society.
 
#20
Its probably no surprise to see that many of our legislators are of the LEGAL BENT, or married to someone ala Cherie Blair, who is a Lawyer and who COINCIDENTALLY has made an absolute fortune out of the totally unnecessary "Human Rights" legislation introduced by her corrupt husband!
Even Jack Straw said that Britain has too many Lawyers :- Jack Straw says Britain has too many lawyers | Mail Online
Along with the EU which introduces thousands of often nonsensical legislation & regulations Quote "Statutory Instruments make up the bulk of all UK legislation, with an average of around 3,500 passed every year for much of the last two decades. In 2008, 3,389 Statutory Instruments were passed, while the UK Statute Law Database lists 2,414 results for the same year. With no study having been conducted on how many of those have an EU origin, it is hard to tell the percentage. However in Germany the former German President Roman Herzog and Luder Gurken of the Centrum für Europäische Politik, who used these figures to work out 84% of all German laws originate in Brussels. As Open Europe explains:
750 (directives) + 18,187 (regulations) = 18,917 EU legislative acts
1,195 (Gesetze) + 3,055 (Verordnungen) – 750 (directives) = 3,500 German legislative acts = 84%.
No wonder the law is now such a minefield & open to yet more & more bizarre interpretation, especially by many of our left leaning pc judges!
The sooner we get out of the useless & corrupt EU & scrap all its useless legislation the better!
We used to have a legal system that was the envy of the world, continuosly developed from pre Norman times, used as a basis for the legal systems in huge areas of the world today, this seems to have been scrapped for the nonsense foisted on us today!
My bold above. My gut reaction is that it started to go wrong when the intellectually challenged, grinning 'wanabee' pop-star Blair threw away a thousand year's worth of precedent and installed his mates and cronies into positions of power.

The half-witted buffoon that Blair made Lord Chancellor, Derry Irvine, was so appalling even Blair noticed. He was replaced by a 'flat-mate' the previously anonymous and hugely pompous Falconer. Precedents were overturned; laws by-passed, procedures adulterated and on top of all this the unending avalanche of European 'laws' added chaos to the confusion.

The present shambles is dangerous as law is being applied BEHIND closed doors. This goes against everything that British law once stood for - a free judiciary operating in public.

All European 'law' should be swept away with immediate effect and by a single instrument of legislation. Additionally the crass Human Rights legislation should also be repealed and replaced with a: 'Common Sense Act'.
 

Latest Threads

Top