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

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by FORMER_FYRDMAN, May 23, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. FORMER_FYRDMAN

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    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.
     
  3. Wordsmith

    Wordsmith LE Book Reviewer

    • Like Like x 1
  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. 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.
     
  8. FORMER_FYRDMAN

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    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. 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.
     
  11. FORMER_FYRDMAN

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    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. 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. That's OK, the doddering old farts in wigs and stockings will keep it firmly based on the actual reality.
     
  15. 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!
     
    • Like Like x 3