Will Mr Shiner go hungry?

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Judging by the size of him, it's been a while since he missed a meal.

So no.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
Weird isn't it I couldn't afford all the legal representation that poor people get. Perhaps they'll have to do the same as me and not bother
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I see those poor hard done by legal folk are protesting at cuts in legal aid. If it gets the noses of slimy creeps like Mr Shiner & his ilk out of the trough I'll be happy.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/mar/07/lawyers-protest-parliament-legal-aid-cuts

With those swinging cuts they wont be able to afford to round off a nice meal with a glass of decent port.
Oh dear, what a shame never mind.
That is one of the stupider things I've ever read on these forums, and you have some stiff competition. I'm assuming you just don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about. Arguing that "Shiner is a dick! Therefore cuts to legal aid are good!" is effectively like saying: "Bankers are dicks! I'm going to burn all my money in protest!"

Contrary to popular opinion, not all barristers (who these changes primarily affect) are hugely wealthy, overpaid wastes of space. Most people who think that would probably describe a corporate lawyer when asked to describe a barrister. Those same people are the ones who at some point might quite badly need a barrister if they are ever sued or accused of something of which they are innocent. Despite the existence of reprehensible maggots like Shiner et al, and I'll bet I've been personally affected by him more than you have, most of these people who might need a barrister are far more likely to have cases such as:
  • Low-level criminal representation (where, given the limited police resources dedicated to cases compared to big-trial cases, the likelihood of miscarriage of justice is increased)
  • Social services trying to take away children via the family courts on dubious grounds.
  • Companies or the rich suing individuals for [libel / trade infringement / etc], such as scientists being sued by cosmetics corporations.
What they will not address is the increasing commercial exploitation of the law by no-win-no-fee companies and the like, who operate on an entirely different business model. In fact, it is more likely to boost those companies, as it will make defending against their claims prohibitively expensive without legal aid for those being accused by dubious 'someone must be to blame' lawsuits.

So for the cost of having your brief revenge fantasy against Shiner, you hugely strengthen the legal position of the rich people, large companies and the State against individuals, thereby increasing the cost of innocent individuals defending themselves to the point where they can easily bankrupt themselves doing so, increasing the chance of miscarriages of justice, increasing the reward vs risk of frivolous lawsuits, and boost the nauseating victim culture on every TV screen. Good job. There is a reason why this was defeated fourteen times in the House of Lords, traditionally not a hugely reactionary or stupid lot, before the government elbowed it through. Even the Daily Mail, scourge of immigrants and criminals everywhere, is hesitant to report legal aid cuts positively. I strongly suggest you locate a clue.
 
.....not all barristers (who these changes primarily affect) are hugely wealthy, ....
If they're not they should consider a career change. The law is a licence to print money.
 
That is one of the stupider things I've ever read on these forums, and you have some stiff competition. I'm assuming you just don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about. Arguing that "Shiner is a dick! Therefore cuts to legal aid are good!" is effectively like saying: "Bankers are dicks! I'm going to burn all my money in protest!"...................................................
Good post, and no I don't know much about the "system".
The report suggests the fees will be cut between 6 and 17.5%. I'm not au fait with lawyers' rates but surely some, if not most, of the cuts can be offset by efficiency savings?
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Good post, and no I don't know much about the "system".
The report suggests the fees will be cut between 6 and 17.5%. I'm not au fait with lawyers' rates but surely some, if not most, of the cuts can be offset by efficiency savings?
Problem with the idea of efficiency savings is that it relies on the individual / organisation having control over all (or most all) parts of the process. As Shiner is a good example of, legal cases can often be drawn out by one or more of at least three parties involved (defence, prosecution, judicial). Equally, there are parts of the process which require balance between defence / prosecution, mediated by the judicial element. In essence, all the incentives therefore trend towards competitive perfectionism. That doesn't produce efficiency, and it's very difficult to make it do so without compromising the fundamental system.

The likely effect of the cuts will be to price out the lower end of the market. Young 'baby barristers' who are just starting out tend to take on the lower scale of legal aid cases. They also earn the least, and so can least afford to take a pay cut, given that they are concurrently paying off quite an expensive education. As there are more cases than there are barristers, they can still afford to be choose because to an extent it's a seller's market. Most of them do it for a combination of: guaranteed money, experience, culture (it's the done thing). Altruism is rarely a strong enough incentive to keep them doing it at a serious pay cut (30% to 50%). How many of us would have stayed in the Army if SDSR had demanded a 50% pay cut? Aside from immediately disenfranchising those who can least afford it, in the long term this will have a chilling effect on the entire system of legal aid, as the culture of senior barristers having grown up in legal aid cases will disappear. So the law will become increasingly privatized and accessible primarily to the rich.

By the way, those who are established in a specialism and financially secure will be least affected. Like, for example, Shiner!

I'm not exactly some doe-eyed Islington hippy with a New Statesman subscription, and neither are most barristers, magistrates or judges. The number and type of people who are protesting this (including David Cameron's brother!) should be a major combat indicator that something is wrong.
 

chimera

LE
Moderator
I think Mr Shiner and his partner in crime Mr Day are well aboard the Gravy Train for representing our opponents against us; This is them as well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27255803
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
Weird isn't it I couldn't afford all the legal representation that poor people get. Perhaps they'll have to do the same as me and not bother
And or try like yourself, not breaking the law in the first place.
 
Contrary to popular opinion, not all barristers (who these changes primarily affect) are hugely wealthy, overpaid wastes of space. Most people who think that would probably describe a corporate lawyer when asked to describe a barrister. Those same people are the ones who at some point might quite badly need a barrister if they are ever sued or accused of something of which they are innocent. Despite the existence of reprehensible maggots like Shiner et al, and I'll bet I've been personally affected by him more than you have, most of these people who might need a barrister are far more likely to have cases such as:
  • Low-level criminal representation (where, given the limited police resources dedicated to cases compared to big-trial cases, the likelihood of miscarriage of justice is increased)
  • Social services trying to take away children via the family courts on dubious grounds.
  • Companies or the rich suing individuals for [libel / trade infringement / etc], such as scientists being sued by cosmetics corporations.

So for the cost of having your brief revenge fantasy against Shiner, you hugely strengthen the legal position of the rich people, large companies and the State against individuals, thereby increasing the cost of innocent individuals defending themselves to the point where they can easily bankrupt themselves doing so, increasing the chance of miscarriages of justice, increasing the reward vs risk of frivolous lawsuits, and boost the nauseating victim culture on every TV screen. Good job. .
Of course by being a bit more selective with legal aid Myself and a fair number of other men, wouldn't have damn near bankrupted ourselves trying to maintain contact with our children. Because our Ex wives / Partners failed to comply with court orders knowing that when they were dragged back into court it would cost them nothing.

The added insult that on breaching the court order and this being upheld the courts then said effectively but theres nothing we can do about it, Cant jail her or fine her as the child suffers is in fairness probably not the fault of legal aid.
Small wonder then why so many Fathers gave up trying to maintain contact when both the emotional and financial bills exceeded their ability to pay.

Bitter not fecking half.


Edit to add I don't begrudge the legal aid she was granted when I applied for Parental responsibility or Custody however she should have been fucked of at the high port when we were in court because she had forgotten it was my weekend or just gone out with friends on an unexpected trip etc ie she was taking the piss.
 
Last edited:

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
And or try like yourself, not breaking the law in the first place.
Or unlike yourself, try taking the five seconds to read what the difference between "civil" and "criminal" justice is. Also, this.
 
So much for the common man being able to defend himself...........justice for all? I think not, this house says a bad move.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
Or unlike yourself, try taking the five seconds to read what the difference between "civil" and "criminal" justice is. Also, this.
Oh, well scrotes shouldn't get all this defence money either, my fault for not reading but I see wigs and think Crown Court.
It just annoys me when I see this bunch of holier than though lot going on strike!
And it would have taken more than 5 seconds, smart arse!
And, second edit, I'm not in the mood to read a Guardian link!
 
Problem with the idea of efficiency savings is that it relies on the individual / organisation having control over all (or most all) parts of the process........................................................ The number and type of people who are protesting this (including David Cameron's brother!) should be a major combat indicator that something is wrong.
Thanks.
I would be interested to know (roughly) what the take home pay for an "average" brief is.
Regards those protesting, like most of us would, they are protecting their own interests. IMHO their protests aren't much of an indicator of the overall seriousness of the cuts.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
Uck em, if they give into this lot then what about the Fire Service, there on strike today an all!
It's the Spring of discontent I tell you!
 
Thanks.
I would be interested to know (roughly) what the take home pay for an "average" brief is.
Regards those protesting, like most of us would, they are protecting their own interests. IMHO their protests aren't much of an indicator of the overall seriousness of the cuts.
Difficult to assess as effectively they are self-employed and share their respective chambers' costs.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
So much for the common man being able to defend himself...........justice for all? I think not, this house says a bad move.
trial by combat was cheaper and would make private prosecutions more fun to watch :)
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
if they hadn;t spent so long abusing legal aid to help terrorists, illegal immigrants, spurrious libel cases etc...

maybe they wouldn't have had the aid budget cut.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
Thanks.
I would be interested to know (roughly) what the take home pay for an "average" brief is.
Regards those protesting, like most of us would, they are protecting their own interests. IMHO their protests aren't much of an indicator of the overall seriousness of the cuts.
Too much, half of them are effing scrotes with an education!
I might be wrong in my 50% figure! it may well be higher!
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top