Ha ha. I actually typed that in Keith's accent!



Smoke kills in seconds, fire kills in minutes.

Laugh or burn. Take your pick.

[urlhttp://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31720761[/url



I have no particular like or dislike of Paul Gambaccini and his radio output but he does have a point in the article linked to above, which is how long is too long to hold someone on police bail especially when that action has denied them work and an ability to earn income, this applies equally to a warehouse worker who may find that his agency don't offer him anymore shifts as it does media "celebrities" who can't even work for free when under such a shadow as historic sex abuse charges.



The other concern about the article is the quote from the DPP who simply dismisses any and all accusations placed before her - its a habit that many public bodies and especially those directly controlled by a government minister have got into, that they simply brush aside any concerns with a denial, an almost arrogant denial that they simply do not recognise that there may be a problem and that they know best and should not be questioned.



The description by Gambaccini of being used as "human fly paper" on which they hoped new accusers would stick allegations is a very apt one and still continues in the media even this week - Cliff Richards anyone ?

When you have a "Justice Secretary" who has (to date) been held by the courts to have acted unlawfully NINE times, it sort of confirms the two-raised-fingers approach now endemic. Though the number of further findings is likely to fall as Grayling is doing his best to do to Judicial Review what he so successfully did to all but kill workers' rights in Tribunals, and what from Monday he will have achieved in blocking access to the civil courts to ordinary people and small businesses who won't be able to pay nor justify the ludicrous, swingeing fee hikes. Systematically dismantling a justice system that took centuries to build.

I have a dislike of him. Along with people like Esther Rantzen he spouted off about knowing all about Savile after his death while doing nothing whatsoever about it at the time.







It's a good job for Gambaccini that ridiculous, stupid whining isn't a crime or he'd be in jail for that 5hit.

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. The plaintiff's job is to present a solid enough case that one of these firms will take it on. This is just an evolution not a dismantling of the justice system. The policeman who has just got compensation from the gobby ex Conservative minister managed to get his case defended and there are thousands of others like him. 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.

The Police Federation funded his case - is this a recommendation for all employees to join a union in order that they can progress future claims ?

Ha Ha - you think I would fall for that!!



What it says is if your case is strong enough somebody will take it on without you needing to fund it.



If you think this is a sufficient bi-product for joining a union and helping to fund the final salary schemes of union officials that is your choice and long may it be so.

I've only ever been a member of one union and that was just for one month when in the 1970s I found out that someone had nominated me to join the EEPTU, they kicked me out when I wouldn't pay the subscription

Fortunately I have never been a member and never worked in place where a closed shop was in place - hideous concept.

Quote Sal Paradise="Sal Paradise"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. Quote Sal Paradise="Sal Paradise"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. www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... /2779.html

Quote Sal Paradise="Sal Paradise"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. Quote Sal Paradise="Sal Paradise"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. www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... /2779.html

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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. 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?

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"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. 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?

What a poor 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?





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.



















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".





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.





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





I have no clue what your question even means.

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.

[url=http://www.image-share.com/ijpg-2884-25.html[/url



In jail.

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.

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 [ureceived[/u and the change made it on earnings they had [ubilled[/u 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.

Contrary to popular belief, the criminal Bar is not well paid. I have friends who are 5 years qualified in Leeds and earning (on paper) £40k.



Of this, they lose 1/3 to chambers fees and expenses, and are taxed on the rest. They frequently work evenings and weekends preparing cases. You could earn more flogging photocopiers, in return for far less hours and without the high startup cost of university / postgraduate law school. And a fraction of the stress.



Solicitors often drag their heels about payment, meaning it can be several months (or even years) before you receive payment for the case you did. Chasing them is counter-productive, since you will not get further instructions if you are heavy-handed chasing up unpaid invoices.



The way the tax system works, you are taxed on what you have billed, not on what you have received. Meaning you are paying tax on money you have not yet seen, and might never see.



There are serious problems in the criminal law side of the legal profession. And it generally stems from the fact it is so poorly paid. Aspiring lawyers are not going to spend 5 years of their life and £40K in tuition fess to qualify into an area of law where the starting salary is £15K-£25K, and the absolute maximum that can be earned is about £50K, unless you are seriously good / experienced and get involved in 'VHCC' (very high cost cases). If you want to prosecute, you might be interested in working for the CPS. Who will pay you about £30K. In central London.



But who cares? Well...we all should. More and more work in criminal law is being done by people who are either not qualified (paralegals) or very junior solicitors and barristers who simply do not have the experience and competence to do the work they are being allocated. Innocent people are being put at risk of being found guilty, and the guilty are at risk of getting away with it.



Further, there are more and more solicitor-advocates knocking around the crown court. A few are excellent, some are good, but far too many are simply awful. If you ever have the misfortune of being a defendant, go and get a decent barrister. If you can find one, before they all remuster to an area of law that actually pays a decent wage.



Finally...if you earn over about £35K, or have more than about £10K equity in your house, you are not eligible for legal aid. Which means you have to pay all your own defence costs. And here is the galling thing - as a general rule, you don't get them back if you are found not guilty.

Agree with all of the above, law degree graduates new into the law employment market start on £15k in Leeds shuffling papers for solicitors, and thats where you'll stay (unless you pay for your own LPC) for they have a constant stream of eager applicants every year, its not a golden ticket to future riches.

Cyril 'Scapegoat' Smith. Liberal MP (nowhere near being in power) for a Lancashire mill town is given police/special branch/ MI5 protection. Coppers investigating him were told to drop it or face prosecution themselves under the official secrets act. Why was this man being protected? Realistically he was a political nobody.



Was he involved with other higher ranking child abusers who the establishment worried would be exposed if Smith was charged? I think so.



Are the authorities now exposing the Smith cover-up in the hope that the public will stop asking questions about other politicians who held real positions of power, some may still be alive today?



If the full political child abuse scandal was exposed it would probably cause the whole government to collapse.

I haven't looked into the details of the Smith case but from the reading I've done in the past the allegations I've heard about have all been about him spanking boys. I think he was working as a teacher or in some other job at a school.



While we're hyper-sensitive right now about all this. The fact is that hundreds of kids will have been spanked in schools. Many of them will have just been because the kid had been naughty. The problem though is that obviously some teachers/school workers might have also been spanking because it was something they wanted to do for their own gratification, and not just to instill discipline.



Have there been allegations of more serious child abuse aimed at Smith or is that it? If that's it, then IMO the cops at the time might have just been of the mind to kill all investigation rather than let him be brought down over something they considered bogus. If there are more serious allegations this obviously changes things, but I haven't seen anything. But I haven't been looking either.



The MP who is making a huge deal about Smith. I think he's from Rochdale, got a Slavic(?) name. While his campaigning might be completely honest and above board and he could genuinely be someone who is trying to right a wrong, there's also the possibility that he's simply using this to make a name for himself in politics. That suspicion is also arisen in me in that guy who had the famous disappearing dossier. The new campaigning MP always strikes me as being just that little bit odd and his Mrs is even more so. I know she recently came out with her own abuse tale and she's been to the police about it because her mother says she's lying. But the weird thing about her complaint is that the dates that she alleges the abuse are when she was aged 6-11 and the boy was 11-16. While it was certainly *something* if it did happen, it's not a clear case of child abuse and I don't even know how the legal system could even handle it.

The first recent allegations about Smith (came out a couple of years ago) were that he had a liking for spanking young boys. These were rebuffed by supporters including his family as a labour attempt to dirty his name to score political points. Since then far more serious allegations of satanic sexual abuse have surfaced. Some linking him to far more powerful politicians who were also alleged abusers in a Westminster paeophile ring. Channel 4 news broadcast an interview with an alleged victim who said that he was taken to Smith who told him to "suck him off". The victim was under 10 years old at the time.



I have also seen videos where claims have been made that he was acting alongside Jimmy Savile and also senior politicans including a recently deceased former Home Secretary.