E-petitions: Save UK Justice
DonDaddyD
Posts: 12,689
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48628
Save UK Justice
Responsible department: Ministry of Justice
The MOJ should not proceed with their plans to reduce access to justice by depriving citizens of legal aid or the right to representation by the Solicitor of their choice.
Save UK Justice
Responsible department: Ministry of Justice
The MOJ should not proceed with their plans to reduce access to justice by depriving citizens of legal aid or the right to representation by the Solicitor of their choice.
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
0
Comments
-
Come on there are so many lawyers on here one of you could surely speak up and explain this in greater detail and explain why you will or will not sign this petition.
Legal aid has taken a battering (Example: If you and your partner split up neither are entitled to legal aid if there is a child custody battle - unless there is evidence of physical violence).
The removal of our right to choose which legal aid representative should represent us in a criminal case is incredibly dangerous. What it means is that a legal representative is chosen for us, this will likely be the cheapest provider and they will be paid on the basis that their client makes a guilty plea.
It's a dangerous place the Government is taking the legal system, don't let it happen.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Signed it, but with little hope. If legal representation is available only for those that can afford to pay for it, then we don't have a justice system worthy of the name. (Not a lawyer, but I did do Law 101 decades ago
) 0 -
That's what its looking like.jamesco wrote:Signed it, but with little hope. If legal representation is available only for those that can afford to pay for it, then we don't have a justice system worthy of the name. (Not a lawyer, but I did do Law 101 decades ago)
There was a protest yesterday but was overshadowed by the dreadful events in Woolwich.
Apparently there is going to be a 1min silence by members in the legal profession at 9.59am to signify the death of the UKs legal system - Courts open at 10: the significance of the time.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
already signed it.
I'm assuming due to the lack of publicity the mainstream newspaper scum are in favour of it....0 -
The lack of interest is because most people don't think about legal aide until the horrible day comes.
That being said the legal system is full of costs could be driven out. Anyone from industry looking in sees arcane processes that drive up costs, and modernisation is overdue. I suspect the nature of the billing means that there has been no incentive to reform as everyone in the profession actually benefits from inefficiency whilst the public (clients or taxpayers) pays for it.
Of course those inside the profession typically scream that sky fill fall in if change is made, so they resist.0 -
Thanks for the reminder, DDD.
Not that it'll do much good, I fear.
Personally, Im not so bothered about grown-ups who can't get their act together to sort out their affairs as the effect on criminal trials.
You been in touch with Westminster & St. Pauls yet ?
If we were in London, we'd send the kids to Westminster.0 -
Bad example to use imho. Legal aid should be there to ensure you get properly defended if you are charged with a crime. Not to help you and your ex fight over the kids.DonDaddyD wrote:Come on there are so many lawyers on here one of you could surely speak up and explain this in greater detail and explain why you will or will not sign this petition.
Legal aid has taken a battering (Example: If you and your partner split up neither are entitled to legal aid if there is a child custody battle - unless there is evidence of physical violence).0 -
Makes sense. If a state creates a layer of bureaucracy that can only be navigated by a professional, it makes sense that everyone in that state can access those professionals.0
-
The same legal aid that Abu Qatada and Hamza, Wayne Bishop and someone else got that cost taxpayers over £2,000,000? The same legal aid that is paid to Lawyers and Solicitors to fight for pointless pathetic claims, terrorists, convicted criminals? Yes I agree that some people should be allowed it, but a major haul-over of the system is needed to prevent them getting a penny.1-2-3-4 Tell me what you're looking for0
-
ArdyOCD wrote:THE SAME LEGAL AID THAT ABU QATADA AND HAMZA, WAYNE BISHOP AND SOMEONE ELSE GOT THAT COST TAXPAYERS OVER £2,000,000? THE SAME LEGAL AID THAT IS PAID TO LAWYERS AND SOLICITORS TO FIGHT FOR POINTLESS PATHETIC CLAIMS, TERRORISTS, CONVICTED CRIMINALS? YES I AGREE THAT SOME PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED IT, BUT A MAJOR HAUL-OVER OF THE SYSTEM IS NEEDED TO PREVENT THEM GETTING A PENNY.
Much better in shouty text, no?
Without wanting to feed the troll, how do you choose who should and shouldn't be getting a penny? Especially if you include suspected terrorists, who may not have done anything.0 -
I suspect that the self interest of solicitors and barristers protecting their income streams is a prime motivator behind this campaign.Rick Chasey wrote:Makes sense. If a state creates a layer of bureaucracy that can only be navigated by a professional, it makes sense that everyone in that state can access those professionals.
So should the government pay for us all to have access to professional tax advisors?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
UndercoverElephant wrote:ArdyOCD wrote:THE SAME LEGAL AID THAT ABU QATADA AND HAMZA, WAYNE BISHOP AND SOMEONE ELSE GOT THAT COST TAXPAYERS OVER £2,000,000? THE SAME LEGAL AID THAT IS PAID TO LAWYERS AND SOLICITORS TO FIGHT FOR POINTLESS PATHETIC CLAIMS, TERRORISTS, CONVICTED CRIMINALS? YES I AGREE THAT SOME PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED IT, BUT A MAJOR HAUL-OVER OF THE SYSTEM IS NEEDED TO PREVENT THEM GETTING A PENNY.
Much better in shouty text, no?
Without wanting to feed the troll, how do you choose who should and shouldn't be getting a penny? Especially if you include suspected terrorists, who may not have done anything.
Well, no smoke without fire, can tell a wrong'un just by looking at them, university of life, innit?0 -
TailWindHome wrote:I suspect that the self interest of solicitors and barristers protecting their income streams is a prime motivator behind this campaign.Rick Chasey wrote:Makes sense. If a state creates a layer of bureaucracy that can only be navigated by a professional, it makes sense that everyone in that state can access those professionals.
So should the government pay for us all to have access to professional tax advisors?
Would be mega wouldn't it?
.
You don't have to do your tax via a professional tax advisor, but (and I may very well be wrong) I understood that there are quite a few instances where only a lawyer will suffice.
And then there's the civil/criminal split too,/0 -
suzyb wrote:
Bad example to use imho. Legal aid should be there to ensure you get properly defended if you are charged with a crime. Not to help you and your ex fight over the kids.DonDaddyD wrote:Come on there are so many lawyers on here one of you could surely speak up and explain this in greater detail and explain why you will or will not sign this petition.
Legal aid has taken a battering (Example: If you and your partner split up neither are entitled to legal aid if there is a child custody battle - unless there is evidence of physical violence).
A touch of ingnorance on your part perhaps.
Children have a legal guardian and this can be contested in court. I would prefer to have legal representation should my legal right to care for my child ever be contested. It doesn't have to be my ex either, there is also social services.
There are tons of scenarios I could give even within the context two parents fighting over custody that requires a lawyer.I suspect that the self interest of solicitors and barristers protecting their income streams is a prime motivator behind this campaign.
Everyone says that it doesn't affect them until it does. Point is, should a criminal case be called against me and I need legal representation. I'd rather be able to choose my own legal-aid lawyer than be provided one, who offers the cheapest service, and who is paid if I plead guilty.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:I'd rather be able to choose my own legal-aid lawyer than be provided one, who offers the cheapest service, and who is paid if I plead guilty.
But when it's not your money your spending, price becomes irrelevant.
Multiply that by many thousands and all our taxes are wasted.
Don't have a huge problem with these changes, although ideally there should still be some kind of competition/choice. Someone could start up an ultra cheap, ultra rubbish law firm to sweep up all the money by always being the lowest price.
0 -
I wasn't saying people wont need or shouldn't have legal representation in these kind of cases. I was saying why should tax payers always pay for it. Especially in the case of your example.DonDaddyD wrote:suzyb wrote:
Bad example to use imho. Legal aid should be there to ensure you get properly defended if you are charged with a crime. Not to help you and your ex fight over the kids.DonDaddyD wrote:Come on there are so many lawyers on here one of you could surely speak up and explain this in greater detail and explain why you will or will not sign this petition.
Legal aid has taken a battering (Example: If you and your partner split up neither are entitled to legal aid if there is a child custody battle - unless there is evidence of physical violence).
A touch of ingnorance on your part perhaps.
Children have a legal guardian and this can be contested in court. I would prefer to have legal representation should my legal right to care for my child ever be contested. It doesn't have to be my ex either, there is also social services.
There are tons of scenarios I could give even within the context two parents fighting over custody that requires a lawyer.0 -
TheStone wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:I'd rather be able to choose my own legal-aid lawyer than be provided one, who offers the cheapest service, and who is paid if I plead guilty.
But when it's not your money your spending, price becomes irrelevant.
Multiply that by many thousands and all our taxes are wasted.
I absolutely disagree. We've seen what underfunding can do to the quality of a public service, legal aid is no different. I do not want a under paid, under trained and demotivated lawyer - whose working environment is a paper laden sh*thole representing a key aspect of my life in court. [And] no, you don't have to spend a blank cheque book to deliver "quality"/a good quality service.
The issue here isn't even so much about money, it is about CHOICE and having the right to choose who represents who. Different firms have different repretations - much like different hospitals - some who don't charge as much and who don't pay their lawyers as much as others have better repretations because they are better lawyers. If a civil or custody case comes my way and I qualify for legal aid I want the right to choose who defends me in court given that the outcome can have a lasting effect on my life. I want the right to choose who defends my legal right. I am also not a fan of restricting legal aid by the overall income a person earns or combined income, I'm a firm believer that every British citizen living in this Country has a right to legal representation.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:I absolutely disagree. We've seen what underfunding can do to the quality of a public service, legal aid is no different. I do not want a under paid, under trained and demotivated lawyer - whose working environment is a paper laden sh*thole representing a key aspect of my life in court. [And] no, you don't have to spend a blank cheque book to deliver "quality"/a good quality service.
The issue here isn't even so much about money, it is about CHOICE and having the right to choose who represents who. Different firms have different repretations - much like different hospitals - some who don't charge as much and who don't pay their lawyers as much as others have better repretations because they are better lawyers. If a civil or custody case comes my way and I qualify for legal aid I want the right to choose who defends me in court given that the outcome can have a lasting effect on my life. I want the right to choose who defends my legal right. I am also not a fan of restricting legal aid by the overall income a person earns or combined income, I'm a firm believer that every British citizen living in this Country has a right to legal representation.
It's always about money. Where would you cut? Or where would you tax more?0 -
suzyb wrote:
I wasn't saying people wont need or shouldn't have legal representation in these kind of cases. I was saying why should tax payers always pay for it. Especially in the case of your example.DonDaddyD wrote:suzyb wrote:
Bad example to use imho. Legal aid should be there to ensure you get properly defended if you are charged with a crime. Not to help you and your ex fight over the kids.DonDaddyD wrote:Come on there are so many lawyers on here one of you could surely speak up and explain this in greater detail and explain why you will or will not sign this petition.
Legal aid has taken a battering (Example: If you and your partner split up neither are entitled to legal aid if there is a child custody battle - unless there is evidence of physical violence).
A touch of ingnorance on your part perhaps.
Children have a legal guardian and this can be contested in court. I would prefer to have legal representation should my legal right to care for my child ever be contested. It doesn't have to be my ex either, there is also social services.
There are tons of scenarios I could give even within the context two parents fighting over custody that requires a lawyer.
I think my post that you quoted explains it all. I don't think you can determine the right to legal aid on a case by case basis. But here is a scenario: Dad, who has come into money was abused by his step-Dad when he was younger, has grown up with peculiar sexual tendencies and watched his brother get killed by his other step-Dad (somehow Social Services lets this one slip through and he isn't in the system). Repressed life experiences but there was a trigger, and it has led to the break-up. He wants the kids and he has money so gets himself a tip-top private lawyer to argue in court why he should have access.
Mum can't afford it, cannot afford legal representation doesn't know anything about getting the court to have the Dad psychologically tested or physcially for drugs etc. Basically she doesn't know how to represent herself in court, what rights she has beyond Ally McBeal shouting "objection", which pisses the Judge off so he rules in Dad's favour - because Mum hasn't the legal nounce to prove that Dad's childhood was real.
That kid grows up influenced by Dad. But hey, lets not pay its just some guy and his ex arguing over a sprog.
I'd rather live in a Country where everyone has the right to proper legal representation.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Honestly, we might as well be America.
The judicial process needs modernisation, maybe. Perhaps effciencies can be made. I, however, wouldn't make those changes by removing a persons right to choose who represents them legally. I wouldn't restrict the general populous to the cheapest provider as that doesn't guarantee quality of service (remember our legal system was the marvel of the World) and we are talking about decisions that will affect a persons life. I wouldn't restrict access to legal aid on the basis of who can afford it and who couldn't.TheStone wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:I absolutely disagree. We've seen what underfunding can do to the quality of a public service, legal aid is no different. I do not want a under paid, under trained and demotivated lawyer - whose working environment is a paper laden sh*thole representing a key aspect of my life in court. [And] no, you don't have to spend a blank cheque book to deliver "quality"/a good quality service.
The issue here isn't even so much about money, it is about CHOICE and having the right to choose who represents who. Different firms have different repretations - much like different hospitals - some who don't charge as much and who don't pay their lawyers as much as others have better repretations because they are better lawyers. If a civil or custody case comes my way and I qualify for legal aid I want the right to choose who defends me in court given that the outcome can have a lasting effect on my life. I want the right to choose who defends my legal right. I am also not a fan of restricting legal aid by the overall income a person earns or combined income, I'm a firm believer that every British citizen living in this Country has a right to legal representation.
It's always about money. Where would you cut? Or where would you tax more?
Imagine being refused an NHS service because you earn too much. No, you can't have the baby here you can afford private healthcare. How about, we can put your broken leg in a cast but its going to cost you. How about, I understand Stone, that your teenage son and his friends were in a fight outside a nightclub. One of the boys got stabbed and your son has blood all over him and his prints were on the boy who got stabbed. A criminal case has been bought against the group including your son and the maximum sentence, which is looking likely is x-years in prison (your son in innocent by the way). Now here is your lawyer. Or better yet, we can't provide you with a lawyer, you can represent your son as his legal guardian or you can pay for your own lawyer - which is going to cost £10,000.
Let's not forget the disproportionate amount of ethnic minorities taken to court or who find themselves, sometimes unjustly, tied up in criminal/civil cases.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
suzyb wrote:
So we agree then.DonDaddyD wrote:But hey, lets not pay its just some guy and his ex arguing over a sprog.
I think its a sad state of affairs when we have people whose greed results in them wanting to be taxed less at the sacrifice of societal enriching things, like a National Health Service, Legal Representation et al.
Pray that you never do anything that results in you being challenged legally. Pray that you never have social services knocking at your door challenging your right to be a mother.
When something like England's judicial system - which is still respected around the World - can be bought and sold like a meagre franchise, then something is truly wrong.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:I think its a sad state of affairs when we have people whose greed results in them wanting to be taxed less at the sacrifice of societal enriching things, like a National Health Service, Legal Representation et al.
So you don't think we're taxed enough?
And in this case you'd tax people more to give it to rich lawyers? I'm sure there's a better way.0 -
TheStone wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:I think its a sad state of affairs when we have people whose greed results in them wanting to be taxed less at the sacrifice of societal enriching things, like a National Health Service, Legal Representation et al.
So you don't think we're taxed enough?
And in this case you'd tax people more to give it to rich lawyers? I'm sure there's a better way.
What an ignorant response.
So because you presume they're rich (paid a substatial salary) this somehow translate into 'we should sacrifice our right to choose our legal representatives'. You really think the alternative is better?
Do you even know how much a legal aid lawyer is paid? You would pay a hell of a lot more if you had to use a private lawyer and given that the skill set isn't comparable to other job that is your only real measure of comparision.
Reference:
http://l2b.thelawyer.com/legal-aid-lawy ... 71.article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ts-lawyers
Even the claimed average salary of a lawyer isn't that high from my perspective, considering that its a specialist position, not many transferable skills, the length of training as a para-legal, cost of training, time and hours you work per case etc.
Still, You would do well to remember that some legal aid lawyers chose that route not for the pursuit of money but to provide legal representation to those who wouldn't and couldn't afford it under normal circumstance, many choosing their paricular specialism based on their own life experiences. [And] no that doesn't mean that they should earn lots but its evident that they don't.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Where exactly have I said I don't want to pay for the NHS. Why do you assume just because I want savings made in one area where my tax goes I want savings everywhere. Or I should perhaps phrase this as, why do you assume just because I want value for money in one area I want cuts made to every public service so I pay less tax.DonDaddyD wrote:suzyb wrote:
So we agree then.DonDaddyD wrote:But hey, lets not pay its just some guy and his ex arguing over a sprog.
I think its a sad state of affairs when we have people whose greed results in them wanting to be taxed less at the sacrifice of societal enriching things, like a National Health Service, Legal Representation et al.
Pray that you never do anything that results in you being challenged legally. Pray that you never have social services knocking at your door challenging your right to be a mother.
When something like England's judicial system - which is still respected around the World - can be bought and sold like a meagre franchise, then something is truly wrong.
I'm quite happy to pay for the NHS even though I've never used it in years. It's like insurance, I don't currently need it but you never know when you will. So I'll help pay for the NHS to scoop up drunks that have passed out on the street of a weekend so I don't need to worry about a massive bill should I need someone to scoop me up after an accident.
Same with legal aid. I don't mind paying for it to make sure, should I fall on top of a dead body and end up covered in blood just as the police turn up, I have a competent defender to help me show I have been wrongly accused of murder. But that doesn't mean anyone who has any need for legal representation for any reason should automatically get it for free.0 -
suzyb wrote:I'm quite happy to pay for the NHS even though I've never used it in years. It's like insurance, I don't currently need it but you never know when you will. So I'll help pay for the NHS to scoop up drunks that have passed out on the street of a weekend so I don't need to worry about a massive bill should I need someone to scoop me up after an accident.
Same with legal aid. I don't mind paying for it to make sure, should I fall on top of a dead body and end up covered in blood just as the police turn up, I have a competent defender to help me show I have been wrongly accused of murder. But that doesn't mean anyone who has any need for legal representation for any reason should automatically get it for free.
If you're on the pill and you don't pay that'll be part of your taxes going towards the NHS. If you've visited your doctor and don't pay, that'll be your taxes. If you know of someone who has or is received/ing care in a hospital, that'll be your taxes going to the NHS. A lot of people assume they don't use the NHS, they do, they're just not aware that they do. The NHS provided superb end of life care for someone dear to my heart, if I never use the NHS ever again and a portion of my taxes continues to contribute to it, then that'll be money well spent.
This happened to me recently I no longer think its value is something that can be trivialised, and that's how I feel about our legal system. If you've ever known of a Father who has had to - with the help of legal aid - fight in court to win visitation rights to his own child, then you might find it something that shouldn't be trivialised or taken for granted either.
Moreover how do you define 'anyone who has any need for legal representation for any reason'? You define where the line stops. Me? If the verdict involves the restriction of your civil liberties or a custodial sentence then I believe that the accused has the right to legal representation and the right to choose who represents them.
Sure, a parking ticket doesn't need legal aid but something as influential as a child custody case - when the verdict will affect the entire life of the child and the relationship he has with his parents - is something you absolutely need legal representation for.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:If you're on the pill and you don't pay that'll be part of your taxes going towards the NHS. If you've visited your doctor and don't pay, that'll be your taxes. If you know of someone who has or is received/ing care in a hospital, that'll be your taxes going to the NHS. A lot of people assume they don't use the NHS, they do, they're just not aware that they do. The NHS provided superb end of life care for someone dear to my heart, if I never use the NHS ever again and a portion of my taxes continues to contribute to it, then that'll be money well spent.
This happened to me recently I no longer think its value is something that can be trivialised, and that's how I feel about our legal system. If you've ever known of a Father who has had to - with the help of legal aid - fight in court to win visitation rights to his own child, then you might find it something that shouldn't be trivialised or taken for granted either.
Moreover how do you define 'anyone who has any need for legal representation for any reason'? You define where the line stops. Me? If the verdict involves the restriction of your civil liberties or a custodial sentence then I believe that the accused has the right to legal representation and the right to choose who represents them.
Sure, a parking ticket doesn't need legal aid but something as influential as a child custody case - when the verdict will affect the entire life of the child and the relationship he has with his parents - is something you absolutely need legal representation for.
But what if we can't afford it?
It's not fair to keep using all these services and chucking the bill onto our kids. They'll end up with none of these services and a massive bill to pay.0 -
I was going to clarify what I meant when I realised I may in fact be wrong.DonDaddyD wrote:If you're on the pill and you don't pay that'll be taxes going towards the NHS. If you've visited your doctor and don't pay, that'll be your taxes. Pregnancy and all and any potential outcomes, that'll be the NHS. If you know of someone who has or is received/ing care in a hospital, that'll be your taxes going to the NHS. A lot of people assume they don't use the NHS, The NHS provided superb end of life care for someone I know, if I never use the NHS ever again and a portion of my taxes contribute to it, then that'll be money well spent.
I don't pay for dental check ups. I used to and I still pay for treatment but the checkups themselves are now free. I assume that is because they are paid for by the NHS.
My bad.
What's that saying about not arguing with an idiot. You might want to bear that in mind when arguing with me in future DDD 0 -
TheStone wrote:But what if we can't afford it?
It's not fair to keep using all these services and chucking the bill onto our kids. They'll end up with none of these services and a massive bill to pay.
'We can't afford it' Ah yes, the universal argument to simply stop all publicly funded services at the expense of those most vulnerable while demanding the same (if not more) amount of tax. This was once a country that protected the weak and poor.
As I said there are ways to make the system more affordable without sacrificing our right to choose who represents us legally.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:'We can't afford it' Ah yes, the universal argument to simply stop all publicly funded services at the expense of those most vulnerable while demanding the same (if not more) amount of tax. This was once a country that protected the weak and poor.
As I said there are ways to make the system more affordable without sacrificing our right to choose who represents us legally.
But everything has a cost and right now (and for many years) were spending a lot more than we're collecting. So either:
a) raise taxes
b) cut cost
c) increase the debt for the next generation
Which do you choose?
I see this as much as cut for lawyers as it is for the 'weak and poor'.
Were you against the housing benefit cuts? Similar, more of a cut for the rent seekers than the poor.
This doesn't mean we close the public sector down, just that we live within our means.0
