How do you feel about people being acquitted on "technicalities"? Sometimes it appears to the public that judges and lawyers like laws to be phrased in a way that only they can understand, so that "loopholes can be exploited. (This is obviously a fallacy that can be explained by coincidence)
Actually I think that's a very good way of pointing out the potential for vote-rigging inherent in British elections. One of the best leaflets I have seen so far this election (and I'm not a UKIP supporter).
The dodgy bit is the reference to "white folks"- without that I would have no qualms about it whatsoever.
Can't see any problem with that leaflet at all, up to and including "white folk". Or is the mere mention of race/ethnicity itself racist?
Sometimes it would appear that is the case. We are going collectively insane.
One finding from the Welsh polls is that UKIP gets support from a lot of Plaid Voters in the EU Parliament vote. I find it odd that UKIP doesn't appear to get the same cross-over from SNP voters.
Surely if you're opposed to rule from London, you should also be opposed to rule from Brussels? But Plaid Cymru, and SNP are both pro-EU parties.
pro-Scotland vs anti-England pro-Wales vs anti-England
Plaid has been the party who you put your protest vote in Wales. Not all Plaid voters are died in the wool nationalists. SNP in Scotlañd and a Plaid in Wales fulfil different purposes.
"Those of us who have had to deal with the quality of people employed by the Crown Prosecution Service will have their head in their hands at this point. If I were on trial for a serious crime I would be deeply depressed at the thought of entrusting my liberty to the sorts of people who end up working in such services."
Errr... Mrs. Free, if the people working for the CPS are so bloody awful then isn't that the criminals' advantage. Actually, perhaps what you really mean is that if your were to be on trial for a serious crime you would be quite happy about the quality of the prosecutors but be aghast that you could be defended by such incompetents. Having not terribly good lawyers on both sides just levels the playing field?
I have had this conversation so many times over the past forty years, each time to the horror of anyone from the legal establishment, but I am going to try again here. Perhaps it would be a good idea if a court hearing was primarily involved with establishing the true facts of what happened and not, as in England it is at the moment, be a "game played by and between lawyers for their own benefit".*
* That quote verbatim was from a junior counsel who later went on to be a QC and a criminal judge. I think he is still alive otherwise I would name him and the place where he made the speech.
Mr Llama - I don't disagree with your friend's saying. If we want a quality justice system that works effectively and efficiently we don't get it by paying peanuts. And we do need to look at the rules to make sure that it doesn't become a "game".
The reason fraud trials are long and expensive is not because of what the lawyers at trial do but because of the years of investigative work done beforehand. Often - and this, sadly, is my experience, that work has not been done well or competently and has to be repeated or is ineffective and the trial becomes longer and others have sort out the mess, thus increasing the costs. If you had better quality people in the first place you might have saved yourself the time, bother and money.
People can say that a self-employed QC should take a 30% pay cut. He can, equally, say: "Get stuffed. I'll do other work." The defendants can find no barristers. The judge halts the fraud trial. The victims of the fraud will, no doubt, be delighted. The investigators will be ecstatic that all their hard work has gone to waste. And our competitors will shake their heads in wonder.
Making public policy on the basis that you think you can get away with being rude about and nasty to an unpopular profession is not grown-up, is it?
Decent enough poll for Labour in Wales. A lot of groundwork has been done. Certainly in my neck of the woods and I woułd be disappointed if we do not get 2 seats. I have said before that Plaid has had its high water mark, and I see no signs of a real recovery of the momentum they had in the early years of the Assembly. I know that they are very nervous about losing their MEP, and the Liberałs have given up already. I would not be at all surprised to see 2 Lab, 1 UKIP and 1 Con next Monday morning.
Decent enough poll for Labour in Wales. A lot of groundwork has been done. Certainly in my neck of the woods and I woułd be disappointed if we do not get 2 seats. I have said before that Plaid has had its high water mark, and I see no signs of a real recovery of the momentum they had in the early years of the Assembly. I know that they are very nervous about losing their MEP, and the Liberałs have given up already. I would not be at all surprised to see 2 Lab, 1 UKIP and 1 Con next Monday morning.
What benefit does Plaid get from having an MEP?
£££!
From one MEP? UKIP's annual turnover is ~£1 million, and they've got a dozen!
Actually I think that's a very good way of pointing out the potential for vote-rigging inherent in British elections. One of the best leaflets I have seen so far this election (and I'm not a UKIP supporter).
The dodgy bit is the reference to "white folks"- without that I would have no qualms about it whatsoever.
Can't see any problem with that leaflet at all, up to and including "white folk". Or is the mere mention of race/ethnicity itself racist?
Sometimes it would appear that is the case. We are going collectively insane.
Isn't the legal aid budget only for defence, and not prosecution?
Yes. It is, however, common ground between the Financial Conduct Authority and the defence that if adequate representation cannot obtained, there can be no fair trial. If there can be no fair trial, the court is obliged by law to stay the indictment as an abuse of process. So it will become impossible to prosecute successfully for fraud any defendant if the current situation continues. As for your point about the total legal aid budget, it is no doubt true that some of it could be better spent. The issue you do not address is why that should affect these cases, and these defendants, who cannot be held responsible for the situation. They are still entitled to a fair trial under the common law and article 6 of the ECHR.
Translation. It is OK for the prosecution to be incompetent as long as those working for the defence can make shed loads of money. The criminal bar is at a state of perfection and needs no reform just lots, lots more taxpayers money.
Ms Free gave the game away up-thread when she said she would be horrified to be defended by lawyers with the same competence as we use to prosecute. She then complained that UK was not adept enough at prosecuting fraudsters at which point my irony meter melted.
Above posted before I had seen Ms Free's contribution at 15:43
The issue you do not address is why that should affect these cases, and these defendants, who cannot be held responsible for the situation.
I agree that these defendants deserve a fair trial and there should be money for fraud trials. What I fundamentally disagree with is, as per Cyclefree's initial post, that it is essentially totally the government's fault
It isn't. The legal profession needs to do something it has completely refused to do all along in this dispute, and all other disputes with the government
Look at its own role in bringing this situation about, and its own potential culpability in using up funds where they absolutely should not have been used.
My US and French colleagues who see this think we're a joke when it comes to catching and prosecuting fraudsters.
Isn't the legal aid budget only for defence, and not prosecution?
To answer a separate point, perhaps there might be some cash left for serious fraud trials if certain members of the profession didn't pillage the legal aid budget for so many funds on behalf of people who have never set foot in the country (as mentioned before, with regard to a group of Iraqis?).
I read the other that one particular firm garnered 10 million quid in legal aid fees for this type of case in one year alone.
Shouldn't the profession be getting together and having a discussion about the prioritisation of funding? Is the question of scurrilous cases eating up the funds that can be better used elsewhere even being raised?
Of course it isn't. Because the profession is never wrong, and never needs to be reformed at all.
It's not lawyers who determine who gets the legal aid budget. It's the Legal Aid Board - an arm of government. They are the ones responsible for agreeing to pay out these humungous sums. The lawyers who - allegedly - misled the Board (relevant documents not being revealed etc) are a disgrace and should certainly suffer a financial penalty. I quite agree with you there.
I also agree that there may well be a case for not limiting the scope of Legal Aid to people living in the country or only to certain types of claims. But, indisputably, legal aid should cover criminal defence and if it does then it needs to be properly funded. Bear in mind that if defendants have to defend themselves in person (and in one case I'm aware of the judge has said just that) the trial will certainly be longer, the jury are probably less likely to convict and it is quite possible that the ECHR would rule that it was not a fair trial. That is a ludicrous position for us to get into.
But it was mainly lawyers in Labour and the Lib Dems that pushed for the HRA. It then provided a significant new revenue stream for some chambers. Unfortunately the legal profession just does not recognise the financial realities of the UK Govt finances.
So if we are stuck with the legal profession's HRA then it would have been more constructive if the legal profession had proposed alternative ways of reducing legal aid by 30%+.
The reasons for the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 are irrelevant, as is the fact that it may have materially benefited some lawyers. It is the law of the land, and until Parliament chooses to change it, it must be applied by the courts. It is a fallacy to think that cutting the legal aid budget by 30% will necessarily produce any savings. The consequences may be more delays due to a greater number of litigants in person, more unarguable cases being brought, as claimants will not be advised that they do not have a case etc.. Legal aid is only one part of a bigger system, and to view it in isolation is short-sighted and likely self-defeating.
How do you feel about people being acquitted on "technicalities"? Sometimes it appears to the public that judges and lawyers like laws to be phrased in a way that only they can understand, so that "loopholes can be exploited. (This is obviously a fallacy that can be explained by coincidence)
One man's technicality is another man's due process of law. Equity without law is nothing less than tyranny. The reality is that the judiciary have been far less likely to intervene in case of technical defect in recent years. For example, in R v Graham [1997] 1 Cr App R 302, at p. 309, Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ said:
We would deprecate resort to undue technicality. A conviction will not be regarded as unsafe because it is possible to point to some drafting or clerical error, or omission, or discrepancy, or departure from good or prescribed practice.
Law is necessarily complex. The idea, however, that there is a conspiracy of judges or lawyers to exploit "loopholes" is absurd.
Taffys: Judges don't draft laws. MPs do - or to be pedantic, Parliamentary counsel, when it is a government bill. If laws have loopholes it's MPs' fault. Perhaps instead of spending time trousering expenses they could do their job properly.
Our failure to convict fraudsters at least means that the financial sector remains lucrative, and attracts clever people to work in the "City"?
No - it doesn't. Nor should it. If anything it makes my job and that of people like me much harder because crooks see that the authorities are not willing to put their money where their mouth is. Look at LIBOR: all the big fines and the pressure to take action has come from the US because they take enforcement seriously.
There is no competitive advantage in being viewed as dishonest. Quite the contrary. If a proper City is to prosper - not just for itself but for the rest of us - it needs to be "clean". It won't be if people believe that the chances of being caught and punished are low. And it sends an appalling message to those who are doing the right thing and behaving honestly - that they're mugs for doing so.
In many, if not most instances the fines are pretty meaningless since in the end they are passed on to the consumer.
When I see a CEO doing chokey I'll believe the authorities are beginning to take City fraud seriously.
Another light=hearted piece from the Telegraph, this time from Ian Martin,
"The monstering of Ed Miliband in the next year is going to be deeply unpleasant"
Given the way Labour have behaved over the past 20 years or so, I shall laugh myself sick if his predictions turn out to be accurate. Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow as the leader of the most deserving party.
t's not lawyers who determine who gets the legal aid budget.
Finally, I drag out of you what you should have started with all along Cyclefree. Some criticisms of the profession and suggestions for improvements that do not involve a default blaming of the government and a simple demand for more money.
If the legal profession wants to get somewhere with this, they should be starting where you finished with your last post.
For people who are paid to present evidence in the best possible light, the legal profession's whole campaign has been astonishing and breathtakingly poor.
Another proven non-UKIP leaflet blamed on UKIP by Labour, plus UKIP candidate stabbed by Labour supporters a day after fake romanian protesters, in the Middle East that would have meant election day, in Britain that's a day to election day. Britain is sliding below american levels of electioneering to african ones.
Actually I think that's a very good way of pointing out the potential for vote-rigging inherent in British elections. One of the best leaflets I have seen so far this election (and I'm not a UKIP supporter).
The dodgy bit is the reference to "white folks"- without that I would have no qualms about it whatsoever.
Can't see any problem with that leaflet at all, up to and including "white folk". Or is the mere mention of race/ethnicity itself racist?
Sometimes it would appear that is the case. We are going collectively insane.
The LibDems will survive by regrouping on the opposition benches.
The LibDems have survived worse. In 1990 they were polling negligible figures, yet had 50 MPs within a decade.
I do not see UKIP doing that, but in the unlikely event of gaining an MP, they will be sitting on the opposition benches next to the Cleggites. There is no party that UKIP would form a coalition with, but it is entirely realistic to have LDs in coalition again soon.
Janet Daley: "That [anti-UKIP smear] campaign has done what would have been utterly beyond the capability of Ukip's own amateurish, content-less, incoherent presentation: it has permanently installed the idea that the political class are a united vindictive force which regards the anxieties and concerns of a large proportion of voters with contempt."
If the majority of the British public now see UKIP as THE antiestablishment party, how the dickens are the LDs going to revive their third party status after the 2015 election?
Btw, an update on my previous thread (and to whomever asked).
ICM's downweighting based on previous non-voting uses the 2010GE for it's Euro polling (so if you didn't vote at that GE you're vote was downweighted by half).
Actually I think that's a very good way of pointing out the potential for vote-rigging inherent in British elections. One of the best leaflets I have seen so far this election (and I'm not a UKIP supporter).
The dodgy bit is the reference to "white folks"- without that I would have no qualms about it whatsoever.
Can't see any problem with that leaflet at all, up to and including "white folk". Or is the mere mention of race/ethnicity itself racist?
Sometimes it would appear that is the case. We are going collectively insane.
Actually I think that's a very good way of pointing out the potential for vote-rigging inherent in British elections. One of the best leaflets I have seen so far this election (and I'm not a UKIP supporter).
The dodgy bit is the reference to "white folks"- without that I would have no qualms about it whatsoever.
Can't see any problem with that leaflet at all, up to and including "white folk". Or is the mere mention of race/ethnicity itself racist?
Sometimes it would appear that is the case. We are going collectively insane.
Our failure to convict fraudsters at least means that the financial sector remains lucrative, and attracts clever people to work in the "City"?
No - it doesn't. Nor should it. If anything it makes my job and that of people like me much harder because crooks see that the authorities are not willing to put their money where their mouth is. Look at LIBOR: all the big fines and the pressure to take action has come from the US because they take enforcement seriously.
There is no competitive advantage in being viewed as dishonest. Quite the contrary. If a proper City is to prosper - not just for itself but for the rest of us - it needs to be "clean". It won't be if people believe that the chances of being caught and punished are low. And it sends an appalling message to those who are doing the right thing and behaving honestly - that they're mugs for doing so.
In many, if not most instances the fines are pretty meaningless since in the end they are passed on to the consumer.
When I see a CEO doing chokey I'll believe the authorities are beginning to take City fraud seriously.
That's about the long and the short of it. Give board members the risk of being criminally liable for failing to provide proper oversight and practices would improve more or less overnight.
Isn't the legal aid budget only for defence, and not prosecution?
Yes. It is, however, common ground between the Financial Conduct Authority and the defence that if adequate representation cannot obtained, there can be no fair trial. If there can be no fair trial, the court is obliged by law to stay the indictment as an abuse of process. So it will become impossible to prosecute successfully for fraud any defendant if the current situation continues. As for your point about the total legal aid budget, it is no doubt true that some of it could be better spent. The issue you do not address is why that should affect these cases, and these defendants, who cannot be held responsible for the situation. They are still entitled to a fair trial under the common law and article 6 of the ECHR.
Translation. It is OK for the prosecution to be incompetent as long as those working for the defence can make shed loads of money. The criminal bar is at a state of perfection and needs no reform just lots, lots more taxpayers money.
Ms Free gave the game away up-thread when she said she would be horrified to be defended by lawyers with the same competence as we use to prosecute. She then complained that UK was not adept enough at prosecuting fraudsters at which point my irony meter melted.
Above posted before I had seen Ms Free's contribution at 15:43
You have wholly misunderstood where I'm coming from. Let me be quite clear: I think the CPS should be much more competent than they are. I don't think that we should have wonderful defence counsel and useless prosecutors. We should put proper resources into prosecution and defence so there is equality of arms. But always remember that a person is innocent until proven guilty and they should not face the prospect of being found guilty because they have a useless lawyer representing them.
Furthermore, I have been on the prosecution side on a number of very high profile cases and have been in despair at the prospect of fraudsters getting off scot free because of incompetent prosecutors.
The sensible solution to this is to get some kind of agreement as Leveson J urged.
Of course, one other solution is for the government to abolish Legal Aid entirely. That way the criminal bar will work only for those people who can pay for their services. Probably a majority of barristers would have to leave the profession or do other work. And a proper defence would only be available to the rich. How does that sound?
Actually I think that's a very good way of pointing out the potential for vote-rigging inherent in British elections. One of the best leaflets I have seen so far this election (and I'm not a UKIP supporter).
The dodgy bit is the reference to "white folks"- without that I would have no qualms about it whatsoever.
Can't see any problem with that leaflet at all, up to and including "white folk". Or is the mere mention of race/ethnicity itself racist?
Sometimes it would appear that is the case. We are going collectively insane.
Btw, an update on my previous thread (and to whomever asked).
ICM's downweighting based on previous non-voting uses the 2010GE for it's Euro polling (so if you didn't vote at that GE you're vote was downweighted by half).
Thanks, corporeal.
That does sound as though it might distort the results, and perhaps explains ICM being out of line with the others.
@rosschawkins: Oldham UKIP leaflet drawn up by Joe Fitzpatrick - fmr agent to ex-Lab MP Phil Woolas
@rosschawkins: Fitzpatrick tells me it was a satire - I'm not saying go out and do it, I'm saying this is what happens
@rosschawkins: UKIP leaflet said: steal postal votes, swap postal votes -- 36,000 copies distributed says Fitzpatrick
Good stuff. All the anti-UKIP people publicizing the leaflet should mean many thousands more people will read how postal voting is being fiddled than would otherwise find out.
The LibDems will survive by regrouping on the opposition benches.
The LibDems have survived worse. In 1990 they were polling negligible figures, yet had 50 MPs within a decade.
I do not see UKIP doing that, but in the unlikely event of gaining an MP, they will be sitting on the opposition benches next to the Cleggites. There is no party that UKIP would form a coalition with, but it is entirely realistic to have LDs in coalition again soon.
Janet Daley: "That [anti-UKIP smear] campaign has done what would have been utterly beyond the capability of Ukip's own amateurish, content-less, incoherent presentation: it has permanently installed the idea that the political class are a united vindictive force which regards the anxieties and concerns of a large proportion of voters with contempt."
If the majority of the British public now see UKIP as THE antiestablishment party, how the dickens are the LDs going to revive their third party status after the 2015 election?
Re-grouping how? We have just had a national campaign with The Establishment on one side (inc LDs) and UKIP on the other.
The antiestablishment party is now UKIP, and the LDs are now another marque of The Establishment.
Re: MPs. I think Eastleigh will be one of the seats won by UKIP candidates in 2015.
That's about the long and the short of it. Give board members the risk of being criminally liable for failing to provide proper oversight and practices would improve more or less overnight.
Possibly. More likely it would mean that the honest and talented stay away from running large organisations so as not to risk being done for things which they knew nothing whatsoever about.
It seems to me that we should instead concentrate on the actual individuals, not the corporations, who do wrong.
Actually I think that's a very good way of pointing out the potential for vote-rigging inherent in British elections. One of the best leaflets I have seen so far this election (and I'm not a UKIP supporter).
The dodgy bit is the reference to "white folks"- without that I would have no qualms about it whatsoever.
Can't see any problem with that leaflet at all, up to and including "white folk". Or is the mere mention of race/ethnicity itself racist?
Sometimes it would appear that is the case. We are going collectively insane.
Have you established who the plastic 'Romanians' were at yesterdays UKIP's carnival? - The pigeon english was quite a deliberate ploy imho, as were the words 'scum' scrawled across the placards. retro 70s at it's best.
@rosschawkins: Oldham UKIP leaflet drawn up by Joe Fitzpatrick - fmr agent to ex-Lab MP Phil Woolas
@rosschawkins: Fitzpatrick tells me it was a satire - I'm not saying go out and do it, I'm saying this is what happens
@rosschawkins: UKIP leaflet said: steal postal votes, swap postal votes -- 36,000 copies distributed says Fitzpatrick
Good stuff. All the anti-UKIP people publicizing the leaflet should mean many thousands more people will read how postal voting is being fiddled than would otherwise find out.
That's true, the accusation by Labour that UKIP can ballot stuff an election by using postal votes is ideal for the government to abolish postal voting that favours Labour so much.
Taffys: I quite agree with you. The way the criminal bar has argued its case has been dreadful.
I don't represent the criminal bar. My concern is that we will end up - through the cheese-paring "price of everything/value of nothing" approach of Grayling and the cloth-eared approach of the Bar - with a second rate justice system. Remember also that there have already been cuts to legal aid rates; the current proposal is for a further 30% cut.
Nurses may well be underpaid. Care workers certainly are. But as far as I'm aware they have not been told that their pay is to be cut by 30%. Has anyone paid from the public purse been told that their income is to be reduced by such an amount? I'm not aware of any but no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually I think that's a very good way of pointing out the potential for vote-rigging inherent in British elections. One of the best leaflets I have seen so far this election (and I'm not a UKIP supporter).
The dodgy bit is the reference to "white folks"- without that I would have no qualms about it whatsoever.
Can't see any problem with that leaflet at all, up to and including "white folk". Or is the mere mention of race/ethnicity itself racist?
Sometimes it would appear that is the case. We are going collectively insane.
Have you established who the plastic 'Romanians' were at yesterdays UKIP's carnival? - The pigeon english was quite a deliberate ploy imho, as were the words 'scum' scrawled across the placards. retro 70s at it's best.
"Rubber Romanians!"
Haha that was great wasn't it?! People pretending to be Romanian to have a go at UKIP
A couple of them sounded Eastern European but the ringleaders accent (the one who said Michael Crick was Romanian) seemed a bit more Dick van Dyke..
Speedy, the UKIP agent has already acknowledged it as coming from them.
No, no, no, you can't be right, it's a truth universally acknowledged amongst Kippers that every single negative story about them is a LibLabConEstablishment conspiracy.
That's about the long and the short of it. Give board members the risk of being criminally liable for failing to provide proper oversight and practices would improve more or less overnight.
Possibly. More likely it would mean that the honest and talented stay away from running large organisations so as not to risk being done for things which they knew nothing whatsoever about.
It seems to me that we should instead concentrate on the actual individuals, not the corporations, who do wrong.
We could try prosecuting them. And in about a decade there might - or might not - be a trial. Yeah, that works.
@rosschawkins: Oldham UKIP leaflet drawn up by Joe Fitzpatrick - fmr agent to ex-Lab MP Phil Woolas
@rosschawkins: Fitzpatrick tells me it was a satire - I'm not saying go out and do it, I'm saying this is what happens
@rosschawkins: UKIP leaflet said: steal postal votes, swap postal votes -- 36,000 copies distributed says Fitzpatrick
Good stuff. All the anti-UKIP people publicizing the leaflet should mean many thousands more people will read how postal voting is being fiddled than would otherwise find out.
That's true, the accusation by Labour that UKIP can ballot stuff an election by using postal votes is ideal for the government to abolish postal voting that favours Labour so much.
"the accusation by Labour that UKIP can ballot stuff an election"
Ah right. To me it's obviously a sarcastic attack on Labour but you prob have a point that not everyone will get that.
Speedy, the UKIP agent has already acknowledged it as coming from them.
No, no, no, you can't be right, it's a truth universally acknowledged amongst Kippers that every single negative story about them is a LibLabConEstablishment conspiracy.
"Interestingly, the tendency to see coverage as biased against UKIP is largely non-partisan. Majorities of UKIP (77%) and Conservative (53%) supporters take this view, as well as pluralities of Lib Dems (31%) and Labour (40%)."
We could try prosecuting them. And in about a decade there might - or might not - be a trial. Yeah, that works.
It would work, if the legal establishment gave some serious attention to rectifying the ludicrous inefficiencies of the entire legal system from top to bottom. There is no conceivable reason for these cases -any case - to be so absurdly lengthy and eye-wateringly expensive.
Speedy, the UKIP agent has already acknowledged it as coming from them.
No, no, no, you can't be right, it's a truth universally acknowledged amongst Kippers that every single negative story about them is a LibLabConEstablishment conspiracy.
"Interestingly, the tendency to see coverage as biased against UKIP is largely non-partisan. Majorities of UKIP (77%) and Conservative (53%) supporters take this view, as well as pluralities of Lib Dems (31%) and Labour (40%)."
Today seems to be Vested Interests Day. A lot of squealing from both police and lawyers over preserving cushy lifestyles most people could only dream of.
Remember also that there have already been cuts to legal aid rates; the current proposal is for a further 30% cut.
I still think the legal profession would be far more successful if, as part of a deal, it suggested some of the things you mentioned in your last post.
1. streamlining the type of case for which legal aid can be granted to share the cash around bettr,
2. An admission that the profession should shoulder some of the responsibility for what became (and in some cases still is) a wholesale gravy train....and some form of censure for those firms who are still mightily taking the p8ss.
I'm not sure if it would be enough to stop a 30% cut - but it would sure help.
You have wholly misunderstood where I'm coming from. Let me be quite clear: I think the CPS should be much more competent than they are. I don't think that we should have wonderful defence counsel and useless prosecutors. We should put proper resources into prosecution and defence so there is equality of arms. But always remember that a person is innocent until proven guilty and they should not face the prospect of being found guilty because they have a useless lawyer representing them.
Furthermore, I have been on the prosecution side on a number of very high profile cases and have been in despair at the prospect of fraudsters getting off scot free because of incompetent prosecutors.
The sensible solution to this is to get some kind of agreement as Leveson J urged.
Of course, one other solution is for the government to abolish Legal Aid entirely. That way the criminal bar will work only for those people who can pay for their services. Probably a majority of barristers would have to leave the profession or do other work. And a proper defence would only be available to the rich. How does that sound?
MS Free,
"We should put proper resources into prosecution and defence so there is equality of arms"
Fine, couldn't agree more. Let us have the, compulsory, Public Defender Service the same as we have the CPS. Both equally as useless as each other. Not good for high earning lawyers, but into every life some rain must fall and certainly fair to those caught up in the mess.
The Solution to the multi-year, massively complex fraud investigations is as I have said here before is not to get into them (see previous posts or email me privately if you are really interested). The City of London Police got that a couple of decades ago, yet such investigations still go on controlled not not by a police force but by an arm of HMG. I wonder why.
Actually I think that's a very good way of pointing out the potential for vote-rigging inherent in British elections. One of the best leaflets I have seen so far this election (and I'm not a UKIP supporter).
The dodgy bit is the reference to "white folks"- without that I would have no qualms about it whatsoever.
Can't see any problem with that leaflet at all, up to and including "white folk". Or is the mere mention of race/ethnicity itself racist?
Sometimes it would appear that is the case. We are going collectively insane.
Have you established who the plastic 'Romanians' were at yesterdays UKIP's carnival? - The pigeon english was quite a deliberate ploy imho, as were the words 'scum' scrawled across the placards. retro 70s at it's best.
"Rubber Romanians!"
Haha that was great wasn't it?! People pretending to be Romanian to have a go at UKIP
A couple of them sounded Eastern European but the ringleaders accent (the one who said Michael Crick was Romanian) seemed a bit more Dick van Dyke..
That's about the long and the short of it. Give board members the risk of being criminally liable for failing to provide proper oversight and practices would improve more or less overnight.
Possibly. More likely it would mean that the honest and talented stay away from running large organisations so as not to risk being done for things which they knew nothing whatsoever about.
It seems to me that we should instead concentrate on the actual individuals, not the corporations, who do wrong.
We won't have any problems getting board members to come forward if they are rewarded appropriately. But they can't expect the sweeties without the responsibility. With such responsibility, they will be driven to put in place the systems to control abuses.
This is not a particularly radical suggestion. Quite a few US executives have had to go to court with their toothbrushes. We should not be afraid of expecting directors of companies in industries that are of critical centrality to our economy to accept high levels of responsibility.
Speedy, the UKIP agent has already acknowledged it as coming from them.
No, no, no, you can't be right, it's a truth universally acknowledged amongst Kippers that every single negative story about them is a LibLabConEstablishment conspiracy.
"Interestingly, the tendency to see coverage as biased against UKIP is largely non-partisan. Majorities of UKIP (77%) and Conservative (53%) supporters take this view, as well as pluralities of Lib Dems (31%) and Labour (40%)."
But two of the options are "in favour" and "fair and balanced", so (without knowing the don't know figures) odd's are more supporters of Lab and LD wouldn't see coverage as biased against UKIP.
Re lawyers' fees, by and large, criminal defence solicitors and barristers don't earn huge sums. I think the average income for such barristers amounts to c.£36,000 p.a., which is not a lot for people with that level of qualification.
Actually I think that's a very good way of pointing out the potential for vote-rigging inherent in British elections. One of the best leaflets I have seen so far this election (and I'm not a UKIP supporter).
The dodgy bit is the reference to "white folks"- without that I would have no qualms about it whatsoever.
Can't see any problem with that leaflet at all, up to and including "white folk". Or is the mere mention of race/ethnicity itself racist?
Sometimes it would appear that is the case. We are going collectively insane.
Have you established who the plastic 'Romanians' were at yesterdays UKIP's carnival? - The pigeon english was quite a deliberate ploy imho, as were the words 'scum' scrawled across the placards. retro 70s at it's best.
"Rubber Romanians!"
Haha that was great wasn't it?! People pretending to be Romanian to have a go at UKIP
A couple of them sounded Eastern European but the ringleaders accent (the one who said Michael Crick was Romanian) seemed a bit more Dick van Dyke..
Anyone who doesn't live in the BBC version of reality will take the Oldham leaflet as a sarcastic attack on Labour whereas people who are for the time being still living in the fake BBC version of reality may react differently - one of the perils of the two realities I guess.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 3m BBC News Channel Editor >> @journomummy: #WhyImVotingUkip - to stand up for white, middle class, middle aged men w sexist/racist views.
Of course the tweet was in a personal capacity....
The LibDems will survive by regrouping on the opposition benches.
The LibDems have survived worse. In 1990 they were polling negligible figures, yet had 50 MPs within a decade.
I do not see UKIP doing that, but in the unlikely event of gaining an MP, they will be sitting on the opposition benches next to the Cleggites. There is no party that UKIP would form a coalition with, but it is entirely realistic to have LDs in coalition again soon.
Janet Daley: "That [anti-UKIP smear] campaign has done what would have been utterly beyond the capability of Ukip's own amateurish, content-less, incoherent presentation: it has permanently installed the idea that the political class are a united vindictive force which regards the anxieties and concerns of a large proportion of voters with contempt."
If the majority of the British public now see UKIP as THE antiestablishment party, how the dickens are the LDs going to revive their third party status after the 2015 election?
I don't see any "smear" campaign on ukip by the MSM. The press has just reported on a multitude of rash and stupid remarks made by kipper candidates. The MSM would have done the same for candidates of any party. Don't forget that the press prefers not to have sober analysis of policies but to report on "splits" and "rows" - they hope to boost their declining circulations with hysterical articles.
We won't have any problems getting board members to come forward if they are rewarded appropriately. But they can't expect the sweeties without the responsibility. With such responsibility, they will be driven to put in place the systems to control abuses.
No they won't. If they are not driven away completely (as happens to some extent in non-exec director positions already), they will be driven to waste vast amounts of money to ensure there is an auditable trail of box-ticking which can be used in their defence if, God forbid, some rogue employee in a far-off branch, unknown to them, does something bad. Such box-ticking has zero or negative effect on actually improving things, but it does shield the arses of the management.
We have been through all this once with Brown's financial regulation nonsense.
I have a simpler solution: prosecute the rogue employee.
Anyone who doesn't live in the BBC version of reality will take the Oldham leaflet as a sarcastic attack on Labour whereas people who are for the time being still living in the fake BBC version of reality may react differently - one of the perils of the two realities I guess.
MrJones.
UKIP have already come out and slammed the leaflet heavily.
We could try prosecuting them. And in about a decade there might - or might not - be a trial. Yeah, that works.
It would work, if the legal establishment gave some serious attention to rectifying the ludicrous inefficiencies of the entire legal system from top to bottom. There is no conceivable reason for these cases -any case - to be so absurdly lengthy and eye-wateringly expensive.
Who do you think does the investigations into fraud? The FCA. The City of London Police. On occasion even the SFO. Sometimes the NCA. To my knowledge it has taken 2-3 years before someone has even been arrested and a further 2 years or more before they are charged and only then does the legal system kick in.
The costs have been incurred way before lawyers are involved. And they have been incurred because- too often - the investigators have been bloody useless and/or unfocused and/or inexperienced.
Who runs these agencies? The government. The same government which is busy criticising lawyers. Laywers are not blameless. But we're into motes and beams territory here.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 3m BBC News Channel Editor >> @journomummy: #WhyImVotingUkip - to stand up for white, middle class, middle aged men w sexist/racist views.
Of course the tweet was in a personal capacity....
The simple rule of thumb for Plaid in the Euros is "Gain a local count area or hold the four they have: Jill Evans elected, lose Anglesey: Nailbiting time, lose Anglesey and Carmarthenshire: Jill Evans loses (and if she were to lose, expect Leanne Wood to come under a lot of pressure to stand down in favour of either Rhun ap Iowerth, Simon Thomas or Elin Jones)
@Cyclefree - Sorry, I didn't make it clear that my complaint against the entire legal establishment very much includes the FCA, CPS etc. I agree entirely with what you say - the whole system is disastrously inefficient. So are the police, although to be fair to them that is partly because the courts haven't woken up to the twenty-first century yet.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 3m BBC News Channel Editor >> @journomummy: #WhyImVotingUkip - to stand up for white, middle class, middle aged men w sexist/racist views.
Of course the tweet was in a personal capacity....
BBC employee has knee-jerk bias against right-wing party. Why am I not surprised... it's absurd conservatives have to continue to pay for such people's salaries for the right to watch TV.
Taffys: I quite agree with you. The way the criminal bar has argued its case has been dreadful.
I don't represent the criminal bar. My concern is that we will end up - through the cheese-paring "price of everything/value of nothing" approach of Grayling and the cloth-eared approach of the Bar - with a second rate justice system. Remember also that there have already been cuts to legal aid rates; the current proposal is for a further 30% cut.
Nurses may well be underpaid. Care workers certainly are. But as far as I'm aware they have not been told that their pay is to be cut by 30%. Has anyone paid from the public purse been told that their income is to be reduced by such an amount? I'm not aware of any but no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
Bit of clarification please: is the 30% cut to the fee of the individual person, i.e. the lawyer's actual take home pay before tax? Or the fee to the practice (which will include overheads)? Or to separately invoiced overheads?
Anyone who doesn't live in the BBC version of reality will take the Oldham leaflet as a sarcastic attack on Labour whereas people who are for the time being still living in the fake BBC version of reality may react differently - one of the perils of the two realities I guess.
MrJones.
UKIP have already come out and slammed the leaflet heavily.
Which reality are they living in?
For the time being the majority of voters are still living in the fake BBC version of reality hence Ukip have to be careful. If they want to poke holes in the things Lab turns a blind eye to then they have to be more subtle about it as it will be obvious to somewhere between 10-20% (?) of the electorate that leaflet is a sarcastic attack on Labour but maybe not to the other 80%.
So they're right to slam it while at the same time - if they understand the two realities - they should be pleased so many people will read exactly how the postal votes are being fiddled.
Mr Llama: "The City of London Police got that a couple of decades ago, yet such investigations still go on controlled not not by a police force but by an arm of HMG. I wonder why.
The CoLP did the Adoboli investigation - 2011 to 2012.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 3m BBC News Channel Editor >> @journomummy: #WhyImVotingUkip - to stand up for white, middle class, middle aged men w sexist/racist views.
Of course the tweet was in a personal capacity....
Speedy, the UKIP agent has already acknowledged it as coming from them.
No, no, no, you can't be right, it's a truth universally acknowledged amongst Kippers that every single negative story about them is a LibLabConEstablishment conspiracy.
"Interestingly, the tendency to see coverage as biased against UKIP is largely non-partisan. Majorities of UKIP (77%) and Conservative (53%) supporters take this view, as well as pluralities of Lib Dems (31%) and Labour (40%)."
@rosschawkins: Oldham UKIP leaflet drawn up by Joe Fitzpatrick - fmr agent to ex-Lab MP Phil Woolas
@rosschawkins: Fitzpatrick tells me it was a satire - I'm not saying go out and do it, I'm saying this is what happens
@rosschawkins: UKIP leaflet said: steal postal votes, swap postal votes -- 36,000 copies distributed says Fitzpatrick
Good stuff. All the anti-UKIP people publicizing the leaflet should mean many thousands more people will read how postal voting is being fiddled than would otherwise find out.
That's true, the accusation by Labour that UKIP can ballot stuff an election by using postal votes is ideal for the government to abolish postal voting that favours Labour so much.
Except that most people using postal ballots are pensioners, who tend to vote Tory and, I guess these days, UKIP.
You all probably know already but ebay customers are being advised to change their passwords (saw it on Sky News). Bit perplexed... I definitely had an account with ebay but haven't used it for years, but I recall ebay and Paypal being linked, and I still use Paypal. *sighs* Things'd be easier if sites were more secure, or people weren't thieves.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 3m BBC News Channel Editor >> @journomummy: #WhyImVotingUkip - to stand up for white, middle class, middle aged men w sexist/racist views.
Of course the tweet was in a personal capacity....
BBC employee has knee-jerk bias against right-wing party. Why am I not surprised... it's absurd conservatives have to continue to pay for such people's salaries for the right to watch TV.
Being white, male, and middle class is no doubt considered morally reprehensible in and of itself, in that employee's eyes.
The LibDems will survive by regrouping on the opposition benches.
The LibDems have survived worse. In 1990 they were polling negligible figures, yet had 50 MPs within a decade.
I do not see UKIP doing that, but in the unlikely event of gaining an MP, they will be sitting on the opposition benches next to the Cleggites. There is no party that UKIP would form a coalition with, but it is entirely realistic to have LDs in coalition again soon.
Janet Daley: "That [anti-UKIP smear] campaign has done what would have been utterly beyond the capability of Ukip's own amateurish, content-less, incoherent presentation: it has permanently installed the idea that the political class are a united vindictive force which regards the anxieties and concerns of a large proportion of voters with contempt."
If the majority of the British public now see UKIP as THE antiestablishment party, how the dickens are the LDs going to revive their third party status after the 2015 election?
I don't see any "smear" campaign on ukip by the MSM. The press has just reported on a multitude of rash and stupid remarks made by kipper candidates. The MSM would have done the same for candidates of any party. Don't forget that the press prefers not to have sober analysis of policies but to report on "splits" and "rows" - they hope to boost their declining circulations with hysterical articles.
I'd agree with the majority of that - the media are generally lazy and it really doesn't matter the colour of the party, they have been gifted a wealth of cheap, sensationalist stories to fill their pages without even having to leave the office or pay taxi fares for their journalists. - whats not to like.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 3m BBC News Channel Editor >> @journomummy: #WhyImVotingUkip - to stand up for white, middle class, middle aged men w sexist/racist views.
Of course the tweet was in a personal capacity....
I think the account has gone already.
Nope, just my computer on the fritz.
Nope. Still there.
twitter.com/journomummy/status/469134204874522624
This will be fair game I suppose, and UKIP supporters will be told they have tp get used to this "scrutiny"
I am certain that, in time, posters of all hues will look back on the arguments they have put forward in the last week or so and feel very embarrassed
Anyone who doesn't live in the BBC version of reality will take the Oldham leaflet as a sarcastic attack on Labour whereas people who are for the time being still living in the fake BBC version of reality may react differently - one of the perils of the two realities I guess.
MrJones.
UKIP have already come out and slammed the leaflet heavily.
Which reality are they living in?
For the time being the majority of voters are still living in the fake BBC version of reality hence Ukip have to be careful. If they want to poke holes in the things Lab turns a blind eye to then they have to be more subtle about it as it will be obvious to somewhere between 10-20% (?) of the electorate that leaflet is a sarcastic attack on Labour but maybe not to the other 80%.
So they're right to slam it while at the same time - if they understand the two realities - they should be pleased so many people will read exactly how the postal votes are being fiddled.
Given Mr Fitzpatrick's recent employment do you think that he might be worthy of further investigation? Presumably he has all the evidence necessary to put people behind bars.
We won't have any problems getting board members to come forward if they are rewarded appropriately. But they can't expect the sweeties without the responsibility. With such responsibility, they will be driven to put in place the systems to control abuses.
No they won't. If they are not driven away completely (as happens to some extent in non-exec director positions already), they will be driven to waste vast amounts of money to ensure there is an auditable trail of box-ticking which can be used in their defence if, God forbid, some rogue employee in a far-off branch, unknown to them, does something bad. Such box-ticking has zero or negative effect on actually improving things, but it does shield the arses of the management.
We have been through all this once with Brown's financial regulation nonsense.
I have a simpler solution: prosecute the rogue employee.
OK but then surely we must question the remuneration of the board. If board members are not actually responsible for anything that goes wrong (because there will always be a rogue employee that can be found) what is the justification for paying them more than the minimum wage?
OK a bit tongue in cheek but not much. Too often in recent years we have seen super-star CEO's, for whose services the shareholders had to pay vast sums, actually destroy companies but walk away with millions in their own personal bank accounts. My cat could have made a better job as CEO and he would ave charged just a tin of pilchards a day.
Anyone who doesn't live in the BBC version of reality will take the Oldham leaflet as a sarcastic attack on Labour whereas people who are for the time being still living in the fake BBC version of reality may react differently - one of the perils of the two realities I guess.
MrJones.
UKIP have already come out and slammed the leaflet heavily.
Which reality are they living in?
For the time being the majority of voters are still living in the fake BBC version of reality hence Ukip have to be careful. If they want to poke holes in the things Lab turns a blind eye to then they have to be more subtle about it as it will be obvious to somewhere between 10-20% (?) of the electorate that leaflet is a sarcastic attack on Labour but maybe not to the other 80%.
So they're right to slam it while at the same time - if they understand the two realities - they should be pleased so many people will read exactly how the postal votes are being fiddled.
Given Mr Fitzpatrick's recent employment do you think that he might be worthy of further investigation? Presumably he has all the evidence necessary to put people behind bars.
On his own account, until recently he appears to have been familiar with malpractices but entirely comfortable with them. Perhaps he would care to explain how the voters should view his character, given that.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 3m BBC News Channel Editor >> @journomummy: #WhyImVotingUkip - to stand up for white, middle class, middle aged men w sexist/racist views.
Of course the tweet was in a personal capacity....
I hope she loses her job, frankly. She is clearly a very stupid woman.
Anyone who doesn't live in the BBC version of reality will take the Oldham leaflet as a sarcastic attack on Labour whereas people who are for the time being still living in the fake BBC version of reality may react differently - one of the perils of the two realities I guess.
MrJones.
UKIP have already come out and slammed the leaflet heavily.
Which reality are they living in?
For the time being the majority of voters are still living in the fake BBC version of reality hence Ukip have to be careful. If they want to poke holes in the things Lab turns a blind eye to then they have to be more subtle about it as it will be obvious to somewhere between 10-20% (?) of the electorate that leaflet is a sarcastic attack on Labour but maybe not to the other 80%.
So they're right to slam it while at the same time - if they understand the two realities - they should be pleased so many people will read exactly how the postal votes are being fiddled.
Given Mr Fitzpatrick's recent employment do you think that he might be worthy of further investigation? Presumably he has all the evidence necessary to put people behind bars.
I don't see any point chasing people for postal vote fraud when it would be a lot simpler and cheaper to change the system back to an honest one.
OK but then surely we must question the remuneration of the board. If board members are not actually responsible for anything that goes wrong (because there will always be a rogue employee that can be found) what is the justification for paying them more than the minimum wage?
OK a bit tongue in cheek but not much. Too often in recent years we have seen super-star CEO's, for whose services the shareholders had to pay vast sums, actually destroy companies but walk away with millions in their own personal bank accounts. My cat could have made a better job as CEO and he would ave charged just a tin of pilchards a day.
That's a separate point. The answer is that it is no business of anyone other than shareholders. If they think your cat could expand the business whilst keeping costs down, great. (I'd recommend a zero-hours contract because cats are notoriously lazy...).
Weather is looking pretty miserable tomorrow. Might shave a few points off turnout.
Btw, I noticed the owner of a very large UKIP sign in the centre of Totnes had given up and taken it down, after repeated vandalism.
The other high-profile party in Totnes are the Greens, who have a fair few posters up. I wouldn't like to speculate on who might have been behind this outrage against democracy. (Forensic examination will determine if bio-degradable mung-bean oil was used....)
As usual, the fields and hedgerows are voting solidly Tory.
We won't have any problems getting board members to come forward if they are rewarded appropriately. But they can't expect the sweeties without the responsibility. With such responsibility, they will be driven to put in place the systems to control abuses.
No they won't. If they are not driven away completely (as happens to some extent in non-exec director positions already), they will be driven to waste vast amounts of money to ensure there is an auditable trail of box-ticking which can be used in their defence if, God forbid, some rogue employee in a far-off branch, unknown to them, does something bad. Such box-ticking has zero or negative effect on actually improving things, but it does shield the arses of the management.
We have been through all this once with Brown's financial regulation nonsense.
I have a simpler solution: prosecute the rogue employee.
OK but then surely we must question the remuneration of the board. If board members are not actually responsible for anything that goes wrong (because there will always be a rogue employee that can be found) what is the justification for paying them more than the minimum wage?
OK a bit tongue in cheek but not much. Too often in recent years we have seen super-star CEO's, for whose services the shareholders had to pay vast sums, actually destroy companies but walk away with millions in their own personal bank accounts. My cat could have made a better job as CEO and he would ave charged just a tin of pilchards a day.
Is that as just base salary or is the bonus included?
You all probably know already but ebay customers are being advised to change their passwords (saw it on Sky News). Bit perplexed... I definitely had an account with ebay but haven't used it for years, but I recall ebay and Paypal being linked, and I still use Paypal. *sighs* Things'd be easier if sites were more secure, or people weren't thieves.
Secure your PayPal account with Symantec VIP. Either smartphone app or get one of these brilliant things
Anyone who doesn't live in the BBC version of reality will take the Oldham leaflet as a sarcastic attack on Labour whereas people who are for the time being still living in the fake BBC version of reality may react differently - one of the perils of the two realities I guess.
MrJones.
UKIP have already come out and slammed the leaflet heavily.
Which reality are they living in?
For the time being the majority of voters are still living in the fake BBC version of reality hence Ukip have to be careful. If they want to poke holes in the things Lab turns a blind eye to then they have to be more subtle about it as it will be obvious to somewhere between 10-20% (?) of the electorate that leaflet is a sarcastic attack on Labour but maybe not to the other 80%.
So they're right to slam it while at the same time - if they understand the two realities - they should be pleased so many people will read exactly how the postal votes are being fiddled.
Given Mr Fitzpatrick's recent employment do you think that he might be worthy of further investigation? Presumably he has all the evidence necessary to put people behind bars.
I don't see any point chasing people for postal vote fraud when it would be a lot simpler and cheaper to change the system back to an honest one.
You are alleging that Labour candidates in Oldham have engaged in criminal activity. Given Fitzpatrick was Labour's agent there at the last General Election, if it happened and you know about it he will too (indeed, he makes clear that he does). Don't you think that criminals should be punished?
OK but then surely we must question the remuneration of the board. If board members are not actually responsible for anything that goes wrong (because there will always be a rogue employee that can be found) what is the justification for paying them more than the minimum wage?
OK a bit tongue in cheek but not much. Too often in recent years we have seen super-star CEO's, for whose services the shareholders had to pay vast sums, actually destroy companies but walk away with millions in their own personal bank accounts. My cat could have made a better job as CEO and he would ave charged just a tin of pilchards a day.
That's a separate point. The answer is that it is no business of anyone other than shareholders. If they think your cat could expand the business whilst keeping costs down, great. (I'd recommend a zero-hours contract because cats are notoriously lazy...).
The public has a strong interest in the effective management of some companies, as the experiences of 2008 show only too sharply. You're being far too casual in dismissing the idea of additional oversight of them.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 3m BBC News Channel Editor >> @journomummy: #WhyImVotingUkip - to stand up for white, middle class, middle aged men w sexist/racist views.
Of course the tweet was in a personal capacity....
I hope she loses her job, frankly. She is clearly a very stupid woman.
Comments
How do you feel about people being acquitted on "technicalities"?
Sometimes it appears to the public that judges and lawyers like laws to be phrased in a way that only they can understand, so that "loopholes can be exploited.
(This is obviously a fallacy that can be explained by coincidence)
The reason fraud trials are long and expensive is not because of what the lawyers at trial do but because of the years of investigative work done beforehand. Often - and this, sadly, is my experience, that work has not been done well or competently and has to be repeated or is ineffective and the trial becomes longer and others have sort out the mess, thus increasing the costs. If you had better quality people in the first place you might have saved yourself the time, bother and money.
People can say that a self-employed QC should take a 30% pay cut. He can, equally, say: "Get stuffed. I'll do other work." The defendants can find no barristers. The judge halts the fraud trial. The victims of the fraud will, no doubt, be delighted. The investigators will be ecstatic that all their hard work has gone to waste. And our competitors will shake their heads in wonder.
Making public policy on the basis that you think you can get away with being rude about and nasty to an unpopular profession is not grown-up, is it?
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ukip-launch-race-row-probe-7151633
Ms Free gave the game away up-thread when she said she would be horrified to be defended by lawyers with the same competence as we use to prosecute. She then complained that UK was not adept enough at prosecuting fraudsters at which point my irony meter melted.
Above posted before I had seen Ms Free's contribution at 15:43
I agree that these defendants deserve a fair trial and there should be money for fraud trials. What I fundamentally disagree with is, as per Cyclefree's initial post, that it is essentially totally the government's fault
It isn't. The legal profession needs to do something it has completely refused to do all along in this dispute, and all other disputes with the government
Look at its own role in bringing this situation about, and its own potential culpability in using up funds where they absolutely should not have been used.
I also agree that there may well be a case for not limiting the scope of Legal Aid to people living in the country or only to certain types of claims. But, indisputably, legal aid should cover criminal defence and if it does then it needs to be properly funded. Bear in mind that if defendants have to defend themselves in person (and in one case I'm aware of the judge has said just that) the trial will certainly be longer, the jury are probably less likely to convict and it is quite possible that the ECHR would rule that it was not a fair trial. That is a ludicrous position for us to get into.
In many, if not most instances the fines are pretty meaningless since in the end they are passed on to the consumer.
When I see a CEO doing chokey I'll believe the authorities are beginning to take City fraud seriously.
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2405214/brighton_hove_the_future_is_green.html
Finally, I drag out of you what you should have started with all along Cyclefree. Some criticisms of the profession and suggestions for improvements that do not involve a default blaming of the government and a simple demand for more money.
If the legal profession wants to get somewhere with this, they should be starting where you finished with your last post.
For people who are paid to present evidence in the best possible light, the legal profession's whole campaign has been astonishing and breathtakingly poor.
Britain is sliding below american levels of electioneering to african ones.
The LibDems have survived worse. In 1990 they were polling negligible figures, yet had 50 MPs within a decade.
I do not see UKIP doing that, but in the unlikely event of gaining an MP, they will be sitting on the opposition benches next to the Cleggites. There is no party that UKIP would form a coalition with, but it is entirely realistic to have LDs in coalition again soon.
ICM's downweighting based on previous non-voting uses the 2010GE for it's Euro polling (so if you didn't vote at that GE you're vote was downweighted by half).
@rosschawkins: Fitzpatrick tells me it was a satire - I'm not saying go out and do it, I'm saying this is what happens
@rosschawkins: UKIP leaflet said: steal postal votes, swap postal votes -- 36,000 copies distributed says Fitzpatrick
No one had a pop at Labour for this!
http://www.columnist.org.uk/2014/04/17/labour-caught-distributing-lie-filled-leaflets-about-ukip/
Furthermore, I have been on the prosecution side on a number of very high profile cases and have been in despair at the prospect of fraudsters getting off scot free because of incompetent prosecutors.
The sensible solution to this is to get some kind of agreement as Leveson J urged.
Of course, one other solution is for the government to abolish Legal Aid entirely. That way the criminal bar will work only for those people who can pay for their services. Probably a majority of barristers would have to leave the profession or do other work. And a proper defence would only be available to the rich. How does that sound?
"Chronic-Oldham has no connection with UKIP, Joe Fitzpatrick or any other political party!"
Labour mud.
The end.
That does sound as though it might distort the results, and perhaps explains ICM being out of line with the others.
The antiestablishment party is now UKIP, and the LDs are now another marque of The Establishment.
Re: MPs.
I think Eastleigh will be one of the seats won by UKIP candidates in 2015.
http://survation.com/still-a-3-way-marginal-new-polling-in-eastleigh-constituency-survation-for-alan-bown/
I'm sure Friday's local election results will reveal others.
It seems to me that we should instead concentrate on the actual individuals, not the corporations, who do wrong.
Though not, judging by the offending leaflet, colourblind.
(Not to mention "Our deputy leader Paul Nuttall)
I don't represent the criminal bar. My concern is that we will end up - through the cheese-paring "price of everything/value of nothing" approach of Grayling and the cloth-eared approach of the Bar - with a second rate justice system. Remember also that there have already been cuts to legal aid rates; the current proposal is for a further 30% cut.
Nurses may well be underpaid. Care workers certainly are. But as far as I'm aware they have not been told that their pay is to be cut by 30%. Has anyone paid from the public purse been told that their income is to be reduced by such an amount? I'm not aware of any but no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
Haha that was great wasn't it?! People pretending to be Romanian to have a go at UKIP
A couple of them sounded Eastern European but the ringleaders accent (the one who said Michael Crick was Romanian) seemed a bit more Dick van Dyke..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFF0Pm4VQcwl
Ah right. To me it's obviously a sarcastic attack on Labour but you prob have a point that not everyone will get that.
edit: although everyone in Oldham probably will
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/05/20/voters-think-media-more-biased-against-UKIP/
But not this one.
I still think the legal profession would be far more successful if, as part of a deal, it suggested some of the things you mentioned in your last post.
1. streamlining the type of case for which legal aid can be granted to share the cash around bettr,
2. An admission that the profession should shoulder some of the responsibility for what became (and in some cases still is) a wholesale gravy train....and some form of censure for those firms who are still mightily taking the p8ss.
I'm not sure if it would be enough to stop a 30% cut - but it would sure help.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ukip-oldham-leaflet-racism-row-7148269
"We should put proper resources into prosecution and defence so there is equality of arms"
Fine, couldn't agree more. Let us have the, compulsory, Public Defender Service the same as we have the CPS. Both equally as useless as each other. Not good for high earning lawyers, but into every life some rain must fall and certainly fair to those caught up in the mess.
The Solution to the multi-year, massively complex fraud investigations is as I have said here before is not to get into them (see previous posts or email me privately if you are really interested). The City of London Police got that a couple of decades ago, yet such investigations still go on controlled not not by a police force but by an arm of HMG. I wonder why.
This is not a particularly radical suggestion. Quite a few US executives have had to go to court with their toothbrushes. We should not be afraid of expecting directors of companies in industries that are of critical centrality to our economy to accept high levels of responsibility.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 3m
BBC News Channel Editor >> @journomummy: #WhyImVotingUkip - to stand up for white, middle class, middle aged men w sexist/racist views.
Of course the tweet was in a personal capacity....
We have been through all this once with Brown's financial regulation nonsense.
I have a simpler solution: prosecute the rogue employee.
UKIP have already come out and slammed the leaflet heavily.
Which reality are they living in?
The costs have been incurred way before lawyers are involved. And they have been incurred because- too often - the investigators have been bloody useless and/or unfocused and/or inexperienced.
Who runs these agencies? The government. The same government which is busy criticising lawyers. Laywers are not blameless. But we're into motes and beams territory here.
Nope, just my computer on the fritz.
So they're right to slam it while at the same time - if they understand the two realities - they should be pleased so many people will read exactly how the postal votes are being fiddled.
The CoLP did the Adoboli investigation - 2011 to 2012.
twitter.com/journomummy/status/469134204874522624
People will start to not believe accusations even if their true.
You all probably know already but ebay customers are being advised to change their passwords (saw it on Sky News). Bit perplexed... I definitely had an account with ebay but haven't used it for years, but I recall ebay and Paypal being linked, and I still use Paypal. *sighs* Things'd be easier if sites were more secure, or people weren't thieves.
I am certain that, in time, posters of all hues will look back on the arguments they have put forward in the last week or so and feel very embarrassed
If that is humour it is Hyper-Dry!!!
OK a bit tongue in cheek but not much. Too often in recent years we have seen super-star CEO's, for whose services the shareholders had to pay vast sums, actually destroy companies but walk away with millions in their own personal bank accounts. My cat could have made a better job as CEO and he would ave charged just a tin of pilchards a day.
2/7 NO
11/4 YES
http://t.co/A85SjaBD3r
Btw, I noticed the owner of a very large UKIP sign in the centre of Totnes had given up and taken it down, after repeated vandalism.
The other high-profile party in Totnes are the Greens, who have a fair few posters up. I wouldn't like to speculate on who might have been behind this outrage against democracy. (Forensic examination will determine if bio-degradable mung-bean oil was used....)
As usual, the fields and hedgerows are voting solidly Tory.
https://www.yubico.com/products/yubikey-hardware/yubikey-vip/
You can do your Ebay account too, but that could prevent you from sniping, should you wish to do such a thing.
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Jasmine/Lawrence
The BBC is resilient to fire editors over tweets.
http://order-order.com/2014/05/21/bbc-news-channel-editor-broadcasts-anti-ukip-rant/
1/5 NO
10/3 Yes
just for the rubdown