Gwent court cases hit by strike

South Wales Argus: PROTEST: Striking solicitors outside Newport Magistrates' Court today ripping up legal application forms PROTEST: Striking solicitors outside Newport Magistrates' Court today ripping up legal application forms

COURT cases in Gwent have been hit today because of a strike by solicitors.

Thirteen solicitors have locked themselves in the solicitors room at Newport Magistrates' Court as part of a wider dispute over legal aid.

Solicitors from Cwmbran Magistrates' Court also plan to join them at Newport.

Solicitor Rhydian James said: "It is about survival not greed."

 

 

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:11pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Newport87 says...

What a terrible April Fool's.
What a terrible April Fool's. Newport87
  • Score: 1

1:50pm Tue 1 Apr 14

the3feathers says...

now if only the south wales police (who spent the majority of their time ignoring real crimes and filling up the courts with mickey mouse cases that would be better left to jeremy kyle) would go on strike permanently too!!
now if only the south wales police (who spent the majority of their time ignoring real crimes and filling up the courts with mickey mouse cases that would be better left to jeremy kyle) would go on strike permanently too!! the3feathers
  • Score: 1

5:07pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Melvyn The Milk says...

My heart bleeds for them.
My heart bleeds for them. Melvyn The Milk
  • Score: 1

8:26pm Tue 1 Apr 14

MonsieurX says...

Well said Melv. I am sure that like you, I look forward to the day that I or one of my family is falsely accused of a crime and we have to take on the might of the state without any help to prove our innocence. Bring it on I say. Who needs a lawyer eh? If it's good enough for some backwater dictatorship to deny a fair trial it's good enough for us. What say you Melv?
Well said Melv. I am sure that like you, I look forward to the day that I or one of my family is falsely accused of a crime and we have to take on the might of the state without any help to prove our innocence. Bring it on I say. Who needs a lawyer eh? If it's good enough for some backwater dictatorship to deny a fair trial it's good enough for us. What say you Melv? MonsieurX
  • Score: 4

8:49pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Bluebeetle says...

Yes well said Melvyn. Who needs Legal Aid? Why should those who can't afford it have decent legal representation? Stuff 'em hey Melv, they should work harder and earn more then they could pay for a solicitor privately. Criminal Solicitors are striking to preserve the right of everyone, regardless of income, to be represented by the solicitor of their choice. It's not about how much they earn - most solicitors doing criminal legal aid work earn less than police sergeants, and their hourly rates are 8.75% less today than they were in 1994. I suggest you keep your ignorant ill informed remarks to yourself.
Yes well said Melvyn. Who needs Legal Aid? Why should those who can't afford it have decent legal representation? Stuff 'em hey Melv, they should work harder and earn more then they could pay for a solicitor privately. Criminal Solicitors are striking to preserve the right of everyone, regardless of income, to be represented by the solicitor of their choice. It's not about how much they earn - most solicitors doing criminal legal aid work earn less than police sergeants, and their hourly rates are 8.75% less today than they were in 1994. I suggest you keep your ignorant ill informed remarks to yourself. Bluebeetle
  • Score: 5

10:18pm Tue 1 Apr 14

scraptheWAG says...

bunch of scroungers its about time someone stood up for the taxpayers more of the same please
bunch of scroungers its about time someone stood up for the taxpayers more of the same please scraptheWAG
  • Score: -4

10:51pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Bluebeetle wrote:
Yes well said Melvyn. Who needs Legal Aid? Why should those who can't afford it have decent legal representation? Stuff 'em hey Melv, they should work harder and earn more then they could pay for a solicitor privately. Criminal Solicitors are striking to preserve the right of everyone, regardless of income, to be represented by the solicitor of their choice. It's not about how much they earn - most solicitors doing criminal legal aid work earn less than police sergeants, and their hourly rates are 8.75% less today than they were in 1994. I suggest you keep your ignorant ill informed remarks to yourself.
Kind of curious that you can chose your own lawyer if you are a career criminal but if you are sick you can't chose your own specialist. Yet the taxpayer funds both. Check out the story of the fuel thief on here. He's keeping solicitors in legal aid.
[quote][p][bold]Bluebeetle[/bold] wrote: Yes well said Melvyn. Who needs Legal Aid? Why should those who can't afford it have decent legal representation? Stuff 'em hey Melv, they should work harder and earn more then they could pay for a solicitor privately. Criminal Solicitors are striking to preserve the right of everyone, regardless of income, to be represented by the solicitor of their choice. It's not about how much they earn - most solicitors doing criminal legal aid work earn less than police sergeants, and their hourly rates are 8.75% less today than they were in 1994. I suggest you keep your ignorant ill informed remarks to yourself.[/p][/quote]Kind of curious that you can chose your own lawyer if you are a career criminal but if you are sick you can't chose your own specialist. Yet the taxpayer funds both. Check out the story of the fuel thief on here. He's keeping solicitors in legal aid. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: -2

12:00am Wed 2 Apr 14

MonsieurX says...

You are driving home one day, somebody runs out in front of you and, sadly they die. The police arrest you for causing death by dangerous driving. They don't believe your explanation. They refuse you bail and you appear in court the next day where you have to argue that you should be released on bail pending your trial. You appear at the crown court. The prosecution is represented by a QC who is paid from taxpayers money. Your money because you are a taxpayer too. The police are also funded by the taxpayer as is the judge, the trial system and the prosecution. You are not a career criminal. You are a law abiding citizen who has been caught up in the system. If you are convicted you will lose your job and go to jail. Unfortunately if you and your wife has a gross income of around 32k you will not be able to get legal aid. Are you happy to represent yourself at the police station. Are you happy that you have the skills to persuade the court to give you bail and can you take on the QC yourself in the crown court. We would all like to have the consultant of our choice if we are ill. At least if you have legal aid you can still choose your lawyer. Isn't that a good thing. Remember that lawyers represent people wrongly accused of crimes, not just scumbags.
You are driving home one day, somebody runs out in front of you and, sadly they die. The police arrest you for causing death by dangerous driving. They don't believe your explanation. They refuse you bail and you appear in court the next day where you have to argue that you should be released on bail pending your trial. You appear at the crown court. The prosecution is represented by a QC who is paid from taxpayers money. Your money because you are a taxpayer too. The police are also funded by the taxpayer as is the judge, the trial system and the prosecution. You are not a career criminal. You are a law abiding citizen who has been caught up in the system. If you are convicted you will lose your job and go to jail. Unfortunately if you and your wife has a gross income of around 32k you will not be able to get legal aid. Are you happy to represent yourself at the police station. Are you happy that you have the skills to persuade the court to give you bail and can you take on the QC yourself in the crown court. We would all like to have the consultant of our choice if we are ill. At least if you have legal aid you can still choose your lawyer. Isn't that a good thing. Remember that lawyers represent people wrongly accused of crimes, not just scumbags. MonsieurX
  • Score: 5

7:24am Wed 2 Apr 14

Llanmartinangel says...

MonsieurX wrote:
You are driving home one day, somebody runs out in front of you and, sadly they die. The police arrest you for causing death by dangerous driving. They don't believe your explanation. They refuse you bail and you appear in court the next day where you have to argue that you should be released on bail pending your trial. You appear at the crown court. The prosecution is represented by a QC who is paid from taxpayers money. Your money because you are a taxpayer too. The police are also funded by the taxpayer as is the judge, the trial system and the prosecution. You are not a career criminal. You are a law abiding citizen who has been caught up in the system. If you are convicted you will lose your job and go to jail. Unfortunately if you and your wife has a gross income of around 32k you will not be able to get legal aid. Are you happy to represent yourself at the police station. Are you happy that you have the skills to persuade the court to give you bail and can you take on the QC yourself in the crown court. We would all like to have the consultant of our choice if we are ill. At least if you have legal aid you can still choose your lawyer. Isn't that a good thing. Remember that lawyers represent people wrongly accused of crimes, not just scumbags.
I'd hazard a guess that the hypothetical example you quote Monsieur is very rare. Any visit to a court will reveal an endless succession of low class career criminals and drug addicts whose endless repeat offending is what is, in reality, using all the money up. It'd be fine if the legal best were available for the hard working but low paid nuclear family in a car crash but you and I both know that it's their ever increasing taxes being absorbed by the same people doing a mating dance with the courts on a daily basis. Like the fuel theif.
[quote][p][bold]MonsieurX[/bold] wrote: You are driving home one day, somebody runs out in front of you and, sadly they die. The police arrest you for causing death by dangerous driving. They don't believe your explanation. They refuse you bail and you appear in court the next day where you have to argue that you should be released on bail pending your trial. You appear at the crown court. The prosecution is represented by a QC who is paid from taxpayers money. Your money because you are a taxpayer too. The police are also funded by the taxpayer as is the judge, the trial system and the prosecution. You are not a career criminal. You are a law abiding citizen who has been caught up in the system. If you are convicted you will lose your job and go to jail. Unfortunately if you and your wife has a gross income of around 32k you will not be able to get legal aid. Are you happy to represent yourself at the police station. Are you happy that you have the skills to persuade the court to give you bail and can you take on the QC yourself in the crown court. We would all like to have the consultant of our choice if we are ill. At least if you have legal aid you can still choose your lawyer. Isn't that a good thing. Remember that lawyers represent people wrongly accused of crimes, not just scumbags.[/p][/quote]I'd hazard a guess that the hypothetical example you quote Monsieur is very rare. Any visit to a court will reveal an endless succession of low class career criminals and drug addicts whose endless repeat offending is what is, in reality, using all the money up. It'd be fine if the legal best were available for the hard working but low paid nuclear family in a car crash but you and I both know that it's their ever increasing taxes being absorbed by the same people doing a mating dance with the courts on a daily basis. Like the fuel theif. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: -2

7:32am Wed 2 Apr 14

BobEvams2014 says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
MonsieurX wrote: You are driving home one day, somebody runs out in front of you and, sadly they die. The police arrest you for causing death by dangerous driving. They don't believe your explanation. They refuse you bail and you appear in court the next day where you have to argue that you should be released on bail pending your trial. You appear at the crown court. The prosecution is represented by a QC who is paid from taxpayers money. Your money because you are a taxpayer too. The police are also funded by the taxpayer as is the judge, the trial system and the prosecution. You are not a career criminal. You are a law abiding citizen who has been caught up in the system. If you are convicted you will lose your job and go to jail. Unfortunately if you and your wife has a gross income of around 32k you will not be able to get legal aid. Are you happy to represent yourself at the police station. Are you happy that you have the skills to persuade the court to give you bail and can you take on the QC yourself in the crown court. We would all like to have the consultant of our choice if we are ill. At least if you have legal aid you can still choose your lawyer. Isn't that a good thing. Remember that lawyers represent people wrongly accused of crimes, not just scumbags.
I'd hazard a guess that the hypothetical example you quote Monsieur is very rare. Any visit to a court will reveal an endless succession of low class career criminals and drug addicts whose endless repeat offending is what is, in reality, using all the money up. It'd be fine if the legal best were available for the hard working but low paid nuclear family in a car crash but you and I both know that it's their ever increasing taxes being absorbed by the same people doing a mating dance with the courts on a daily basis. Like the fuel theif.
Its time the nonsense of a 'fair trial' was abolished. All Defence lawyers do is get people off, so more crimainals are walking the streets. As a taxpayer I demand more convictions- If the accused is guilty then so much the better, if a person is innocent -thats just bad luck.

If you are accused, then you are guilty, no smoke without fire, after all the British Police would never ever fit anyone up would they?
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MonsieurX[/bold] wrote: You are driving home one day, somebody runs out in front of you and, sadly they die. The police arrest you for causing death by dangerous driving. They don't believe your explanation. They refuse you bail and you appear in court the next day where you have to argue that you should be released on bail pending your trial. You appear at the crown court. The prosecution is represented by a QC who is paid from taxpayers money. Your money because you are a taxpayer too. The police are also funded by the taxpayer as is the judge, the trial system and the prosecution. You are not a career criminal. You are a law abiding citizen who has been caught up in the system. If you are convicted you will lose your job and go to jail. Unfortunately if you and your wife has a gross income of around 32k you will not be able to get legal aid. Are you happy to represent yourself at the police station. Are you happy that you have the skills to persuade the court to give you bail and can you take on the QC yourself in the crown court. We would all like to have the consultant of our choice if we are ill. At least if you have legal aid you can still choose your lawyer. Isn't that a good thing. Remember that lawyers represent people wrongly accused of crimes, not just scumbags.[/p][/quote]I'd hazard a guess that the hypothetical example you quote Monsieur is very rare. Any visit to a court will reveal an endless succession of low class career criminals and drug addicts whose endless repeat offending is what is, in reality, using all the money up. It'd be fine if the legal best were available for the hard working but low paid nuclear family in a car crash but you and I both know that it's their ever increasing taxes being absorbed by the same people doing a mating dance with the courts on a daily basis. Like the fuel theif.[/p][/quote]Its time the nonsense of a 'fair trial' was abolished. All Defence lawyers do is get people off, so more crimainals are walking the streets. As a taxpayer I demand more convictions- If the accused is guilty then so much the better, if a person is innocent -thats just bad luck. If you are accused, then you are guilty, no smoke without fire, after all the British Police would never ever fit anyone up would they? BobEvams2014
  • Score: -1

7:49am Wed 2 Apr 14

MonsieurX says...

The right to fair legal representation is a hallmark of a civilised society. I'm no bleeding heart liberal. Some people deserve punishment that the law doesn't allow ie the death penalty. But even those people have a right to a fair hearing and we, as citizens, of a reasonably civilised society have a right to see that the due process of law is carried out properly. Giving a person a lawyer is part of that process. Lawyers pay taxes too I assume by the way. The purpose of the law is to ensure the guilty are convicted and punished and the innocent are acquitted. Can you trust the law and those who enforce it and apply it to ensure the acquittal of the innocent and at the same deny legal representation to a person who cannot afford to pay? If you disagree, then the increasing power of the state over the individual probably doesn't worry you. If you want to worry about where our taxes are going look at the news on the sell off of the Royal Mail. The cost of legal aid is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost to the taxpayer in propping up these enterprises, the banks etc. that's where are taxes are being squandered.
The right to fair legal representation is a hallmark of a civilised society. I'm no bleeding heart liberal. Some people deserve punishment that the law doesn't allow ie the death penalty. But even those people have a right to a fair hearing and we, as citizens, of a reasonably civilised society have a right to see that the due process of law is carried out properly. Giving a person a lawyer is part of that process. Lawyers pay taxes too I assume by the way. The purpose of the law is to ensure the guilty are convicted and punished and the innocent are acquitted. Can you trust the law and those who enforce it and apply it to ensure the acquittal of the innocent and at the same deny legal representation to a person who cannot afford to pay? If you disagree, then the increasing power of the state over the individual probably doesn't worry you. If you want to worry about where our taxes are going look at the news on the sell off of the Royal Mail. The cost of legal aid is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost to the taxpayer in propping up these enterprises, the banks etc. that's where are taxes are being squandered. MonsieurX
  • Score: 1

8:17am Wed 2 Apr 14

Llanmartinangel says...

MonsieurX wrote:
The right to fair legal representation is a hallmark of a civilised society. I'm no bleeding heart liberal. Some people deserve punishment that the law doesn't allow ie the death penalty. But even those people have a right to a fair hearing and we, as citizens, of a reasonably civilised society have a right to see that the due process of law is carried out properly. Giving a person a lawyer is part of that process. Lawyers pay taxes too I assume by the way. The purpose of the law is to ensure the guilty are convicted and punished and the innocent are acquitted. Can you trust the law and those who enforce it and apply it to ensure the acquittal of the innocent and at the same deny legal representation to a person who cannot afford to pay? If you disagree, then the increasing power of the state over the individual probably doesn't worry you. If you want to worry about where our taxes are going look at the news on the sell off of the Royal Mail. The cost of legal aid is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost to the taxpayer in propping up these enterprises, the banks etc. that's where are taxes are being squandered.
There's the 'banks' cliche again. (Yawn). Government waste is an epidemic, I get it. You'll rarely see a contributor on here deny that. But the reality is that a hell of a lot of us, me included, now pay twice for lots of things. Private health insurance and legal insurance are two examples. We all carry a surcharge on car cover because of uninsured drivers. Because a lot people abusing the system ruin it for everyone else. I know for a fact that, if I'd wanted legal aid, being a lifelong worker and self sufficient, I'd not have got it. But if I'd been some junkie burguling a house for the 85th time and mugging old ladies to fund my habit on a weekly basis, I'd have my lawler already lined up and paid for. Frankly Monsieur the system stinks.
[quote][p][bold]MonsieurX[/bold] wrote: The right to fair legal representation is a hallmark of a civilised society. I'm no bleeding heart liberal. Some people deserve punishment that the law doesn't allow ie the death penalty. But even those people have a right to a fair hearing and we, as citizens, of a reasonably civilised society have a right to see that the due process of law is carried out properly. Giving a person a lawyer is part of that process. Lawyers pay taxes too I assume by the way. The purpose of the law is to ensure the guilty are convicted and punished and the innocent are acquitted. Can you trust the law and those who enforce it and apply it to ensure the acquittal of the innocent and at the same deny legal representation to a person who cannot afford to pay? If you disagree, then the increasing power of the state over the individual probably doesn't worry you. If you want to worry about where our taxes are going look at the news on the sell off of the Royal Mail. The cost of legal aid is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost to the taxpayer in propping up these enterprises, the banks etc. that's where are taxes are being squandered.[/p][/quote]There's the 'banks' cliche again. (Yawn). Government waste is an epidemic, I get it. You'll rarely see a contributor on here deny that. But the reality is that a hell of a lot of us, me included, now pay twice for lots of things. Private health insurance and legal insurance are two examples. We all carry a surcharge on car cover because of uninsured drivers. Because a lot people abusing the system ruin it for everyone else. I know for a fact that, if I'd wanted legal aid, being a lifelong worker and self sufficient, I'd not have got it. But if I'd been some junkie burguling a house for the 85th time and mugging old ladies to fund my habit on a weekly basis, I'd have my lawler already lined up and paid for. Frankly Monsieur the system stinks. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: -1

8:23am Wed 2 Apr 14

MonsieurX says...

Thanks for your views. I have to go to work now to earn some money to pay my taxes. Look forward to the day when your reasoned views are put forward to and accepted by the Ministry of Justice. I'm sure the Minister will listen avidly. And I'm not joking when I say that.
Thanks for your views. I have to go to work now to earn some money to pay my taxes. Look forward to the day when your reasoned views are put forward to and accepted by the Ministry of Justice. I'm sure the Minister will listen avidly. And I'm not joking when I say that. MonsieurX
  • Score: 1

10:36am Wed 2 Apr 14

BobEvams2014 says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
MonsieurX wrote: The right to fair legal representation is a hallmark of a civilised society. I'm no bleeding heart liberal. Some people deserve punishment that the law doesn't allow ie the death penalty. But even those people have a right to a fair hearing and we, as citizens, of a reasonably civilised society have a right to see that the due process of law is carried out properly. Giving a person a lawyer is part of that process. Lawyers pay taxes too I assume by the way. The purpose of the law is to ensure the guilty are convicted and punished and the innocent are acquitted. Can you trust the law and those who enforce it and apply it to ensure the acquittal of the innocent and at the same deny legal representation to a person who cannot afford to pay? If you disagree, then the increasing power of the state over the individual probably doesn't worry you. If you want to worry about where our taxes are going look at the news on the sell off of the Royal Mail. The cost of legal aid is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost to the taxpayer in propping up these enterprises, the banks etc. that's where are taxes are being squandered.
There's the 'banks' cliche again. (Yawn). Government waste is an epidemic, I get it. You'll rarely see a contributor on here deny that. But the reality is that a hell of a lot of us, me included, now pay twice for lots of things. Private health insurance and legal insurance are two examples. We all carry a surcharge on car cover because of uninsured drivers. Because a lot people abusing the system ruin it for everyone else. I know for a fact that, if I'd wanted legal aid, being a lifelong worker and self sufficient, I'd not have got it. But if I'd been some junkie burguling a house for the 85th time and mugging old ladies to fund my habit on a weekly basis, I'd have my lawler already lined up and paid for. Frankly Monsieur the system stinks.
Well said Angel, I agree the system should be' streamlined ' - find offence-charge-court - no defence - guilty - maximum sentence - prison - no appeal. .

This is clearly the most effective way forward
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MonsieurX[/bold] wrote: The right to fair legal representation is a hallmark of a civilised society. I'm no bleeding heart liberal. Some people deserve punishment that the law doesn't allow ie the death penalty. But even those people have a right to a fair hearing and we, as citizens, of a reasonably civilised society have a right to see that the due process of law is carried out properly. Giving a person a lawyer is part of that process. Lawyers pay taxes too I assume by the way. The purpose of the law is to ensure the guilty are convicted and punished and the innocent are acquitted. Can you trust the law and those who enforce it and apply it to ensure the acquittal of the innocent and at the same deny legal representation to a person who cannot afford to pay? If you disagree, then the increasing power of the state over the individual probably doesn't worry you. If you want to worry about where our taxes are going look at the news on the sell off of the Royal Mail. The cost of legal aid is a drop in the ocean compared to the cost to the taxpayer in propping up these enterprises, the banks etc. that's where are taxes are being squandered.[/p][/quote]There's the 'banks' cliche again. (Yawn). Government waste is an epidemic, I get it. You'll rarely see a contributor on here deny that. But the reality is that a hell of a lot of us, me included, now pay twice for lots of things. Private health insurance and legal insurance are two examples. We all carry a surcharge on car cover because of uninsured drivers. Because a lot people abusing the system ruin it for everyone else. I know for a fact that, if I'd wanted legal aid, being a lifelong worker and self sufficient, I'd not have got it. But if I'd been some junkie burguling a house for the 85th time and mugging old ladies to fund my habit on a weekly basis, I'd have my lawler already lined up and paid for. Frankly Monsieur the system stinks.[/p][/quote]Well said Angel, I agree the system should be' streamlined ' - find offence-charge-court - no defence - guilty - maximum sentence - prison - no appeal. . This is clearly the most effective way forward BobEvams2014
  • Score: -1

1:28pm Wed 2 Apr 14

the3feathers says...

you commenters seem to be forgetting that proper defence solicitors are only available to the rich. 99% of criminal solicitors who are forced to go down the duty solicitor road are all 'in' on it. its the police who give them their cases and the judges that let them preside in their court which is why career criminals are smart enough to stay silent in interview rooms and then end up getting off, whereas most duty solicitors, who rely on being police stooges for their bread and butter will persuade their client to 'talk' and then 'plead guilty' on the basis of overwhelming evidence on the crime they talked them into giving a statement admittting to!

jails are full and the government want to save more money by releasing offenders who dont have the money to pay the fines they are given on HDC tagging schemes, so until there is a REAL method for repeat offenders to financially recompensate, the honest man will always lose out regardless of legal aid or not. these court dramas like ally mcbeal and silk where defense lawyers repeatedly get clients off on columboesque strokes of genius dont help because magsitrates and police are crooked as hell, obsessed with balancing books and statistics and as someone whos sat in the public gallery on numerous trials ive been astounded as ive seen the same officer/cps prosecutor step up blatantly lie and tell a different representation of facts or events to a different witness, meaning the solicitors and presiding judge, who are there every day know they are lying. yet they all keep silent and not a word is spoken because all they care about is a guilty verdict, and balancing the books at the end of the day. and the duty solicitors is loathe to speak up against this corruption because what do you think will happen if they go against the people providing them with their bread and butter? much like drug cheats in athletics where everybody knows the top 5 in most events are all doping, they will never be investigated unless the government needs a scapegoat, or they refuse to 'play the game'.
you commenters seem to be forgetting that proper defence solicitors are only available to the rich. 99% of criminal solicitors who are forced to go down the duty solicitor road are all 'in' on it. its the police who give them their cases and the judges that let them preside in their court which is why career criminals are smart enough to stay silent in interview rooms and then end up getting off, whereas most duty solicitors, who rely on being police stooges for their bread and butter will persuade their client to 'talk' and then 'plead guilty' on the basis of overwhelming evidence on the crime they talked them into giving a statement admittting to! jails are full and the government want to save more money by releasing offenders who dont have the money to pay the fines they are given on HDC tagging schemes, so until there is a REAL method for repeat offenders to financially recompensate, the honest man will always lose out regardless of legal aid or not. these court dramas like ally mcbeal and silk where defense lawyers repeatedly get clients off on columboesque strokes of genius dont help because magsitrates and police are crooked as hell, obsessed with balancing books and statistics and as someone whos sat in the public gallery on numerous trials ive been astounded as ive seen the same officer/cps prosecutor step up blatantly lie and tell a different representation of facts or events to a different witness, meaning the solicitors and presiding judge, who are there every day know they are lying. yet they all keep silent and not a word is spoken because all they care about is a guilty verdict, and balancing the books at the end of the day. and the duty solicitors is loathe to speak up against this corruption because what do you think will happen if they go against the people providing them with their bread and butter? much like drug cheats in athletics where everybody knows the top 5 in most events are all doping, they will never be investigated unless the government needs a scapegoat, or they refuse to 'play the game'. the3feathers
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree