Discussion in 'Motorhome Chat' started by Biggles, Oct 22, 2009.
Just look at this
PistonHeads Headlines :Angry::Angry::Angry:
With this lot we will soon be taxed for breathing
How long is it to the next general election?
Will that change anything...?They are all as bad as one-another.
Judged guilty unless challenged and proven innocent...The country has gone crazy.Is there a law against that as well?oh:
This subject was raised on another forum a few days ago. I had a look at the petition then and found that its wording is rather different from that in the press release:
So, the proposal is actually to place a limit on costs which can be recovered (the level of legal aid), not to refuse to reimburse costs at all. There have often been criticisms that the entitlement to legal aid is set at the wrong level but, whilst it definitely bears scutiny, that is a different matter.
It is also worth noting that the government consultation paper - Award of costs from Central Funds in criminal cases - Ministry of Justice - was published on 6 November last year with a closing date of 29 January this year - and yet it is only now, with the changes imminent, that this petition is being publicised.
The petition and press release (whether they mean to or not) imply that this measure is an attack on "innocent motorists" when that isn't anywhere near the truth. This is a measure which will apply to all cases in the magistrates courts, not just those involving motorists. That bias in implication makes me suspicious of the reason(s) for the petition.
It would appear that the real driver is that some lawyers are becoming upset because the limit is to be set at the legal aid level rather than the exorbitant fees which some lawyers charge.
Oh dear, some high-charging lawyers might be out of pocket, shame
Regardless of the amount of charges you can recover it is still fundamentally the thin end of the wedge.
And why when it costs you more than than legal aid to mount a proper defence should you not be able to recover this. I am not even sure if you could get legal aid to cover a speeding or parking dispute.
It had added yet another barrier to justice as many that could reasonably fight anything will only do so it the penalty is disproportionate to the costs of defence. Certainly I would think twice over paying a £60 unjust fixed penalty against mounting a costly legal challenge, and I am sure this is as I say just the thin end of the wedge. Basically try it out on the already screwed easy target the motorist, then work it in elsewhere.
One of the points I made is that it isn't trying it out on the already screwed easy target the motorist. The change doesn't just apply to motorists.
It's the fact that the petition and press release give that impression that makes me very suspicious of the motives behind the petition.
I agree, but isn't it better that a few lawyers get overpaid rather than our basic premise of innocent until proven guilty is eroded unless you can afford to defend the action and risk it costing you more than the original and possibly unjust fine / sentence. Be it motoring or any other defence you care to mount.
And besides if they do get overpaid they will give back 40% of it in income tax anyway so the state is on a win win as usual.
Looking at the consultation document a few days ago it appears that the problem is more than just a few lawyers being overpaid a bit - it is a lot of people being overpaid and causing a drain on government finances (i.e. our finances because it is we, as tax payers, who provide all the funds).
I agree wholeheartedly that innocent people should be able to afford to fund actions. As I said in my initial post:
The next election will make absolutly no difference. It is not possible to vote away endemic corruption.
We will get the same again with a different name and a different face.
When corruption rules, democrocy dies and in this case it is dead!
That would be because it was kept a tad quiet and away from us, the unwashed and unworthy until such time as it HAD to be brought to the fore.
Yes, of course the information is readily available blah blah blah, but exactly how long does the average person spend going through green papers every week ?
Given the average UK resident is now said to have to work 185 days ( spookily two more days than you have to be resident outside the UK to avoid UK taxation rules completely ) just to pay the tax burden imposed on them, I personally do not have the time to troll through all the squit that is spewed forth from HMSO..
Perhaps I could employ a researcher to do that for me and claim the money back as expenses ? LOL !!
I do whole heartedly agree that, sadly, it will matter not who 'gets in' at the next popularity contest. I personally know a few MP's both past and present and while they ( in general ) start off with the best intentions, they are soon corrupted by the extremely corrupt system they operate in. Often without even relaising it :Angry:
According to the Ministry of Justice, the age old principle of 'the loser pays' has been costing the government too much money.
just goes to show, the CPS are 'pushing' some cases they dont have much chance of winning.
is this an excersize on their part just to keep prosocution figures up?
Subscribers don't see these adverts