Edited for accuracy

That depends on if it is your ex that stops you seeing your children or your kids get taken into care inappropriately because there are not enough legal safeguards in place to protect them or if children get killed because SWs are so overworked they cannot do what needs to be done to protect them.

It doesn't depend on that at all. I've already stated that the issues you describe are very important, but I really don't see how you can say that one is 'far more important' than the other. Both are equally important, particularly to those directly affected.

No need to worry (although the tone of the piece suggests a certain arrogance / flippancy sarcasm?): http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... rnalSearch

No need to worry (although the tone of the piece suggests a certain arrogance / flippancy sarcasm?): http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... rnalSearch

From that spiffing chap Grayling's quotes in that article:


Half of which will be prosecution costs. But anyway, if there are single trials costing that much, why not ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF SINGLE TRIALS COSTING THAT MUCH you fscking moron. They ahve NOTHING to do with price competitive tendering, or the massed ranks of poorly paid criminal defence lawyers, thousands of whom fear for their jobs.


Disingenuous rubbish. If that were true, then what is the point of the changes? Bored. Chhris?


But most defendants do not KNOW a barrister to choose one. Most Do know "their" solicitor - yet will have no choice to use their solicitor, one will be imposed. The State which is prosecuting you dictates the lawyer who will represent you.


Horrendous pie-in-the-sky. We all know what he wants - a couple of huge national providers, and screw the rest. Entirely price driven. He expects thousands of firms to suddenly merge into regional giants, and obtain funding to do so, move all their respective staff, put in place everything that is required for a major business, just to bid for contracts they may very well not get, and if they do, will be at maybe at least 30% less money than even the pay now? Who is he to tell thousands of individual solicitor firms to get involved in wholesale and huge mergers? Do you believe this?



No it isn't, you moron. Thousands of solicitors (and barristers, and judges too) accuse you of it, not just one. This is precisely what your reforms are bent on doing.

Also not sure how someone with income of "about" £100,000 or whatever vague word he used (code for alot less) could afford their share of the £10 million!

Another nasty feature that has emerged with this lot is that they have become trolls as well, they think nothing of coming out like this (well, this is a very mild one compared to some of the bile) and ignorantly and rudely dismissing the genuine concerns of serious lawyers, even whole organisations, as just diguised fakery and self-interest.

Just as a matter of interest, what does this equate to in monetary terms. I know 'poorly paid' is relevant to each occupation and the salaries within it and don't expect them to earn the same as a 'poorly paid' shelf stacker at ASDA. In my area of work, poorly paid would equate to around £20k, whereas I have seen salaries as high as £85k in London for similar work.

£20k would not be unusual for a criminal aid lawyer in the provinces

Isn't abetting a crime in the provinces?