So we've got £25 billion in cuts to come this year 
But what I don't understand is, if we had to borrow £140 billion how come we send so much money abroad in aid and then take money off our own people because we're in so much debt?
And as always the first thing they think about is how to take most of it off the poor. Absolutely typical, grrr.
The average criminal barrister earns a taxable income of £36,000.
The government wish to reduce that by 17.4%.
That would put average net income at 26 - 27k.
This is a stressful, complex and demanding job.
Barristers will leave the profession in droves (as they already are).
Cases will be defended AND PROSECUTED by those who are not competent.
This will result in
-a) guilty people walking free because they have not been prosecuted properly.
b) innocent people convicted because they were defended poorly.
c)Poor quality judges as the pool of selection grows ever smaller
A weak justice system will hurt us all in the long run as it is the only check on government power.
Please do not confuse those of us who do publicly funded work with those in the private sector.
It always saddens me when I see those who have swallowed Daily Mail nonsense without a second thought. It is this that our government relies upon - that the population will be too prejudiced and too ill informed up recognise the truth of the situation.
Now now Jenny, G4S are already training a 1000 witchfinder generals, who will for minimun wage and a zero hour contract, do the work of judge, jury and executioner.
Now granted it'll cost a bit in terms of big bonfires, which will also add to carbon pollution.
But these are tough economic times.
See, I wasn't going to bite. I have noticed that most of the older posters on this site treat this "Renegade Carpark" and his fevered rantings with an air of exasperated indulgence - such as you might a toddler who keeps wanting to get his willy out whilst the adults are trying to have tea.
However, this issue is too important for the debate to be clouded by those who don't have the first idea what they are talking about. I don't mind if anyone disagrees with me, but let's at least have a discussion from an informed viewpoint.
That being said:
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 12:27 PM GMT'Lawyers argue the cuts could see their fees fall by up to 30%' - last time I used a solicitor they charged me £300 to write a letter and £25 per phone call - even when they rang me!
Well, that's embarrassing. Your first comment on the topic and you are ALREADY demonstrably wrong. When a solicitor charged you £300 to write a letter - that was PRIVATE law. You were paying them - hence the "they charged me" bit.
What we are talking about is PUBLICLY FUNDED LAW. What you won't know (because you won't have bothered to find out) is that 10 years ago the government thought it would be a great idea to pay lawyers one fee per case. So whether I spend 1 hour or 100 hours preparing - I get the same.
Fortunately, I have high standards and will prepare as much as is necessary, because it is about the client, not the money. But I am such a money-grabber.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 12:27 PM GMTIt's not like we have a solicitor shortage in this country either, every second Asian person I meet is a lawyer - the other being a doctor or a chemist.
It may interest you to know that the prosecution of "racially aggravated" crimes has gone up exponentially. Postings on internet websites can fall foul of the Malicious Communications Act and lead to a prosecution. You sail very close to the wind at times.
Now if you were my client, I might say that you were exercising your freedom of speech.
I guess we have to hope you keep you mouth in check before someone makes a complaint to the police. You wouldn't want to find yourself in need of those lawyers you are so disparaging about.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 12:27 PM GMTThe sheer greed by the legal profession has brought them to this point. From unnecessary court cases, to no win no fee, to the various useless public enquiries. Subsequent governments have been bleeding money almost continually from non-stop legal fees.
Again - "no win no fee" is a PRIVATE LAW matter. Hence the "fee" aspect. So not relevant to this discussion. Ditto public enquiries which are not paid for using the Legal Aid regime that we are discussing here.
Incidentally, I agree with you on both points. But it is totally irrelevant to this debate.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 12:57 PM GMTYou're deliberately confusing the argument
Quite rich - I've just proved that you have already confused it twice.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 12:57 PM GMTthe Legal Aid budget is being reduced, it's not being eradicated altogether. The lawyers are angry that they are being asked to work for less money.
Yes we are. We are angry because we are being asked to work 60 hour weeks for a self employed take home pay of an £26k (on average). No holiday, maternity, pension, sick pay.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 12:57 PM GMTY
We now live in an overly litigious culture with vast sums of money being spent on family law, immigration and asylum cases. This isn't denying justice, it's public money being spent on private arbitration.
Immigration/Asylum Legal Aid has already been decimated and is now largely privately funded. Of course, there is a solution - don't ever try and deport people. That will dramatically reduce the "overly litigious culture". Not sure that would fit with your particular world view.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 12:57 PM GMTEDIT: And if you are outraged by the MPs expenses, they're miniscule in comparison to what lawyers on the tax money gravy train get away with.
Yes. Grayling earns £160k. Grayling's wife earns £44k to "manage his office". Part time.
Average criminal barrister - £36k. Before tax. That is what we are prepared to work for now. Cut that by another 20% and our position becomes untenable.
Keep swallowing the Daily Mail bullshit, the government love it when people don't bother researching the facts.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 4:23 PM GMTObviously guilty killers - and I mean obviously guilty - dozens of witnesses, public confession, video footage and attacking the police with a gun at the scene of the crime kind of guilty - should never be allowed to force the relatives of the loved ones to sit through that kind of ordeal all over again. It's morally disgusting and financially reprehensible.
Great idea. I hear it went down a storm in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Who gets to decide who is "obviously guilty"? You? What with that detailed legal knowledge you've demonstrated already?
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 4:23 PM GMTWhen Rigby's killers said they wanted to plead Not Guilty, their brief should have told them there and then, it ain't gonna fly. Similarly, the CPS should never have allowed this court case to proceed due to the overwhelming amount of evidence against the accused.
I am willing to bet all my £26k take home pay that you have never sat in a conference with a client. His barrister would have told him that his defence would not fly. I do it all the time.
Turns out, we still have this notion of living in a free country where people cannot be forced to plead guilty against their will.
If the CPS didn't take it to trial they would have had to offer no evidence. So they would have walked free. Great plan.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 5:45 PM GMTAs always, I win -
I think the above would suggest otherwise.
So barristers earn considerably less than police officers?
nb isn't law for the public purse, a stepping stone to earning far more money in private practise?
I mean don't doctors get rubbish money till they become registrars or running GP practises and stuff.
Can I just offer Jennie a rather large sooty-style Booyah?
Quote: sootyj @ 6th January 2014, 8:23 PM GMTSo barristers earn considerably less than police officers?
nb isn't law for the public purse, a stepping stone to earning far more money in private practise?
I mean don't doctors get rubbish money till they become registrars or running GP practises and stuff.
We earn less than police officers and teaachers.
GP's earn a lot more - £70 - 80k.
http://bma.org.uk/practical-support-at-work/pay-fees-allowances/pay-scales-salaried-gps
Remember, that is a salary as well. They are not self-employed.
It is definitely not a "stepping stone". Criminal law is a very specialist discipline, and we do it because we are good at it and want to spend our careers doing it.
I could easily have gone into the city and earn £200k + as a City solicitor. That is what a lot of my university friends did.
But I didn't want to. I do criminal law because I love it and want to do something useful to the public. All I want is to be paid a half decent amount to do it.
Quote: zooo @ 6th January 2014, 8:28 PM GMTCan I just offer Jennie a rather large sooty-style Booyah?
I just can't bear having the argument misrepresented. It means too much to me.
What also gets me (promise I'll stop soon) is the "self-interested barristers complaining about their low pay" angle.
We are educated people with a varied skill set. We could all get work elsewhere if we wanted to. The point we are trying to make is that the legal system would be in disarray if we left.
Quote: zooo @ 6th January 2014, 8:28 PM GMTCan I just offer Jennie a rather large sooty-style Booyah?
Why not it's an excellent post.
I think anyone in the public sector can't help but see in the last 10 or more years, a steady demolition of skilled, professions. In terms of respect, salary and security.
Quote: Jennie @ 6th January 2014, 8:32 PM GMTBut I didn't want to. I do criminal law because I love it and want to do something useful to the public. All I want is to be paid a half decent amount to do it.
That's a view which is literally incomprehensible to recent governments.
Quote: sootyj @ 6th January 2014, 8:35 PM GMTWhy not it's an excellent post.
I think anyone in the public sector can't help but see in the last 10 or more years, a steady demolition of skilled, professions. In terms of respect, salary and security.
Yes. There is a prevailing view that if you chose to work in the public sector you should be prepared to do it for nothing.
There is a lot of unsubstantiated scare mongering going on, along with veiled threats and personal accusations. It seems we are both sailing close to the wind.
The average pay you quote so readily is a consequence of having so many junior barristers in the profession - after a few years on the job, their pay rises to anywhere between £40,000 - £70,000. Source: http://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/Articles/Newsletter/320
It is these experienced lawyers on the higher pay who are threatening to leave, not the new graduates on lower pay desperate to get experience in chambers. They do earn less then private and commercial lawyers, but they knew that going into the job. They also knew they'd have a steady pay check and job security, that is the trade off whenever anyone is faced with working in the public or private sector.
Your assertion that the law will suffer because barristers are on lower wages is somewhat apocryphal - you're basically saying that the law can be bought and that if I have a higher paid criminal lawyer, I will automatically win.
As for my perceived racism - 'Four years ago, there were about 4,000 firms of solicitors who were entitled to offer legal assistance to those involved in the criminal justice system. In London, a surprising 40% of such firms were owned or controlled by Asian and Black lawyers.' - Source: http://societyofasianlawyers.org/
As usual, I will not retaliate with personal attacks or write things in CAPS LOCK to make my points. You quote my lack of understanding, I say you have a biased viewpoint.
Quote: Jennie @ 6th January 2014, 10:27 PM GMT
Unless you work in the charitable/3rd section in which case, hey greedy stop hogging that nothing.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 10:31 PM GMTThere is a lot of unsubstantiated scare mongering going on, along with veiled threats and personal accusations. It seems we are both sailing close to the wind.
No "scare mongering". I said you were wrong. I told you why. I have quoted nothing but facts that are verifiable. Thoroughly substantiated.
I didn't threaten you.
I didn't "accuse" you of being uninformed. I pointed out that you were.
I am nowhere near the wind.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 10:31 PM GMTThe average pay you quote so readily is a consequence of having so many junior barristers in the profession - after a few years on the job, their pay rises to anywhere between £40,000 - £70,000. Source: http://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/Articles/Newsletter/320
I cannot comment on something that does not provide a source for that estimate. I should say - those are earnings. We are self-employed. That is probably an accurate estimate on turnover. You need to knock a third off for expenses - Chambers fees, travel etc. I am five years into the job. My take home pay has certainly not risen to that, nor has that of any of my colleagues.
I suggest you consult the Ministry of Justice figures and this particularly helpful explanation of them: http://pupillageandhowtogetit.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/misinformation-by-public-bodies/ [/quote]
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 10:31 PM GMTIt is these experienced lawyers on the higher pay who are threatening to leave, not the new graduates on lower pay desperate to get experience in chambers.
Firstly, where is your evidence for this?
Secondly, you won't find any because you are wrong. I am a young barrister. I am threatening to leave alongside most of my colleagues.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 10:31 PM GMTThey do earn less then private and commercial lawyers, but they knew that going into the job. They also knew they'd have a steady pay check and job security, that is the trade off whenever anyone is faced with working in the public or private sector.
Please, stop saying things you know nothing about. We do not have a steady pay check - that is part of the problem. The Legal Aid Commission often will not pay us until 4/5 months after a bill has been submitted.
Last year I received the princely sum of £800 between April and June. Our income is very erratic and often delayed.
Solicitors (who control the purse for Magistrates' Court work) will often only pay 2/3 of the amount that we are owed. They know they can get away with it - our clerks won't risk upsetting the hand that feeds us by chasing up the remaining 1/3.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 10:31 PM GMTYour assertion that the law will suffer because barristers are on lower wages is somewhat apocryphal - you're basically saying that the law can be bought and that if I have a higher paid criminal lawyer, I will automatically win.
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that we will have a two tiered system, where the only people who will have access to good quality representation are those who could pay for it. Would you like to have a heart operation performed by a surgeon who was happy to work for £25k? Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 10:31 PM GMTAs for my perceived racism - 'Four years ago, there were about 4,000 firms of solicitors who were entitled to offer legal assistance to those involved in the criminal justice system. In London, a surprising 40% of such firms were owned or controlled by Asian and Black lawyers.' - Source: http://societyofasianlawyers.org/
My point about that was that you seem to be very confident of never needing a lawyer. We could all be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or say something that another takes out of context. Please don't dismiss us or what we do - you may need us one day.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 10:31 PM GMTAs usual, I will not retaliate with personal attacks or write things in CAPS LOCK to make my points. You quote my lack of understanding, I say you have a biased viewpoint.
I wasn't attacking you - I don't know you. I attacked the fact that you spout an opinion that is not based on the facts. Others may read your comments and think you are party to information that you are not. I posted what I did to redress that balance.
I am definitely biased - you are right about that. But I understand these issues and I know what I am talking about. You are free to disagree, but please - make sure you have researched the subject before coming up with such ill judged, sweeping statements.
I wonder if having his arse whooped by a girlie is making Renegade regret coming back?
Quote: Jennie @ 6th January 2014, 10:50 PM GMTNo "scare mongering". I said you were wrong. I told you why. I have quoted nothing but facts that are verifiable. Thoroughly substantiated.
I didn't threaten you.
I didn't "accuse" you of being uninformed. I pointed out that you were.
I am nowhere near the wind.
As a Daily Mail reading willy waving toddler being prosecuted for 'racially aggravated' crimes, I'd tend to disagree.
As for the unsubstantiated scare mongering -
Quote: Jennie @ 6th January 2014, 7:43 PM GMTThis will result in
-a) guilty people walking free because they have not been prosecuted properly.
b) innocent people convicted because they were defended poorly.
c)Poor quality judges as the pool of selection grows ever smaller
A weak justice system will hurt us all in the long run as it is the only check on government power.
You've made some very interesting and intelligent points in your replies, however you have also made some poor decisions in your use of words. This was further compounded by your denial of using threats, personal accusations and scare mongering - which I have highlighted above. Try to remain less emotive in future.
RCP nicely this is kinda like watching Stephen Hawking go 3 rounds with Evander Hollyfield on crystal meth and someone took the battery out of his chair.
Quote: Tursiops @ 6th January 2014, 10:55 PM GMTI wonder if having his arse whooped by a girlie is making Renegade regret coming back?
Oh I dunno the last time you had your arse whipped by a girl, all it made you do was pop along to the cashpoint.