Comments on: You what?

By: Dr Nick Ashley

Dr Nick Ashley — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:55:50 +0000

No, they are ignorant of the concepts of freedom , not interfering in the lives of peple and they do not understand the concept that taking money with menaces is still theft even if it is the wretched excuse for a government doing it. Innocent until proven guilty. Since it is the government having you prosecuted they should pay. Not some poor individual who is indited because of say a serial liar. Remember the Hamiltons?

By: gene berman

gene berman — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:02:45 +0000

There’s an “out,” though–they can elect to contribute, instead, some of the foregone marital services.

By: Johnathan Pearce

Johnathan Pearce — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:41:18 +0000

They are and don’t give a toss.

personally, I find your method of dealing with NuLab to be too civilised. Rusty implements are more my preferred option.

By: Eva

Eva — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:08:28 +0000

This wouldn’t be the first outrageous proposal they’ve run up the flagpole to see who salutes, and it’ll be hauled down quickly enough.

But…wouldn’t it be nice if you had a bit more than a gentlemens’ agreement and legal precedent to protect your civil rights?

By: marksany

marksany — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:07:06 +0000

It’s in the DM – are you sure it’s true? Any other sources before I get agitated?

By: Mister Jones

Mister Jones — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:21:56 +0000

To rephrase; “These people are completely ignorant of the concept of civil liberties.” Also indifferent to them it seems, except when it affects them direectly of course.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:55:44 +0000

Who said that? The scum is committing an offence (S5 of the Public Order Act). Naturally the filth can’t have any legal representation when defending this charge because it is so rich…oh…sorry, this is a Labour minister speaking. I forgot.

Labour ministers are immune from prosecution. It says so in the law.

Doesn’t it?

By: Kit

Kit — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:09:12 +0000

“flat levy on the income of the legal profession generally”

Nice idea but lawyers will just pass the cost onto their paying customers. The only solution to cutting the cost of legal aid is to cut cost of the legal system and that means increasing competition: scrap the Bar and privatize the courts.

By: Mark Wadsworth

Mark Wadsworth — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 15:29:30 +0000

OT1H, I can see the need for legal aid payments, OTOH I don’t see why the taxpayer in general should stump up.

However, who are the real beneficiaries of legal aid? Not just the accused but the legal profession generally. Ergo, we should retain Legal Aid and fund it be a flat levy on the income of the legal profession generally (with a surcharge on those involved in criminal law).

There, that’s that fixed.

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 15:27:32 +0000

The answer to your question is yes.

By: Philip Thomas

Philip Thomas — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:41:57 +0000

Not the ideal example to get people onside, Tim, but you’re quite right this is so startlingly scary I think I might have to go outside and run around in circles, screaming at the wind.

If anyone has seen the film Brazil, you know where this is going. Contesting a charge will be a charge will equate to bankruptcy, the fear of which will force many innocent people to plead guilty.

By: chris strange

chris strange — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:03:21 +0000

“Are these people completely ignorant of the concept of civil liberties?”

No, they know exactly what they want to destroy.

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:51:58 +0000

“Are these people completely ignorant of the concept of civil liberties?”

Not sure the last six words in that sentence weren’t redundant…