Legal Aid

[eighthobstruction]

Firstly, sorry my browser (?) is down....but I am intent on sharing this as it was written by one of my neices....



Privatised justice is no justice at all

Chris Grayling's radical changes to legal aid could mean being represented by the same company that jails you



Nina Power
The Guardian, Saturday 11 May 2013


Imagine the following scenario: you're on a protest with thousands of others about something you believe in strongly – against the government going to war, say, or against a massive rise in tuition fees, or because the cuts have left you and many you know in a precarious position. You don't know what the exact route is, perhaps, but you've met with others at the starting point and are following the crowd. Someone along the route hands you a small card with details of specialist law firms that deal with protest cases. You think, "I don't need that, I'm not getting involved in anything confrontational", but put the card in your pocket anyhow.

A couple of hours later, after having kettled the crowd, the police charge in with horses. You find yourself near the front, scared and angry. You shout back and get shoved by a police officer. Another couple of hours later, as people in the kettle are released in single file, you find yourself arrested and taken to a police station. Asked about a lawyer, you remember the card in your pocket and call the number. Later, charged with a serious public order offence, you are advised, by your lawyer, based on the evidence, to plead "not guilty". After a trial you are unanimously acquitted by the jury and free, if somewhat bewildered and angered by the experience, to get on with your life.

The crucial factor in the scenario above – which happens more often than you might think – is the role of the specialist lawyer's advice. In the vast majority of the cases after the protests over tuition fees in 2010, those who pleaded not guilty were acquitted; if they had succumbed to the often overwhelming pressure to plead guilty, ramped up by a hostile media and the isolating experience of being accused of an offence, many dozens of people would have gone to prison.

While a good lawyer and the right advice is no guarantee of acquittal, it can make – and frequently has made – all the difference: the right to a lawyer of your choice, regardless of your income, race, gender or nationality, is, along with the jury system, the bedrock of justice in an unjust world.

Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, has presented a series of proposed "reforms" to the legal aid system driven by the desire to cut "£220m per year by 2018" that will radically undermine this right. Alongside restricting access to legal aid, these proposals will see defendants ("clients") assigned legal representation (a "provider") by the Legal Aid Agency. Legal firms will be forced to compete for cases in a bid-tendering process where large firms, often the same ones that provide security for prisons, are likely to dominate. In other words, a lawyer will be forced on you, legal aid will be even harder to get, and the chances of avoiding jail will get slimmer and slimmer.

The legal advice you receive needs only to be "satisfactory", not good, according to the proposals. In the near future, you may be appointed a Serco lawyer, taken to jail in a Serco van and watched over by Serco guards – the vested interest in a guilty plea in this situation is worryingly evident. What the language of "clients" and "providers" obscures is that the burden is on the crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty of the charge it has brought against you. It is the state that charges you and the state that punishes you: the language of consumerism should not apply. It is a situation that requires the skills and reassurance of a specialist lawyer, not a production-line approach to "justice".

The focus on protest here is only part of a larger picture, which includes the doubling of the prison population since 1993, and the disproportionate imprisonment of black and minority ethnic people and foreign nationals in a country in which human rights (including habeas corpus) are routinely suspended (see, for example, the case of Talha Ahsan, never charged but extradited to solitary confinement in the US). The legal profession is fighting back against these proposals – already there have been strikes in the north and in Wales, and there are campaigns such as Save UK Justice and Save Legal Aid – but this is a battle that concerns everybody. Cutting legal aid in the name of austerity could see you banged up in the name of that same project of cost-cutting: privatised, restricted justice is no justice at all, for anyone" <<<

There are proper links in the Guardian article to Save UK JUstice and Save Legal Aid....and a proper HM Govt E-Petition

[french frank]

Comments below the article.

[eighthobstruction]

Thanks ff

[Barbirollians]

The changes to civil legal aid are just as bad but seem to have been missed by the press.

The complete failure of the BBC to cover this story - which involves a full frontal assault on the fourth pillar of the welfare state is appalling.

[Simon]

Unsurprising to read this from that source. That anyone could write this stuff seriously should be mind-boggling, but sadly, long experience of it means that it no longer is. So full of cliches that you could almost have predicted half of it. And of course, everyone that goes on these "protests" is innocent and never misbehaves at all....

Unsurprising too, if it's all swallowed whole by some.

But guess what? I'm personally not at all worried about being "kettled", falsely accused of assault or creating a public nuisance or about any other offence. Guess why? You got it - I don't commit them! I don't even go near places where they are likely to be committed. And even in this horrible police state where, apparently, "human rights are routinely suspended", the nasty policemen don't come to my door and carry me off for no reason.

And hey - let's try another guess. Guess why there are more "black and minority ethnic people and foreign nationals" in jail? Yes - you got it!

[french frank]

As moderator I 'approve' Simon's post. But the word is used technically.

[Barbirollians]

It is your decision - the last sentence however is clearly racist .

[amateur51]

You must be very worried now that Derbyshire is no longer a Tory stronghold since the recent local elections Simon.

Barbarians at the gates?!

Unsurprising to read this from that source. That anyone could write this stuff seriously should be mind-boggling, but sadly, long experience of it means that it no longer is. So full of cliches that you could almost have predicted half of it. And of course, everyone that goes on these "protests" is innocent and never misbehaves at all....

Unsurprising too, if it's all swallowed whole by some.

But guess what? I'm personally not at all worried about being "kettled", falsely accused of assault or creating a public nuisance or about any other offence. Guess why? You got it - I don't commit them! I don't even go near places where they are likely to be committed. And even in this horrible police state where, apparently, "human rights are routinely suspended", the nasty policemen don't come to my door and carry me off for no reason.

And hey - let's try another guess. Guess why there are more "black and minority ethnic people and foreign nationals" in jail? Yes - you got it!

[amateur51]

It is your decision - the last sentence however is clearly racist .

Agreed Barbs - I'd rather he didn't guess but backed up his non-arguments with verifiable evidence regarding the why.

[Simon]

It is your decision - the last sentence however is clearly racist .

Thanks to ff for rational moderation.

As regards the above post, I thought someone might come up with some such accusation, but hoped that they wouldn't, as despite our disagreements, there is a level of intelligence generally shown that makes most threads worth reading.

The word "racist" has been used so often over the years as an "attack" term by persons of particular views that its compass seems to have spread out far beyond its factual meaning, which has thereby become blurred.

But when one considers the definitions, racism in its pejorative sense is not simply a belief that races have different inherent characteristics - which seems perfectly reasonable and natural to me, as a wander around the world demonstrates - but that these differences make one race or another generally superior or inferior and therefore provide a justification for discrimination.

It's the latter part that is, clearly, morally wrong, and it is this that has given the word its negative connotations.

The problem is that indiscriminate accusations of "racism" have been so frequent, and so badly countered because of the emotional feelings engendered in discussions of race (partly as a result of the treatment of the Jews by racist Nazi Germany), that genuine attempts to understand racial differences have often been blocked due to fear of attracting such a label.

Thus, whenever minorities or people of different coloured skin have been involved in social or behavioural events or studies, I believe that there may have been occasions where their ethnicity or colour has prevented a robust investigation and, therefore, the open appraisal of all the facts. Others may disagree - that's fine.

I believe that open discussion of racial tensions and differences, in a society where many cultures have to live together, is a good way to resolve problems and that the past tendency to cry "racist" when any criticism of ethnic minorities, however justified in reality, has been levelled, has been counter-productive.

As regards crime, I believe it to be true in this country that ethnic minorities and black people (EM&BP to save repetition below) are proportionally more likely to be charged with a crime than native white people. I'm sure the figures are out there - they certainly were about six years ago when I last looked at this. Now, logically, there can only be a limited number of reasons for this:

1. The authorities investigate crimes where EM&BP are alleged to be involved more thoroughly than they investigate other cases, either because they discriminate in a racist way against EM&BP or for some other reason;

2. The authorities charge EM&BP with crimes and dismiss charges against non-EM&BP either because they discriminate in a racist way against EM&BP or for some other reason;

3. The authorities falsely accuse - "fit up" - innocent EM&BP deliberately, again either because they discriminate in a racist way against EM&BP or for some other reason;

4. The statistics are incorrect;

5. EM&BP commit pro rata more crimes than other sectors of the community.

I suppose that one's experience and political outlook, among other things, will colour how one sees the above, and what proportion of each, if any, one believes to be true.

I trust that none of the above will be considered "racist", in the pejorative sense, and that it may be helpful as a focus for anyone looking to consider the question in a non-hysterical manner.

[Simon]

This may help with a few figures, if anyopne's interested.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/172542/stats-race-cjs-2010.pdf.pdf

Incidentally, I was reading some papers a while ago that analysed the "rap" musical culture, mainly in the USA. It suggested a link between the type of crimes that black people (specifically in the USA but perhaps also arguably elsewhere) are convicted of and the lyrics of the rap music.

I'm afraid I know little about rap, but I gather that it focuses heavily on things like guns, gangs, drugs and "raping Caucasian bitches".

If this is so, then helping young black kids out of that sort of culture might be a very good way forwards for us all...

[Barbirollians]

This thread is about the cuts in legal aid - not your hobby horse about the level of black and other ethnic minority prisoners.

If you want to quote Government papers I suggest you start with the work of fiction that is Transforming legal aid - probably one of the most discreditable papers ever issued by a government - based on no proper evidential or statititical analysis at all but a crude cost cutting measure that takes a diametrically opposed position to all other ideas of how to improve or manage a public service .

This consultation document is one of the most blatant and deliberate attacks on the rule of law since the Star Chamber.

[eighthobstruction]

Unsurprising to read this from that source.

....Tee hee....

http://globetribune.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/horses-ass.jpg

[amateur51]

Thanks to ff for rational moderation.

As regards the above post, I thought someone might come up with some such accusation, but hoped that they wouldn't, as despite our disagreements, there is a level of intelligence generally shown that makes most threads worth reading.

The word "racist" has been used so often over the years as an "attack" term by persons of particular views that its compass seems to have spread out far beyond its factual meaning, which has thereby become blurred.

But when one considers the definitions, racism in its pejorative sense is not simply a belief that races have different inherent characteristics - which seems perfectly reasonable and natural to me, as a wander around the world demonstrates - but that these differences make one race or another generally superior or inferior and therefore provide a justification for discrimination.

It's the latter part that is, clearly, morally wrong, and it is this that has given the word its negative connotations.

The problem is that indiscriminate accusations of "racism" have been so frequent, and so badly countered because of the emotional feelings engendered in discussions of race (partly as a result of the treatment of the Jews by racist Nazi Germany), that genuine attempts to understand racial differences have often been blocked due to fear of attracting such a label.

Thus, whenever minorities or people of different coloured skin have been involved in social or behavioural events or studies, I believe that there may have been occasions where their ethnicity or colour has prevented a robust investigation and, therefore, the open appraisal of all the facts. Others may disagree - that's fine.

I believe that open discussion of racial tensions and differences, in a society where many cultures have to live together, is a good way to resolve problems and that the past tendency to cry "racist" when any criticism of ethnic minorities, however justified in reality, has been levelled, has been counter-productive.

As regards crime, I believe it to be true in this country that ethnic minorities and black people (EM&BP to save repetition below) are proportionally more likely to be charged with a crime than native white people. I'm sure the figures are out there - they certainly were about six years ago when I last looked at this. Now, logically, there can only be a limited number of reasons for this:

1. The authorities investigate crimes where EM&BP are alleged to be involved more thoroughly than they investigate other cases, either because they discriminate in a racist way against EM&BP or for some other reason;

2. The authorities charge EM&BP with crimes and dismiss charges against non-EM&BP either because they discriminate in a racist way against EM&BP or for some other reason;

3. The authorities falsely accuse - "fit up" - innocent EM&BP deliberately, again either because they discriminate in a racist way against EM&BP or for some other reason;

4. The statistics are incorrect;

5. EM&BP commit pro rata more crimes than other sectors of the community.

I suppose that one's experience and political outlook, among other things, will colour how one sees the above, and what proportion of each, if any, one believes to be true.

I trust that none of the above will be considered "racist", in the pejorative sense, and that it may be helpful as a focus for anyone looking to consider the question in a non-hysterical manner.

How quaint to find the member for Amber Valley creating this extraordinary categorisation EM&BP.

No other person or organisation has created this category before in my experience which suggests that the Honorable Member is a naif in these matters and should be treated as such.

It's late, so I'll leave it at that for the moment

[Simon]

How quaint to find the member for Amber Valley creating this extraordinary categorisation EM&BP.

No other person or organisation has created this category before ...

http://www.kingston.gov.uk/information/your_council/equalities/equalityconsultation/bme_forum.htm

http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/briefings/briefing35/

http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-information/mental-health-a-z/B/BME-communities/

http://sites.brunel.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/254432/Sharon-Wray-ESRC-seminar-Brunel-University-2012.pdf

I can't see why the fact that I choose to term the group ethnic minority and black people instead of the more usual black and minority ethnic people should be so surprising. It was deliberate, as I didn't want the focus to be primarily on colour.

But as you, as usual, have absolutely no ability to make a sensible, coherent and rational response to any point, I don't suppose anyone will be surprised to see such an irrelvant and inconsequential sidetrack from you.