Careless Tories!

[Andy_Faber]

Not all the ‘fellahs in the dock’ were the most senior in their specialism in the country...unless their specialism was dishonesty and back stabbing.
That is one of the things to have emerged...that the likes of Johnson and, to a lesser extent Hancock, couldn’t actually grasp the science they were telling us all too follow.
I would expect the ‘folk on the questioning side’ to be the ‘most senior’. I wouldn’t expect them to charge the amounts spoken of.
I even accept RS’s point and will be eternally grateful for the timely delivery of a vaccine however the way in which an ever increasing number of politicians appear to be contradicting each other and trying to dodge responsibility for some of the things that happened is, imo, disturbing, especially seeing as such contradiction comes from the lips of those politicians themselves.

I think you’re mixing two subjects and letting personal enmity get in the way of one and your (your word) naivity regarding supply and demand in the labour market/your idealistic nature get in the way of the other.

[ramAnag]

I think you’re mixing two subjects and letting personal enmity get in the way of one and your (your word) naivity regarding supply and demand in the labour market/your idealistic nature get in the way of the other.

Not sure about the ‘personal enmity’...the politicians themselves have displayed more than enough of that towards each other.

‘Naivety’ and idealism...possibly guilty as charged, and we’ve had the ‘supply and demand’ debate before, it’s invariably just an excuse for rampant profiteering and this example seems to be no exception.
Surely though there’s a wealth of people equipped to ask relevant questions and get to the truth?
The police for instance should be considered expert in such an area...they are familiar with the process of investigating all those from professional fraudsters to the dangerously delusional (should cover all bases) and they’d probably charge something like £1000 per week rather than the obscenely exorbitant hourly rates being spoken of.

[swaledale]

Not sure about the ‘personal enmity’...the politicians themselves have displayed more than enough of that towards each other.

‘Naivety’ and idealism...possibly guilty as charged, and we’ve had the ‘supply and demand’ debate before, it’s invariably just an excuse for rampant profiteering and this example seems to be no exception.
Surely though there’s a wealth of people equipped to ask relevant questions and get to the truth?
The police for instance should be considered expert in such an area...they are familiar with the process of investigating all those from professional fraudsters to the dangerously delusional (should cover all bases) and they’d probably charge something like £1000 per week rather than the obscenely exorbitant hourly rates being spoken of.

Blimey rA for a top KC? I used to charge between £500 and £750 per day doing consultancy and picked u more work than I could handle and am not in the same league as a top KC!!

Also those figures aren't net to the individual, they work out of chambers and have office, support costs and tax etc. to pay. I think if I'd put the years of study in to qualify and gain experience, those rates aren't out of this world. I mean at least your getting knowledge and experience for that.

As for the cross examination, I think you miss the point, the KC isn't there in an enquiry to attack those giving evidence, more to get to the truth, such that it is and expose the weaknesses. With Hancock, the KC basically made him look foolish and Hancock's inability to give a straight answer was enough to show him up for the incompetent dimwit he undoubtedly is.

[Andy_Faber]

Blimey rA for a top KC? I used to charge between £500 and £750 per day doing consultancy and picked u more work than I could handle and am not in the same league as a top KC!!

Also those figures aren't net to the individual, they work out of chambers and have office, support costs and tax etc. to pay. I think if I'd put the years of study in to qualify and gain experience, those rates aren't out of this world. I mean at least your getting knowledge and experience for that.

As for the cross examination, I think you miss the point, the KC isn't there in an enquiry to attack those giving evidence, more to get to the truth, such that it is and expose the weaknesses. With Hancock, the KC basically made him look foolish and Hancock's inability to give a straight answer was enough to show him up for the incompetent dimwit he undoubtedly is.

Agreed on all points, I think I'd already made some

rA I think you may miss the point that this is an enquiry ('fact' finding) not a court case (guilt or otherwise)