Justice....for those who can afford it

[1959_60]

Once again Baroness Hale has got it spot on.

Should the poor be denied justice in our courts?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50923289

[The Bedlington Terrier]

A lawyer whinging about revenue stream losses?

Attachment 14650.

[1959_60]

She is dead right though BT.

Unless you disagree?

[sinkov]

A lawyer whinging about revenue stream losses?

Attachment 14650.

My thoughts as well BT.

She's been a Supreme Court Justice since it's inception over ten years ago, but has only just decided to speak out, just as she's about to retire. I wonder why, was her lofty position so precious to her that she was quite prepared to tolerate the poor being being denied justice for so long, because speaking out before now might have put her career at risk ?

I never noticed her complaining either when the millionairess Gina Miller used her enormous wealth to gain virtually instant access to the highest courts in the land to try to stop us leaving the EU. No concern for the poor voters being denied justice then was there. She seemed quite pleased with herself, allowing the courts to be used as a rich person's plaything where delaying Brexit was concerned.

There is something in that report which made me smile though, theses 8 words, "Baroness Hale of Richmond, who retires next month,". Next month can't come soon enough, good riddance, the People's Baroness my arse.

[1959_60]

Oh, come on Sinkov.

Her job was to be impartial and not to get involved in commenting on political decisions - unless they were brought to her court. Now that she will not be doing this anymore she is perfectly at liberty to comment on these things.

And such is the way that British law works rich people, or people with access to large amounts of money, can have their case heard in the supreme court. Bods like you and me can't. I agree 100% with what she said - you may disagree.

Taking back control of our laws was a big issue during the Brexit debate - it sounds like you don't hold our highest court in very high regard. You must have had a good reason to vote leave but I don't know what it was.
Taking back control of our borders? Well, the latest data shows that in the last quarter around 50,000 people came to the UK from the EU while around 230,000 came to the UK from outside the EU. Leaving the EU will do nothing for non-EU immigration.

Perhaps you were sold by Boris and Nigel promising a booming economy? This flies in the face of facts, but we shall see.

Travelling to Europe will not be as simple as it is now.

We now risk losing Scotland and Northern Ireland from the union, which you may consider to be a good thing but plenty like me don't.

I'm sure you had a good reason but I'm buggered if I can see what it was.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Legal aid and Brexit? That's quite a conflation. How the High Court ever got involved in the democratic process of this country is still beyond me.

Oh! and stop snivelling like a wet, bloody Remainer 1959_60. You've lost - get over it!

[sinkov]

Oh, come on Sinkov.

Her job was to be impartial and not to get involved in commenting on political decisions - unless they were brought to her court. Now that she will not be doing this anymore she is perfectly at liberty to comment on these things.

And such is the way that British law works rich people, or people with access to large amounts of money, can have their case heard in the supreme court. Bods like you and me can't. I agree 100% with what she said - you may disagree.

Taking back control of our laws was a big issue during the Brexit debate - it sounds like you don't hold our highest court in very high regard. You must have had a good reason to vote leave but I don't know what it was.
Taking back control of our borders? Well, the latest data shows that in the last quarter around 50,000 people came to the UK from the EU while around 230,000 came to the UK from outside the EU. Leaving the EU will do nothing for non-EU immigration.

Perhaps you were sold by Boris and Nigel promising a booming economy? This flies in the face of facts, but we shall see.

Travelling to Europe will not be as simple as it is now.

We now risk losing Scotland and Northern Ireland from the union, which you may consider to be a good thing but plenty like me don't.

I'm sure you had a good reason but I'm buggered if I can see what it was.

The referendum was well over three years ago 59, I've spent countless hours posting about Brexit, if you don't know my reasons for voting to leave by now, well you just haven't been paying attention mon ami. I suggest you take 59's sage advice in Post 6.

Unfortunately I have an aversion to being smirked at by privileged members of the Establishment like Baroness Hale, especially when they are posturing as champions of the people. If she really was concerned she'd have spoken out before now, and she'd be speaking out about the situation in our family courts, which is a scandal which is virtually impossible for even the press to report on. But maybe she's been too busy working on her new Coat of Arms and Latin motto, as befits a Baroness, to have concerned herself with the welfare of the poor before now.

I'm also a bit suspicious about her enthusiasm to be in the public eye, guest editor of the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, judge on the BBC's Masterchef programme, are these really befitting activities for the President of the Supreme Court, shouldn't she remain above this sort of stuff ? Of course it may be purely co-incidental that the wet, lefty, liberal BBC gives such prominence to a wet, lefty, liberal Supreme Court judge, or maybe not, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, that's how it works, is it not ?

And of course you can always rely on the good old BBC bias to rear it's ugly head, the Legal Aid network 'decimated', they say, £350 million of cuts, yet the Ministry of Justice figures show £1.7 billion spent on legal aid last year. Maybe the BBC need to get their Fact Check man to look up the meaning of the word decimated.

To get back to your original post, certainly Legal Aid needs looking at, there is a problem, I just don't think the Baroness Hale is the one who should be riding that particular hobby horse. She is highly politically motivated, she is not impartial, and she has no compunction about using her power, privilege and the poor as a stick to beat the Tories and especially Boris with. And sadly, although she's retiring, we haven't heard the last of her, mark my words, the BBC will see to that.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

I have never liked Michael Howard, but this opinion sounds spot on to me...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...cid=spartandhp

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Dead right - “self-perpetuating judicial oligarchy”.

[outwoodclaret]

Our system of appointing senior judges free in large from political interference is far superior to the system operating in the United States. Brett Kavanaugh anybody? I am still convinced the Supreme Court decision in the case of proroguing Parliament was wrong in law and an unwarranted judicial interference in a political matter.