Technology3 mins ago
So Nice When You Can Be Choosy?
5 Answers
http://
What's more this woman was able to take her case to the High Court using taxpayers legal aid I presume, obviously the recent cuts in legal aid have not been enough, or do the cuts only effect those who have more important cases to fight?
What's more this woman was able to take her case to the High Court using taxpayers legal aid I presume, obviously the recent cuts in legal aid have not been enough, or do the cuts only effect those who have more important cases to fight?
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well, as the article itself says, the judgement does not mean that she will automatically be granted another flat/house.
I am surprised the judges arrived at their ruling though; It seems that there was clear and undisputed evidence that she had agreed to the terms of the offer. It hardly seems fair to the council when even one of the judges says it is unclear how the council could have made it clearer that this was a conditional offer.
No idea how the case was funded; But I find your comment in the OP about the relative importance of the case interesting; Who gets to decide on the relative importance of a case prior to granting legal aid anyway? And it seems to me that issues like this, over housing and with a young baby/infant, would certainly be considered important by the mother, and leaving aside the fact that she is an immigrant, should be important to all of us.
The whole point about legal aid, the whole reason that it is taxpayer funded, was to offer greater access to the UKs legal system, and greater and better representation for those with little or no money. Further cuts are likely to make it even more difficult for the poor and disadvantaged to get proper representation. Public spending in this country runs at around £550 billion pounds a year. Before the announced cuts of around £220 million a year, the Legal Aid budget was just £1 billion a year, a fraction of the overall total. Addressing the costs of the system might have been better served by sorting out the current inefficiencies of the court system, or by the government itself not writing legislation that allows for multiple successful appeals.
There are other areas of public spending where you can make cuts and see a much greater and easier return for the effort involved.
I am surprised the judges arrived at their ruling though; It seems that there was clear and undisputed evidence that she had agreed to the terms of the offer. It hardly seems fair to the council when even one of the judges says it is unclear how the council could have made it clearer that this was a conditional offer.
No idea how the case was funded; But I find your comment in the OP about the relative importance of the case interesting; Who gets to decide on the relative importance of a case prior to granting legal aid anyway? And it seems to me that issues like this, over housing and with a young baby/infant, would certainly be considered important by the mother, and leaving aside the fact that she is an immigrant, should be important to all of us.
The whole point about legal aid, the whole reason that it is taxpayer funded, was to offer greater access to the UKs legal system, and greater and better representation for those with little or no money. Further cuts are likely to make it even more difficult for the poor and disadvantaged to get proper representation. Public spending in this country runs at around £550 billion pounds a year. Before the announced cuts of around £220 million a year, the Legal Aid budget was just £1 billion a year, a fraction of the overall total. Addressing the costs of the system might have been better served by sorting out the current inefficiencies of the court system, or by the government itself not writing legislation that allows for multiple successful appeals.
There are other areas of public spending where you can make cuts and see a much greater and easier return for the effort involved.
Personally, I am also scared of heights. There is no way I can look out of a window even on the first floor (I am fortunate in that I live in a bungalow). But that should have been taken into consideration before allocating the flat. And what can you do about it, anotheoldgit? As I see it, nothing, just getting your neck red over something you can do nothing about.
I think we could save money quite easily by stopping paying that stupid 25p which I have been receiving since I passed 80. What the hell can you buy with 25p? Probably not even a box of matches. But added together, given the rising number of people over 80, quite a bit, plus the cost of administration. Please don't tell me that anyone would notice if 25p disappeared from their pension. In the words of another old git, "I don't believe it!".
I think we could save money quite easily by stopping paying that stupid 25p which I have been receiving since I passed 80. What the hell can you buy with 25p? Probably not even a box of matches. But added together, given the rising number of people over 80, quite a bit, plus the cost of administration. Please don't tell me that anyone would notice if 25p disappeared from their pension. In the words of another old git, "I don't believe it!".
-- answer removed --
1 to 5 of 5
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.