ChatterBank19 mins ago
COMMON SENSE AT LAST
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chas2008. 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.
Absolutely. If the hospital removes my good leg by mistake, I should be grateful I get NHS treatment at all. You cannot expect a good service if it is free, so you shouldn't get help suing for medical mistakes that have ruined your life, you should just forget it. Unless you are very wealthy, then you can get justice.
Sorry, wasn't I supposed to read past the immigrants bit?
Sorry, wasn't I supposed to read past the immigrants bit?
The NHS one is a non-starter. 1) No government wants people whose lives are ruined by medical negligence to have no legal remedy for compensation through the courts; think of the tabloid headlines and/or 2) the 'claims farmers' who deal with other litigation act for claimants. These are firms who advertise on TV. They place the work with solicitors who are entitled to an enormous uplift in the costs they can claim from the defendant because of the rules about 'success fees'. Some claim £900 an hour on that basis.
As far as the asylum seeker aspect of this matter goes, the answer is to remove the right to multifarious appeals that failed applicants have.
After being refused leave to remain by the Immigration authorities they should have just one appeal to an independent tribunal, and that should be it. Legal Aid costs would be dramitacally reduced and the process of removing those deemed ineligible to remain would be speeded up.
The big snag: “Human Rights” are the grounds most often used by applicants as a (usually successful) basis for an appeal of last resort so it would mean the UK revoking the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdrawing as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The chances of that: nil. So some other way must be found to reduce the astronomical costs that these appeals are accruing.
After being refused leave to remain by the Immigration authorities they should have just one appeal to an independent tribunal, and that should be it. Legal Aid costs would be dramitacally reduced and the process of removing those deemed ineligible to remain would be speeded up.
The big snag: “Human Rights” are the grounds most often used by applicants as a (usually successful) basis for an appeal of last resort so it would mean the UK revoking the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdrawing as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The chances of that: nil. So some other way must be found to reduce the astronomical costs that these appeals are accruing.
It's not just asylum seekers who should be denied legal aid. The largest drain on it, at a cost in the past year of £2bn to England and Wales alone, are the persistent criminals who are milking the public purse dry. Some have had legal aid dozens of times which is pretty ironic to say the least that they should have legal representation paid for by the very folk they have wronged.
They should introduce a "one strike and you're out", i.e. one representation only at taxpayers' expense. Just see how the legal aid applications would drop then.
We have to remember that the people to whom I refer are "career criminals" who do not have jobs as the rest of us would know it, that IS their "job" - being a criminal. They also contribute nil to society, but also drain it in other ways by creaming off thousands in benefits every year on top of their freebie lives of crime.
I retired from the judicial system some years ago, but still see the same old names in the Courts sections of my local rags. But, there again, why bother working when the "system" sees to your every need?
They should introduce a "one strike and you're out", i.e. one representation only at taxpayers' expense. Just see how the legal aid applications would drop then.
We have to remember that the people to whom I refer are "career criminals" who do not have jobs as the rest of us would know it, that IS their "job" - being a criminal. They also contribute nil to society, but also drain it in other ways by creaming off thousands in benefits every year on top of their freebie lives of crime.
I retired from the judicial system some years ago, but still see the same old names in the Courts sections of my local rags. But, there again, why bother working when the "system" sees to your every need?
1 to 11 of 11
