Legal Aid
The government has announced that it is to restrict the availability of legal aid for certain kinds of case.
This not only represents the latest attack on the poor by a Government of millionaires but also prejudices the Article 6 rights of those of limited means to achieve a fair hearing.
Campaign now to oppose the cuts in Legal Aid
Fair Justice for All
shared this idea
1501 comments
-
Paul Probyn
commented
These proposals should go back to the drawing board
-
Paul Probyn
commented
Yet another policy that will have a disproportionate impact on already disadvantaged groups.
-
Paul Probyn
commented
Justice should never depend upon ability to pay
-
John Wiggins
commented
The proposals are to remove large areas of social welfare law such as debt, employment,housing and benefits from the scope of legal aid. All law centres and most free legal centres and large numbers of CAB's depend on this funding.Without they will close and1/2 million people each year will lose free legal help.The government has done an impact assessment that shows this is likely to discriminate against women,people from ethnic minorities and the disabled.
-
James Savory
commented
I agree - rights that you cannot enforce for economic reasons are not rights - so this is removing the rights of anyone other than the rich.
-
Mary Carolan
commented
As usual government cuts affect the poor while the rich become richer.
This cannot possibly be allowed to happen. In my opinion we already have a poor justice system let's not sit back and watch it slowly decline even more. -
David Neblett
commented
It is vital that those with limited financial resources are not denied opportunities to pursue support and / or protection through legal means.
-
Helen Dolling commented
This is no surprise with a government intent on widening the division between the haves and have nots. Perhaps before we lose 'Legal Aid' we should make use of it to help us fight for funding for students, an efficient National Heath Service, mobility funding for the disabled (soon to be cut back) and all the other half-baked misinformed plans presently in action....still, at least I'm about to get a 32, really brilliant shiny, new, high speed trains racing through my village every hour.....apparently, I'm paying towards these rather than Legal Aid now.
-
This is no surprise with a government intent on widening the division between the haves and have nots. Perhaps before we lose 'Legal Aid' we should make use of it to help us fight for funding for students, an efficient National Heath Service, mobility funding for the disabled (soon to be cut back) and all the other half-baked misinformed plans presently in action....still, at least I'm about to get a 32, really brilliant shiny, new, high speed trains racing through my village every hour.....apparently, I'm paying towards these rather than Legal Aid now.
-
This is no surprise with a government intent on widening the division between the haves and have nots. Perhaps before we lose 'Legal Aid' we should make use of it to help us fight for funding for students, an efficient National Heath Service, mobility funding for the disabled (soon to be cut back) and all the other half-baked misinformed plans presently in action....still, at least I'm about to get a 32, really brilliant shiny, new, high speed trains racing through my village every hour.....apparently, I'm paying towards these rather than Legal Aid now.
-
Carol Platteuw
commented
The poor are always targeted - legal aid must remain available if we live in a decent society
-
Carol Platteuw
commented
Children are the most vulnerable clients - legal aid must remain to protect them
-
Carol Platteuw
commented
Everyone has a right of access to justice and that should not depend upon their ability to pay. The proposed reforms will affect the most vulnerable.
If these cuts are allowed to go through many ordinary people will be denied access to justice. These are people who need to be able to challenge poor decision making by public bodies or seek the protection of legal remedies.
Lack of public funding will mean that many more people will attempt to represent themselves in court. Such cases take much longer and will clog up the court system and ultimately cost more.
Furthermore apart from the practical drawbacks there is a key principle at stake. The right to access to justice for all is a fundamental keystone of our democracy and no country can call itself civilised if it denies access to the legal process to its citizens as undoubtedly some of these cuts will do. -
Melissa Mostyn-Thomas commented
This cannot be allowed to continue. It is bad enough that people with disabilities are having to experience benefit cuts without their parents having to lose out on potential clinical negligence claims as well.
-
Claire Holland
commented
The proposals are poorly drafted, by people who do not understand domestic violence and family law. There is no assessment of how they will impact children and the most vulnerable in our society. They put children's welfare at risk They increase the inequalities between the rich and the poor by restricting access to advice and representation to only those who can pay. they will increase the burden on the court service.
-
Claire Holland
commented
The proposals are poorly drafted, by people who do not understand domestic violence and family law. There is no assessment of how they will impact children and the most vulnerable in our society. They put children's welfare at risk. They increase the inequalities between the rich and the poor by restricting access to advice and representation to only those who can pay. They will increase the burden on the court service.
-
Sandra
commented
If these cuts are allowed to go through many ordinary people will be denied access to justice. These are people who need to be able to challenge poor decision making by public bodies or seek the protection of legal remedies.
Furthermore apart from the practical drawbacks there is a key principle at stake. The right to access to justice for all is a fundamental keystone of our democracy and no country can call itself civilised if it denies access to the legal process to its citizens as undoubtedly some of these cuts will do.
Where is the justice in that? It will cause a divided society -
Sandra
commented
If these cuts are allowed to go through many ordinary people will be denied access to justice. These are people who need to be able to challenge poor decision making by public bodies or seek the protection of legal remedies.
Furthermore apart from the practical drawbacks there is a key principle at stake. The right to access to justice for all is a fundamental keystone of our democracy and no country can call itself civilised if it denies access to the legal process to its citizens as undoubtedly some of these cuts will do.
Where is the justice in that? It will cause a divided society -
Debaleena Dasgupta
commented
There is no point in having rights if you can't enforce them. These cuts will stop anyone except the very rich from being able to do so.
-
Shelley Grainger
commented
Access to Justice for the poorest (and those who are not quite 'poor' enough but cannot afford legal fees) is one of the elements necessary to in a civilized society. To compromise it is a retrograde step.
