1501 comments

Add a comment…

Sign in

prestine

Your email address

Check!

invalid email

(thinking…)

Reset

or sign in with

• 
• 

UserVoice password

Forgot password?

Create a password

Your name

I agree to the terms of service

Signed in as (Sign out)

Close

Close

Post comment Submitting...

• Stephanie Marshall commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:29 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  There has been quite a lot of powerful lobbying done in relation to the radical changes proposed for welfare benefit and housing legal aid but we cannot be complacent about the devastating impact on family legal aid...

• Hazel Mouls commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:29 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  The proposals threaten the ability of private firms to continue to do legal aid work. Cutting the hourly rate paid to solicitors by 10% will drive many private practice solicitors out of legal aid work as this is a cut in an hourly rate that hasn't gone up for about 15 years and the margins for profitability are so tight already. Vulnerable people will not be able to find a solicitor to take their cases

• Anonymous commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:27 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Legal Aid is critical for a successful democracy.

• elizabeth taylor commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:26 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Under privileged people will lose their right to a legal service without proper legal aid provision.

• Annabel commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:24 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Cutting legal aid means justice is only available to the rich

• Anonymous commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:23 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Support Legal Aid!

• Abbas Hasan commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:21 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Legal aid is critical to setting the UK apart as a global leader in equal access to justice.

• Shamik Dutta commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:13 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  The proposed cuts to Legal Aid are antithetical to the stated aims of the government to defend civil liberties. Legal Aid is essential to ensure equal access to justice. The cuts will also cost much more money in the long term than the amounts saved in the short term, particularly increases to the ministry of justice budget concerning the court system which will be unable to function if litigants are forced to represent themselves without the assistance of experienced legal advisers.

• Jenny commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:10 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  The increased costs to the public purse resutling from these proposals will far outstip any savings. Increased homelessness, destitution, crime, children in care, drug and alcohol dependency, family breakdown, mental and physical illhealth. Resolving the legal problems of the most marginalised people in society saves public money and these cuts will cost a lot in human and financial terms.

• Tasha commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:10 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Legal aid protects the most vulnerable in society. It is essential for access to justice and the rule of law.

• Jenny commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:10 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  The increased costs to the public purse resutling from these proposals will far outstip any savings. Increased homelessness, destitution, crime, children in care, drug and alcohol dependency, family breakdown, mental and physical illhealth. Resolving the legal problems of the most marginalised people in society saves public money and these cuts will cost a lot in human and financial terms.

• Rosemary Finn commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:09 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  The government proposals are ill conceived. I am a practising family solicitor and the proposals will affect the most vulnerable in society. The impact upon children whose parents have no access to sensible legal advice has not been considered by the government.

• G commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:04 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Cutting Family law in cases without DV is going to mean that children are the worst hit of all, as those who want to see both parents are going to be in a position where they are not allowed if one parent disagrees. Think of the kiddies, not the pennies.

• Stuart commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:02 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Legal aid is vital in many cases where it is proposed to withdraw help. Children and families will suffer if these changes go through unchallenged and the courts are likely to become cluttered with unresolved cases in the absence of experienced legal aid lawyers able to give a clear direction to their clients at an early stage. It is false economy and the consequences could be disastrous in many cases.

• Hannah Pearce commented  ·  February 18, 2011 9:00 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Legal Aid is essential to those on a low income who require legal assistance. It is appalling to think that those who are most vulnerable could be deprived of legal representation.

• Jo Shortland commented  ·  February 18, 2011 8:51 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  The legal aid budget has not increased for civil cases as far as I am aware for several years now, unlike so many other areas of government spending. In relation to family legal aid it is all very unthought through, the courts will be clogged up with people trying to run their own cases and obtaining their own divorces, the court system is stretched to capacity as it is.

• Paul Miller commented  ·  February 18, 2011 8:48 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Desparate people will not stop needing access to justice. If they cannot afford a lawyer, many will try to settle an issues themselves. This will clog up the courts, resulting in a cost greater than the proposed savings. In some cases people frustrated at their inability to access justice may go further.

• janette wait commented  ·  February 18, 2011 8:48 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I thought the whole point of Legal Aid is to help people receive justice who need it the most, not just the people who can afford justice. The goverment have have pulled the rug out from underneath of the feet of the most needy.

• Rachael commented  ·  February 18, 2011 8:47 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I have a client who received public funding in order to make an application for a Special Guardianship Order in relation to the daughter of a friend of hers. I believe that client would not have been able to have access to legal advice as to what a Special Guardianship Order is and would not have been granted Parental Responsibility for the little girl in her care were it not for having the benefit of Public Funding. Social Services had offered to pay some of her costs but it would not have covered it all.

  It saddens (and angers) me to think that this is the proposed future of our legal system.

• Catherine commented  ·  February 18, 2011 8:43 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Hours of parliamentary/civil service/voluntary organsation time is spent creating laws to protect the vulnerable. What is the point of if there are no means by which anyone can enforce such laws? They become empty and meaningless, and the society that created them can only regresses back to an uncaring one. But it will be worse than before. Disadvantaged people will be all the more frustrated, since they are informed they had rights, (new equalitiy laws etc), but then they will find they are powerless to enforce them. What a cruel trick.