Ha ha. I actually typed that in Keith's accent!

Smoke kills in seconds, fire kills in minutes.

Laugh or burn. Take your pick.

rlhttps://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31720761rl

I have no particular like or dislike of Paul Gambaccini and his radio output but he does have a point in the article linked to above, which is how long is too long to hold someone on police bail especially when that action has denied them work and an ability to earn income, this applies equally to a warehouse worker who may find that his agency don't offer him anymore shifts as it does media "celebrities" who can't even work for free when under such a shadow as historic sex abuse charges.

The other concern about the article is the quote from the DPP who simply dismisses any and all accusations placed before her - its a habit that many public bodies and especially those directly controlled by a government minister have got into, that they simply brush aside any concerns with a denial, an almost arrogant denial that they simply do not recognise that there may be a problem and that they know best and should not be questioned.

The description by Gambaccini of being used as "human fly paper" on which they hoped new accusers would stick allegations is a very apt one and still continues in the media even this week - Cliff Richards anyone ?

When you have a "Justice Secretary" who has (to date) been held by the courts to have acted unlawfully NINE times, it sort of confirms the two-raised-fingers approach now endemic. Though the number of further findings is likely to fall as Grayling is doing his best to do to Judicial Review what he so successfully did to all but kill workers' rights in Tribunals, and what from Monday he will have achieved in blocking access to the civil courts to ordinary people and small businesses who won't be able to pay nor justify the ludicrous, swingeing fee hikes. Systematically dismantling a justice system that took centuries to build.

I have a dislike of him. Along with people like Esther Rantzen he spouted off about knowing all about Savile after his death while doing nothing whatsoever about it at the time.



It's a good job for Gambaccini that ridiculous, stupid whining isn't a crime or he'd be in jail for that 5hit.

Agree with the first part but cannot agree with the second part. There are plenty of law firms out there that will take work on a no win no fee basis. The plaintiff's job is to present a solid enough case that one of these firms will take it on. This is just an evolution not a dismantling of the justice system. The policeman who has just got compensation from the gobby ex Conservative minister managed to get his case defended and there are thousands of others like him. The idea the public purse is spent defending an appeal for the likes of the two killers of Lee Rigby is bonkers and shows the old system is not fit for purpose.

The Police Federation funded his case - is this a recommendation for all employees to join a union in order that they can progress future claims ?

Ha Ha - you think I would fall for that!!

What it says is if your case is strong enough somebody will take it on without you needing to fund it.

If you think this is a sufficient bi-product for joining a union and helping to fund the final salary schemes of union officials that is your choice and long may it be so.

I've only ever been a member of one union and that was just for one month when in the 1970s I found out that someone had nominated me to join the EEPTU, they kicked me out when I wouldn't pay the subscription

Quote: Sal Paradise "Agree with the first part but cannot agree with the second part. There are plenty of law firms out there that will take work on a no win no fee basis. '" There are very many deserving cases that will never be decided upon by a court or tribunal, not because there are insufficient merits, but simply because the aggrieved person can't afford it. Merits don't even enter into it if you need £10,000 just to pay the Court fee to start a claim, and you don't have it. Strangely, the Court won't take your case on a "no win, no fee" basis. Quote: Sal Paradise "The idea the public purse is spent defending an appeal for the likes of the two killers of Lee Rigby is bonkers and shows the old system is not fit for purpose.'" I see. But, who would decide that it was bonkers? A poll of Daily Mail readers? You? There is the reason our justice system is envied, it really is equally available to anyone, within the rules and laws and procedures, and that is the hallmark of a civilised legal system. But you know nothing about that appeal, and seemingly know nothing about the system either. Despite this "government" doing its damndest to dismantle justice, I'm proud we have a system where the courts will listen and rule on legal arguments based on our law, and not on how distasteful you may find an accused, or their deeds or views. Otherwise, you're just left with mob rule. www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... /2779.html

Quote: Sal Paradise "Agree with the first part but cannot agree with the second part. There are plenty of law firms out there that will take work on a no win no fee basis. '" There are very many deserving cases that will never be decided upon by a court or tribunal, not because there are insufficient merits, but simply because the aggrieved person can't afford it. Merits don't even enter into it if you need £10,000 just to pay the Court fee to start a claim, and you don't have it. Strangely, the Court won't take your case on a "no win, no fee" basis. Quote: Sal Paradise "The idea the public purse is spent defending an appeal for the likes of the two killers of Lee Rigby is bonkers and shows the old system is not fit for purpose.'" I see. But, who would decide that it was bonkers? A poll of Daily Mail readers? You? There is the reason our justice system is envied, it really is equally available to anyone, within the rules and laws and procedures, and that is the hallmark of a civilised legal system. But you know nothing about that appeal, and seemingly know nothing about the system either. Despite this "government" doing its damndest to dismantle justice, I'm proud we have a system where the courts will listen and rule on legal arguments based on our law, and not on how distasteful you may find an accused, or their deeds or views. Otherwise, you're just left with mob rule. www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... /2779.html

What a poor example. The number of Savile victims is totally insignificant in the general scheme of litigation, plus the firms that are doing them are almost all doing them as group or class actions, where economies of scale apply. Add the fact that it's a CERTAIN win, either against his estate, or CICA. It is not a case of "covering cost" - what on earth would be the point of doing hundreds of cases for no profit? Are you mad?


The legal profession has a long and proud tradition of pro bono work but that is rightly restricted to cases where otherwise deserving cases would have no remedy and again, whilst much pro bono is done, statistically it is not a significant proportion. Add to that recent rules which mean if you win, you can actually be paid for pro bono work and again, your point is pretty meaningless.




5.82373046875:5