Helping people? What a bunch of mugs.
Boris Johnson and Priti Patel have been accused of "shocking" attacks on the legal profession this week which endanger lawyers and court staff.
In his keynote address to the Conservative Party this week, the Prime Minister accused the "whole criminal justice system" of being "hamstrung by what the home secretary would doubtless and rightly call the lefty human rights lawyers and other do-gooders".
Earlier this week the Home Secretary used similar language in a speech promising to reform the "broken" asylum system by stopping the "endless" legal cases and making it easier to immediately send asylum seekers back.
Lumping human rights lawyers in with people traffickers, Patel said that "Those defending the broken system – the traffickers, the do-gooders, the lefty lawyers, the Labour Party – they are defending the indefensible."
She said critics would "no doubt...lecture us on their grand theories about human rights".
That would have been nice, but instead lawyers found themselves defending themselves from the government's smears.
"It is shocking and troubling that our own prime minister condones and extends attempts to politicise and attack lawyers for simply doing their job in the public interest", said Amanda Pinto QC, chair of the Bar Council.
"Lawyers – including those employed by the government itself - are absolutely vital to the running of our grossly under-funded criminal justice system. Their professional duty is to their client and to the court, and not to play political games", she said.
James Mulholland QC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said it was the government’s own "short-sighted approach" which had caused the delays. After more than a decade of cuts to the rates set for legal aid fees and a chronic lack of investment across the criminal justice system, he said, "it has strung itself up, creating a backlog of criminal cases that are at five year highs".
Others warned that the demonisation of lawyers could result in physical harm.
Law Society president Simon Davis said that “slinging insults at lawyers" undermined the rule of law "in an area where views are already hotly held on all sides" and "risks leading not just to verbal abuse but to lawyers being physically attacked for doing their job".
Doughty Street barrister Simon Cox commented, “Patel doesn’t care if immigration lawyers - or staff who work with us - get murdered. She will have been warned of the risks. She deliberately chooses to take them. While the Lord Chancellor, Attorney General and Solicitor General are silent".
"Does she think her most extreme followers won’t attack immigration courts?"
RollOnFriday asked Patel if she was concerned that her language, and the PM's repetition of it, could result in physical attacks on lawyers or court staff. The automated Home Office reply stated that they would aim to provide a reply within a month.
Comments
65
51
Because human rights are a bad thing, apparently. This is nuts. I'm a convinced liberal / free-market advocate, but I don't see any party that represents that. The choice is between xenophobic statists and liberal statists.
85
35
Can the government please stop having opinions about things and just try to administer the running of the country with some degree of competence that has been utterly absent in 2020.
Glorified binmen.
14
26
Must have seemed like an easy target:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bullies-and-sex-pests-rule-at-hague-court-cp0bjgxx9
76
126
Absolutely no problem with it.
You have to really go out of your way to interpret what the Government has said as being an attack on the whole legal profession. Anyone who isn't wilfully seeking offence can tell that they're, quite rightly, giving a kicking to the ambulance chasing campaigners who spend their lives doing all that they can to frustrate and prevent the deportation and/or imprisonment of criminals on spurious human rights grounds. Campaigners who then have the gall to pretend it's about previously undiscovered legal 'rights', as opposed to being about pure politics and enabling judge-manufactured law (look mum, brand new rules on who can't get deported, and no pesky voters required!).
They've been bringing the entire profession into disrepute for years. When people complain about greedy lawyers letting criminals walk free, these are the people they have in mind.
The endless push to expand the boundaries of 'human rights' way beyond the scope intended by the original draftsmen of the universal declaration has done more damage to democracy and trust in government than anything else in the modern era. It's high time a government had the balls to call it out for what it is.
So I'm glad that the wheels are finally coming off the gravy train. They all deserve the mighty shoeing that they're about to get.
64
121
Gosh, isn't it interesting how the legal professions (over-)react when they sniff a possible decrease in the countless millions of taxpayers' .money they get in legal aid? 🤔
47
68
Squeal, special-interest piggies.
43
69
Well, he's not wrong, is he? One glance at the discussion forum tells you that the place is full of leftard and self-loathing, easily-manipulated white males. Very, very weak- minded people. Sad.
77
53
Matrix QC – blinded by your bias, insulated by your complacency, you’re missing all points.
First, you're wrong on the principle. They’re not necessarily lefty lawyers, they’re just like all lawyers – greedy for fees and for clients – and *there’s nothing wrong with that*, unless you’re a Communist (which I doubt). The job of all lawyers - tax lawyers, litigation lawyers, immigration lawyers - is to aggressively push at the boundaries of what is legally possible. Essentially, working lawyers stress test the efficacy of any legislation. If, on reflection, the govt of the day dislikes how things are working thereunder, then then job of the govt is to introduce legislation to remedy the flaws or loopholes exposed by the lawyers. It’s not the job of a “government” to indulge in cheap mob rhetoric of this nature. Incidentally, I don’t hear any government ministers attacking ‘raving rightist lawyers’ for doing their job and exploiting loopholes to help UHNW folks pay less tax.
Second, it’s not just attacking so-called lefty lawyers. The govt is also attacking judges / judicial review: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/22/against-the-law-why-judges-are-under-attack-by-the-secret-barrister
Can’t you see what is happening? This is a tinpot govt, with pre-fascist instincts to centralise power among a favoured cabal. Rule of law? Separation of powers? Mean nothing to those constitutionally illiterate chancers. Boris is a self-interested vandal, Cummings is the revenge of the nerds type vandal, and Patel is as thick as 2 short planks (‘attacking counter-terrorism’ lol).
Between them, they’re helping to create a tinpot culture which is profoundly un-British. Wake up.
58
49
Don't see how the're wrong, apart from an unfortunate choice of words.
27
39
Democracy trumps the rule of law, ultimately
35
50
Concur with Matrix, JD, Gobble, Trump and Onany.
These leftist crusaders need to quit subverting the country. Go be a white saviours elsewhere.
55
23
I work in a City law firm and there is a strong and relatively uniform dislike for the current Conservative Government.
I find that a bit strange. You would think City law firms would be the bastions of (big C) Conservatism but not any more.
41
44
@12:23 you say "The job of all lawyers - tax lawyers, litigation lawyers, immigration lawyers - is to aggressively push at the boundaries of what is legally possible."
Absolute bollocks. Go read the SRA Code of Conduct or the BSB Handook, that gibberish ain't in it.
This idea that 'pushing at the boundaries' has anything to do with ethical legal practice is 100% weapons-grade nonsense. That's why it's entirely right to describe these people as 'activists' and 'campaigners'.
The whole sham is just an elaborately worded cover to justify a process of legislation via judge, in which new 'rights' can be manufactured under the pretence that they're somehow related to the original intent and wording of the universal declaration. It actively undermines legislation passed by Parliament, and totally divorces democratic consent from the law making process. That's why the public hates it and thinks the people who make a living out of it are greedy shysters who shouldn't be receiving public funds.
Also, gibbering inane student common room conspiracy theories about "pre-fascist" cabals isn't going to keep those snouts in the trough. It just makes you sound like an unhinged loon in a tinfoil suit. There is nothing 'Un-British' about booting out illegal immigrants without spending a million pounds a pop doing it.
Frankly, it should cost less than a fiver a time. If that's fascism, then I'm all for it.
23
14
Ain't no rockin in a police state mate
32
21
Fred do yourself an enormous favour and read Matrix QC’s posts. At least twice. He or she has done you an enormous favour. If it’s not apparent now, it will be in 5 or 10 years time.
28
36
Nothing about the far right knife attack on a London law firm after Priti Dim’s vile rhetoric the other day?? So far? ROF??
31
25
No. They publish on Fridays. The clue is in the title.
Why they'd break with that tradition to indulge you by posting about a lone nutter's ranty exploits (in which nobody was physically attacked, and which happened four days after the speech you are tenuously trying to link it to) is somewhat beyond me.