When reading out real new rules is complete comedy even without John's brilliant wit , well done John on exposing the depth of these disgraceful changes
I don't know who flagged Richard Cross's post (it wasn't me). TBH, if people had my experience of lawyers in my work they would have a very high opinion of them, my experience of lawyers in connection with road accidents... well, perhaps rather more mixed. But I think most people have little or no experience of lawyers at all and their opinions are based on hearsay and not moderated by considering how they themselves would be effected if they were the ones needing representation.
I love John Finnemore, he's hilarious. Sad that this sketch, as funny as it is, is not funny because it's true. Sad that he felt the need to write a funny sketch about something that's not funny at all. It did make me laugh a bit, but it made me feel bad too. Good on you Mr. Finnemore, keep it up. 😣
Heard this on The Now Show, and it's just as good second time around. btw, how does All Comments (6) equate to 4 comments? Censorship going on somewhere?
Well... John didn't get it entirely right... but the fact is that reducing Legal Aid DOES have consequences... a judge had to throw out a Very High Cost Case because the defendents were unable to find barristers willing to take on such a complex and difficult Fraud case for the price the government was willing to pay. So the judge threw the case out as it was deemed unfair. As John said...the possibly guilty cleverly choose to plead 'not guilty' and were given the benefit of the doubt...
Spot on, John. Keep up the good work - as social pariahs we lawyers don't have the public ear, so we need people like you to get the message across.
It was actually a triple because it also costs more
When reading out real new rules is complete comedy even without John's brilliant wit , well done John on exposing the depth of these disgraceful changes
how long has it been since our justice systems could deliver justice? its all system failure mitigation now,
I don't know who flagged Richard Cross's post (it wasn't me). TBH, if people had my experience of lawyers in my work they would have a very high opinion of them, my experience of lawyers in connection with road accidents... well, perhaps rather more mixed. But I think most people have little or no experience of lawyers at all and their opinions are based on hearsay and not moderated by considering how they themselves would be effected if they were the ones needing representation.
I love John Finnemore, he's hilarious.
Sad that this sketch, as funny as it is, is not funny because it's true.
Sad that he felt the need to write a funny sketch about something that's not funny at all.
It did make me laugh a bit, but it made me feel bad too.
Good on you Mr. Finnemore, keep it up.
😣
every body needs representing not just the rich
Heard this on The Now Show, and it's just as good second time around.
btw, how does All Comments (6) equate to 4 comments? Censorship going on somewhere?
Well... John didn't get it entirely right... but the fact is that reducing Legal Aid DOES have consequences... a judge had to throw out a Very High Cost Case because the defendents were unable to find barristers willing to take on such a complex and difficult Fraud case for the price the government was willing to pay. So the judge threw the case out as it was deemed unfair. As John said...the possibly guilty cleverly choose to plead 'not guilty' and were given the benefit of the doubt...
I think my problem with the line "we meet again " is the again bit
Lawyers tend to be stereotyped.