Tag Archives: solicitors

Pots, Pages and Pay

I have now read the entire consultation on fees. I have cogitated and calculated. I have some views to express (which is a good job or else the starting of a blog would have been a pretty pointless exercise). My thoughts have been concerning the figures in the boxes and the execution of parts of the scheme. In this blog I am going to deal with problem under which those shaping the scheme have had to labour – there is no new money. Fees that were set for cases many moons ago, fees that have been subsequently reduced, are still being paid at the same, reduced rate.  

It is also undoubtedly the case that the current AGFS remunerates some cases in an inadequate manner. There are times when you do a case and then see the bill. You do a double take. Surely there has been some mistake in the calculation of the fee? Surely all that work and worry must be worth more than this? 

There are those at the Bar who are canny and dodge the under-paying cases. There are those of us who think “never again”, right up to the next time you take on a similar case. The long and the short of it is that there are winners and losers when it comes to a fee scheme that pays by the piece rather than by the work put into the piece. 

When it comes to designing a scheme that is based on the same size pot, there are always going to be cases where payment goes down if money is shifted to other parts of the scheme. It is impossible to do it otherwise. 

In my opinion it is the inescapable truth that Silks are not paid enough for murders under the AGFS. I find it impossible to argue otherwise. It is right that these fees should be increased. The increase in these fees should come from extra money being paid into the scheme. The scheme under current consideration requires that the money comes from elsewhere within the scheme. And that means fees for other cases are going to be decreased. 

And here you have the point of tension. No one likes the idea of a pay cut. Those that see themselves as being the losers in this equation are going to cry foul. That is entirely understandable. 

I am not a Silk. I have never applied for Silk. I have no intention to apply for Silk in the next application round. I am a junior that does the occasional drugs conspiracy with a decent page count. I do some fraud type work. So I am going to be in a position where future fees may be reduced. I also do a fair amount of sex cases so I could see some fees increase. And no matter what it means for me, I can see that Silks are not properly remunerated for some murders at the present time. 

The information that accompanies the consultation indicates that the Silks’ slice of the pie is going to increase by 10%. This does not mean every Silk in the land is going to get a 10% pay increase. This does not mean that every Silk’s fee in every case is going to go up. It does not mean that there are no situations where a Silk is going to end up being paid less. It also means that, in some cases, a Silk is going to end up getting paid more than 10% extra on the current fee. But this 10% thing strikes me as a bit of public relations disaster for the new scheme. It makes it very difficult to sell to the rank and file. That 10% is coming from somewhere and it is coming from the fees paid to the junior bar. So I know that a fee increase for Silks is the right thing to happen. It is just that there is not a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. 

It may have been easier if just a little bit of the extra money for Silks (produced by a formula explained within the consultation) had just been moderated slightly and the extra money put back into the fees that are being most significantly reduced (paper heavy fraud and drugs). It would have sugared the pill if it was the case that the consultation told us that the formula had worked out that the Silks should have been put up by more but that this figure had been adjusted due to the fact that the fees were being cut elsewhere and that the reduction would therefore be less. 

Of course this is a consultation. I am entitled to make that point. I am not arguing that Silks should not have some of their fees increased. I am arguing that, when the money in the pot is too little to begin with, such adjustments as are necessary should be dealt with not only by way of formula but also by way of sensitivities. 

I am not convinced that one can argue against the removal of page counts per se. It is a clumsy tool by which the seriousness of a case or the work involved is calculated. It worked better when it was first introduced, when it was used to differentiate between cases within a relatively small compass. But as page counts got bigger and the page count payments got extended to thousands rather than hundreds of pages it became less of an accurate measure of a case and more of a lottery in which you hoped for lots of pages on the PPE and a case summary that spoke of only one witness naming your client.

If you are to argue about the numbers in the boxes, it cannot just be by the slogan “save our PPE”. It cannot simply be by the cry that this time round your practice profile is going to mean you are in the column of fees being reduced. If any one wants to make the case why the figures in the boxes are wrong then I am more than happy to host any blogs on the subject. But I also repeat this request – those are argue that the figures in the boxes are right need to release more information to us. The Bar Council, the Circuits and the CBA need to provide us with information. Quickly. 

I will post another blog soon about one or two areas of detail in the proposed scheme. 

One Small Step

A little like Pammy and Bobby Ewing, Michael Gove has woken up, found common sense was having a shower and it is as if the last two years have just been a dream. 

Except it was not a dream. Grayling was, and remains, a grim reality for the legal profession. 

I thought that when….. no, if the day came when TT was abandoned and there was some positive news regarding the cuts I would punch the air and organise a street party outside chambers with trestle tables, egg and spoon races and a New Orleans Jazz Band. 

When the news came I found I had very little appetite for celebration. Why?

There are many factors. It is difficult to celebrate when I know many have already been lost to the professions due to the uncertainty and the financial peril caused by the cuts. A small proportion of the damage foretold has already been caused. And that has affected people adversely. If Grayling was capable of shame it should burn in his heart like the sun in the sky.

I also cannot help but feel this was a self inflicted defeat rather than a victory. I have no doubt that the various fronts of opposition have had their toll on the MoJ. I do not doubt that those with the ear of the new Lord Chancellor have been making a forceful and effective case. I do not doubt that Gove has an understanding of things better than Grayling was ever capable of. Yet I am left with the feeling that, had the MoJ been capable of organising a wine tasting in the Vintners’ Society, TT would have been introduced. And the damage has been escaped by happenstance rather than endeavour and . 

That is not to say that the efforts of all those involved should not be applauded. The various Chairmen, Chairwomen, Presidents and Officers are all owed a debt of gratitude that cannot be properly expressed in words. As are the activists, those that marched, those that funded, those that took action, those that returned briefs, those that did not accept the returns, those that organised and even those that did no more than sign one petition. Win, lose or draw you are all a legion of heroes

The most significant factor is the state of the CJS. Gove’s statement was a giant leap for solicitor-kind but a small step for the delivery of a just justice system. It was a positive but one that did not stop the papers being served late/incomplete/not at all in countless cases today. It did not suddenly cause the videolink equipment to work in the vulnerable witness’s case in the Crown Court at Breaking-Point-on-Sea. It did not inject the funds required to properly investigate, prosecute and defend cases. 

And that is why I cannot celebrate. We have so many more battles to fight. So many more victories to win. And we cannot always rely upon those in the wrong shooting themselves in the foot. 

Getting Wiggy With It

I am very fond of my wig. Not just because I am bald. Not just because it has been with me for twenty-two years. I am very fond of my wig because, whilst it has never saved my life, it has got me out of a tight spot or two.

When I was quite junior I spent many months as the second prosecution advocate in a large conspiracy. The two trials lasted over many, many months. There were Silks involved, there was a fearsome judge and there were some proper villains. When I say “proper villains” I mean not just people on the wrong side of the law, I mean proper stop-at-nothing types. The sort of villains Guy Ritchie gets all misty eyed about. 

The main man had a brother. The brother also fell into the category of “proper villain”. The brother saw me every single day of each of the trials. A few weeks after the guilty verdicts I found myself in the middle of Manchester, standing right next to said brother. I froze. 

“I know you, don’t I?” he said. 

My reply, amongst the stammers, was a cross between “I don’t think so” and “I hope not.”

“Yeah I do. Someat to do with our kid? Did I meet you at one of his parties?” he continued.

I assured him that he did not know me and then, in the style of a News of the World reporter in a brothel, made my excuses and left. He, of course, did know me. My face was incredibly familiar to him. But without the wig it was difficult for him to place me. My daily disguise had done its job. 

It is not the only time. I had a man grip my arm in a restaurant corridor and talk about how he knew my face, knew that I was, like him, connected and that I was someone who should know to show him respect. What he did not realise was that I had prosecuted him a few months earlier. 

There are times and circumstances when wigs and gowns should be removed. Appropriate accommodation made for the young and the vulnerable (having said that, when I introduce myself to young witnesses I often find the wig and gown is a great ice breaker) but otherwise I am very much in favour of them. 

The Crown Court is a very different beast to the Magistrates’ Court. Not better than, but different. We tend to spend longer with the participants of a Crown Court trial. The stakes tend to be higher. You can spend a whole day or more cross examining a witness. 

“We get on without them in the Mags” is not an answer to whether robes should be retained in the Crown Court. 

And barristers in private practice are different to solicitors in private practice. We prosecute. (And yes, I know that solicitors prosecute some work for some agencies but I am talking about the routine prosecution of serious crime.) I value highly the anonymity my wig gives me. I really, really do. 

That anonymity stretches to the jury. Good Crown Court advocacy in an even contest between skilled advocates  is directed at the case being about the evidence, not being about the advocate. The wig and gown is a uniform. It creates uniformity. And it means that the jury do not draw a personal affiliation to one side or the other due to some clue from their appearance (which is why an advocate should not have medals, badges or ribbons on their gown or even a poppy on their lapel).

These are some of the reasons why I support retaining robes. There are others. There are, naturally, arguments against. These should be debated. Part of that debate, however, should NOT include the idea that the Bar want to retain robes as it is a throwback to public school boys wanting to dress up. 

I have seen exactly that said, more than once. Now, I do not take offence at this terrible and lazy stereotype. I am not angry that, as a comprehensive school educated person, the idea that all barristers are, or consider themselves to be, toffs is ridiculous. 

I can assure you all that my university days were not spent dressing fancy, eating swan and initiating myself with a pig. The only drinking club at my uni was the Squash Club. And it was a club where you played Squash (the university being Aberystwyth, which prohibited pubs opening on a Sunday so the only place to get a drink was the private members Squash Club which had two courts and went out of business shortly after a referendum allowed Sunday boozing). 

Categorising the importance that some at the Bar place on robes as being a product of their public school backgrounds is, well, a bit like suggesting solicitors are only good for conveyancing and drafting wills. 

As the debate seems to come around once more about robes those participating should, perhaps, consider whether there are greater challenges facing the CJS than they way we dress and, perhaps, should consider that a lazy stereotype does not take the debate very much further. 

I like my wig. It is my uniform and invisibility cloak in one, itchy, horsehair contraption. Long may State educated school boys and girls aspire to wear them doing State funded work. 

The U-Turn

I blame Thatcher. 

In fairness I blame Thatcher for most things. I am of that generation – she snatched our milk and we will not forget such deeds. I am also that way inclined, I possess a left leaning streak that some times manifests itself in outbreaks of Labour voting and always ensures an antipathy to M H Thatcher. 

But this bit of Thatcher blaming is quite specific. I blame our former premier for a political mindset that traces its direct lineage back to Maggie. From the moment she uttered the words “the lady is not for turning”, politicians have recoiled in horror at the thought of the dreaded U-Turn like pre Christopher Eccleston Daleks reacted to stairs. 

The “U-Turn” has become politician shorthand for weakness and lack of leadership. The odd thing about it is that the deathly accusation of a U-Turn is reserved for things that have previously been put in train. It seems you can promise to do something and then not do it. That is, after all, just a broken promise and why should we hold that against our political classes? You can break promises with impunity but woe betide the politician who performs a U-Turn once they have embarked upon a course of action. 

Which is a crying shame because we desperately need the Lord Chancellor to perform a U-Turn. He has demonstrated a willingness to think again. He has demonstrated a willingness to think differently from his predecessor. Suadi prison contract? Ripped-up. Huge Youth Prison? Scrapped. Book ban? Reversed. Criminal Courts Charge? Days are numbered?

A prudent Lord Chancellor would pause the Duty Contract process whilst claims from a whistleblower are investigated. This is absolutely crucial. He cannot look back at this a year from now and realise they have got it wrong. 

Yet he seems wedded to TT. Today the contracts have been awarded. We step closer to the precipice. There are so many good reasons why there should be a whopping great big, tyre-smoking, handbrake turn on this one. The consequences of getting this wrong are not capable of retrospective repair. Which is why an intelligent Lord Chancellor should be for turning. 

There are so many reasons why this process has to be paused:

  1. The MoJ have a poor history of procurement (interpreters??);
  2. This procurement process has already been amended by reason of the JR;
  3. Questions are now raised as per the whistleblower above;
  4. This is the same MoJ that were simultaneously entering into disastrous contractual agreements with Saudi Arabia;
  5. Just about every informed observer raises concerns over the procurement model; and
  6. The recent consultation on advocacy recognises that quality assurances provisions need to be put in place, sense dictates you do this before altering the market place and in more than just Crown Court advocacy.

There is no prospect of action being taken by those who have been awarded the contracts to derail the process for the greater good. We are left only with the hope that good sense will prevail. It is the only way we have left to turn. 

The Four Retired Judges Sketch

With profuse apologies to Monty Python for this shameless hijacking of the Four Yorkshiremen Sketch. Please note that the Judges in this sketch are not from any particular county. I should also apologise to the many completely enlightened members of the modern Judiciary and practitioners at the senior end of both professions. Let us not slip back to old ways. The views expressed in this are not my views, nor are they meant to represent the views of any living person. This is one of my hamfisted attempts at satire, designed to show why the Bar and the Judiciary should not be complacent about diversity. If you find that the views expressed correspond with your own or one of the characters reminds you of yourself then that is entirely a coincidence and I apologise. That apology would not be to you but on your behalf…..

Four Judges sit together at the end of a convivial evening in the Old Bailey, a retirement home for the Judiciary in Eastbourne. Heavy crystal glasses are gripped in ageing hands. 

Judge This QC: Ahhh….very passable, this, very passable.

Judge That: Nothing like a good glass of Chateau de Chassilier wine, hey Gideon?

Judge Them: You’re right there Jocelyn.

Judge Yourself QC: Who would have thought thirty years ago we’d all be sitting here drinking Chateau de Chassillier wine, all of us former “Top Judges”……

Judge This QC: Aye, in them days it were only our fathers who were the Judges.

Judge That: Not top Judges mind…..

Judge Them: No, no. Not top Judges, remember that Maximillian’s father was only a District Registrar….

Judge Yourself QC: That’s right Gideon, but it’s never held me back, never held me back. And of course so unlike your father who was, I believe, described by the News of the World as a “Top Judge”

Judge This QC: Aye “Top Judge in Drink Drive and GoGo Dancer” scandal…..

Judge That:  As I recall it “Top Judge in Russian Spy GoGo Dancer” scandal…..

Judge Them: Yes, yes. And as you all know, he was cleared by the top man at the Ministry.

Judge Yourself QC: Ah yes, the report by Bernard Howe-Relates.

Judge This QC: Top fellow was Bernard.

Judge That: That’s right Peregrine, dear Bernie was a top fellow and wonderful cricketer, used to play with my father in the Old Garfordians…..

Judge Them: Yes, dear old Bernie, or Uncle Bumblepot as I used to affectionately call my Godfather….

Judge Yourself QC: Now when we started out it was hard to make your way.

Judge This QC: That’s right. Hard to make your way with so much to live up to.

Judge That: Nothing like the pressure to achieve more than your father.

Judge Them: Certainly not when you father was head of chambers….

Judge Yourself QC: And his father before him…..

Judge This QC: As your pupilmaster was always reminding you…..

Judge That: Ah yes, mine always said to me “Jocelyn” he would say “I always knew from our days rooming together at Haserthwicke College that your father was going places”…..

Judge Them: My pupil master constantly reminded me that he only let my father marry his sister because he could tell he was cut out for the job……

Judge Yourself QC:  But it wasn’t just the family pressure….

Judge This QC: No, it certainly was not. On my first day in chambers my father’s clerk pointed out to me that every chap from my college who had joined chambers had taken Silk….

Judge That: Mine said every fellow from my college had taken Silk and gone on the Bench….

Judge Them: The High Court Bench….

Judge Yourself QC: My clerk said everyone from my college and my school was in the Court of Appeal…..

Judge This QC: My Clerk told me you could put together a passable Old Boys Rugger XV from Attorneys-General that had been to my alma mater and reasonable Second XV from their fags who went on to be Solictor-General….

Judge That: On my first day in pupillage the clerk told me that there was a seven man House of Lords giving judgement that day who had all gone to my prep school…..

Judge Them: Now that’s pressure…..

Judge Yourself QC: Oh yes. Tell that to your average boy from a Secondary Modern and he wouldn’t recognise such pressure…..

Judge This QC: And then the slog to get work once you were in.

Judge That: Oh yes, you couldn’t rely on your LinkedIn profile…

Judge Them: Absolutely. Nor could you just sit there and await instructions from solicitors who went to the same college as you.

Judge Yourself QC: Exactly. Chaps from my college didn’t go into trade…..

Judge This QC: Precisely. It was endless hours on the golf course…

Judge That: Yes, and it didn’t stop on the course, in the Clubhouse too.

Judge Them: Half a pale ale with the Senior Partner of a firm….

Judge Yourself QC: Now those were the hard yards the youngsters of today don’t see.

Judge This QC: That’s why you did not see many lady Judges of our vintage….

Judge That: They couldn’t be in the clubhouse and in the kitchen making supper.

Judge Them: And those hips. The female hips are not conducive to a good golf swing….

Judge Yourself QC: …..not conducive……

Judge This QC: …..and anyway, lasses taking up pupillage was a waste of thirty Guineas…..

Judge That: A real waste.

Judge Them: Why waste thirty guineas on a pupillage when you were only going to pop off and have some babies within a few years?

Judge Yourself QC: Much better to spend it on a new dress or some pretty shoes!

Judge This QC: Wise words, Peregrine, wise words.

Judge That: And the Courtroom and the Robing Rooms, well, they are like the trenches, no place for a lady.

 Judge Them: No, I wouldn’t want a daughter of mine to see or hear the things that go on.

 Judge Yourself QC: In that situation men can only cope by being more of a man…

 Judge This QC: Aye, it’s the heat of the battle……

Judge That: …..the eye of the storm….

Judge Them: ……no place for shrinking violets……

Judge Yourself QC: …….or sensitive souls.

Judge This QC: If the occasional rum thing gets said, it’s a coping mechanism…

 Judge That: …..gallows humour…..

Judge Them: Nothing more than letting off steam…..

Judge Yourself QC: Like the Rugger changing room, no place for the fairer sex.

Judge This QC: Absolutely, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen…..

Judge That: …..popping back to the kitchen…..

Judge Them:
…..the real kitchen rather than the metaphorical kitchen…..

Judge Yourself QC: ….. and leave the job to the right sort.

Judge This QC: Try telling that to the young people of today and they will not listen, they will not listen. It’s all “don’t be so all un-PC”…..

Judge That: It’s not un-PC if it’s true…..

 Judge Them: Look at the Lord Chancellor, no longer needs to be a lawyer but has always been a man.

 Judge Yourself QC: And a man that went to the right sort of university at that….shows what’s important, shows what’s important.

 All: Yes, yes.

Yes or No

I invited anyone who wished to contribute to the debate to email their blog to me and I would be happy to host. Kent solicitor Oliver Kirk has done just that. Here is his contribution. 

A response to Mr Myerson QCs response to Mr Csoka QC

I am writing this brief response, I hope to clear up what some see as ambiguities or inconsistencies in the position of solicitors, and to help those who may still be undecided in their decision on the current ballot.

In case it is not abundantly clear- many solicitors firms are currently in a precarious state: their futures uncertain awaiting the outcome not only of the current action- but also of their LAA bids- or indeed for the fall-out from their failure to bid. All are united in their uncertainty as to whether the new, significantly lower rates can possibly be financially viable. (My own view is that they are not.)

Why don’t solicitors withdraw their bids?

The LAA is the principal provider of work. The only show in town. So, if a firm either fails to bid- or withdraws a bid, then it is then condemned to rely only on private and own client work. In the case of most firms large enough to bid, those two sources of work are simply not a viable option.

Own client contracts are, by their very nature wasting assets- criminal clients often find themselves in custody for lengthy periods have difficult personal circumstances, which result in tragically early deaths, and of course some reform or were never guilty in the first place- all of which mean that repeat business cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, clients, as well as being fiercely loyal, can also be a perfidious bunch, meaning that it is never really possible to count upon return business. An own client contract alone may only provide an unstable and unpredictable revenue stream over any significant period of time. Unsurprisingly, most firms need the new blood of duty cases to refresh their client base.

Why not withdraw a bid to do economically unviable work? Once your bid is withdrawn- that is “Game Over”; if some form of improved deal is put on the table in due course- you won’t be part of it. If some firms withdraw their bids, and others do not, those who have withdrawn make their own situations worse, not better. Think of it in these terms as well: most owners of firms will have made significant personal investments in their businesses. The buck also stops with them if the business fails- their homes, and any other assets are quite likely to be tied up by way of personal guarantees to banks. It would therefore be personally and professionally reckless in the extreme to withdraw a bid in the hope that a better deal might emerge that the firm could be part of.

Bidding and getting a contract therefore becomes the only possible way of surviving- in a sort of “gruel tomorrow” pact that allows a firm so stumble on in the hope of staving off insolvency for a little longer. The alternative of withdrawing a bid would, for many firms mean the prospect of having to make significant redundancies at time when it is unlikely that the funds are available to pay even those.

Please consider also that many of the bidders may be consortia of smaller firms and sole practitioners, who have already invested many, many hours putting a bid together. To withdraw such a bid now after making such investments of time when to do so might be curtains for the firms involved is a gamble too far . This is especially so, when you consider how effective the current action appears to be in its early days in getting the MOJ to think again.

No-one should be under any illusions- the current rates of pay do not incentivise work. They do not encourage a “no stone unturned” approach to a clients’ case. They encourage the opposite. Equally, the current rates of pay are such that solicitors have been forced out of the lower courts into the Crown Court as a means of remaining in business.

If reduced rates and DC come in, various things will almost certainly happen:

1) A significant number of small “High Street” firms will pull out of Criminal Legal Aid altogether whether as a commercial decision or because they do not get a contract. Many such firms or departments are operating on such tight margins that the July cuts followed by the January 2016 cuts will finish them off before the MOJ even start their “2016 Review of legal aid rates”.

2) Other (probably smaller) firms who do not get duty contracts will soldier on with own client contracts- but with diminishing volumes and cuts to remuneration, will probably go under. I pause to ask myself whether it is these same firms who currently instruct the Bar?

Of course they are! These are the firms who instruct the junior Bar on a daily basis, whether to do their Magistrates Court trials or their Crown Court cases; the same firms who once discovered and instructed those who now lead the Bar. Those firms will wither and die.

3) Those larger firms who do get contracts undoubtedly keep as much advocacy in-house as possible. They will recruit from the ranks of an underemployed Bar who will be wondering where their instructions have gone….

So- when asking yourself Mr Myerson’s questions and deciding how to vote, please remember that if you are currently briefed by a solicitor- that firm may not be around for long to brief you if it has not applied for or does not get “awarded” a contract. As for those who apply for and get a contract the margins will be such that they will have to try to keep all their work in-house.

This is the Bars decision.

This is the Bars vote.

Make no mistake, this is for Our future.

 

 

 

 

Two Tribes

The last two years have been remarkable. There was much talk from the MoJ of Transforming this and Transforming that with next steps and all that jazz. It has certainly transformed my professional life from one where I went about my everyday business, meeting clients, irritating Judges and wondering when the next brief would land. A professional life where I thought the robing room at Minshull Street was my patch. A piece of the court building forever for the advocates. 

Now I spend my holiday scouring Twitter and absorbing emails to try to ascertain the latest development. I wake in the morning with a thought to write something comparing the Lord Chancellor to Dr Who or Game of Thrones or something even more ridiculous, like the last Lord Chancellor. Hoping that a gentle dig in the ribs from my iPad will suddenly make everything okay again. 

But it never does. 

So here we are, like the drug addicted client, standing at yet another crossroads. Which way should we go?

And whilst the Bar has two choices to make – take the path of engagement and try to secure a legal landscape which would be fertile ground for our strengths to prosper or the path of taking action to stop the Government grinding us down to no more than mouthpieces for an imitation of a free and fair society – these two choices do not a war make.

We are not at war with each other. 

This is not “Hotheads v Appeasers”. It is not “The Must Do Somethings v The Don’t Do Anythings”. It is not “The Rash” scrapping it out with “The Wise”. It is not even “The Brave” against “The Scabs”. Dare I whisper it? Well, it ain’t “The Noisy Minority” trying to stick it to “The Silent Majority”. It is a body of professionals who face some very real difficulties trying to come up with some very real answers. 

Acuusations fly around. From both camps about the other. “He is just a leftwing hothead, hellbent on fighting the Government, any Government,” is often just as daft as “She is just a non-boat-rocking conservative with one foot already in the pension”. Yes there may be elements of truth in some individuals and their motives but the truth is people advocate for one way or the other because they have analysed the situation and believe it to be the best way. That is to be respected and acknowledged. 

No one should look down at those that hold a different view. Those views need airing to assist those who have yet to come to a view to reach their decision. When we had the vote over “the deal” the CBA hosted a blog for the arguments to be raised by proponents of both sides. It is a shame the same is not being done now. In fact it is such a shame that I’ll offer to host it. Anyone who wants their say should feel free to email me at jaimerh@aol.com and I will post your blog for you. 

Any regular reader will know that I favour taking direct action now. I favour it for many reasons. I hope in favouring it I set out my reasons for doing so. Whilst I am not courteous to or about the politicians, and may even tread on a few judicial toes, I like to think I am always courteous and reasonable about differently held views. 

I repeat, this it not two tribes going to war, but one tribe who both want the tribe to survive. We just have different ways of going about it. 

Ultimately we both may be right. Both approaches may have the chance to succeed. The biggest fear I have is that if the engagement route is taken and fails, it will be too late to save us. Our fate will be sealed and that is a fate none of us want. 

No matter what, this is you and me against the damage being caused to the criminal justice system.