Only the people who advise the vulnerable have the decency to feel ashamed. A friend’s partner joined a facebook group about asylum seekers as benefit scroungers. This attitude is so widespread.

It’s amazing what people say when they think only British-ethnic people are around.

(Me? White (Other))

So what would you do instead?

Either we allow unlimited immigration into Britain (which isn’t really practical) or cases like ones you highlight are bound to happen.

Its not about unlimited immigration – the legal aid bill is providing a way of putting up a barrier between the poorest and most vulnerable in society and legal assistance in ceratin matters – asylum, immigration, benefits, housing etc.

As a legal aid worker, we don’t accept cases we think won’t have a chance of success – which means that most people being helped in the above areas have genuine need, are unable to advocate for themselves, and would lose their entitlements (whether it be to asylum, immigration, benefit, housing) without the help of legal aid.

This is yet another kick in the teeth for the poor and disadvantaged. The rich can pay for their legal advice. If a person is really intelligent with english as their first language, they might be able to figure the system out for themselves. But if you’re poor, uneducated, or don’t speak much english, or just can’t traverse the system yourself – then according to the condems – tough.

Nathaniel Mathews

I think you may be too sensitive for your job fella and need to seek alternative employment.

I remember when the numbers of asylum seeking children being locked up were at a record level under the last Labour government the same things were being said by the workers at that time. Here’s the link from The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/30/ministers-under-fire-immigrant-children

It’s difficult to comment on this properly without knowing more of the facts.
Like where she’s from and how and why she came to Britain.
If having a child is way of staying in the country, then that would of course be used as a means of doing so and circumventing immigration and asylum rules. The Republic of Ireland even changed its citizenship laws because of the unintended consequence of non-nationals coming to the Republic to give birth. Asylum seekers were coming over from England to do so and claim Irish nationality.

This is a problem that’s not going to go away any time soon, and I know that some people advocate a much more open immigration policy, and suggest that we could deal with an ever growing population like the USA does, but that we’d just have to build our society to be more urbanised – and fill in some of those pesky things like green belts which hinder progress.

This programme about trafficked women from west Africa into Europe to become prostitutes raised some difficult issues too. What to do with the women. Deport them?
And what if they had children? Put them up in council estates?
That is probably the best thing to do, because they own their traffickers tens of thousands of pounds sometimes.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/episode-guide/series-2011/episode-3

” Kenneth Clarke the Justice Minister recently said there was an “army of lawyers advancing behind a line of women and children, saying of course they are not concerned about the income of the profession; their only concern is for these vulnerable clients who will be adversely affected if they are not paid at the rate they currently are.” ”

I normally quite like Ken Clarke, but trying to make a point out of the fact that your opponent’s lawyers are profiting from the legal case between you and your opponent is a really low tactic. He’s the justice minister, if he objects to seeing lawyers get paid he should come up with a justice system that doesn’t need them.

@7 – He’s coming up with a “justice” system which doesn’t provide them for the poor, does that count?

Actually, never mind answering, I don’t want to to get Tory spittle over me, viper.

LW @ 9: your tiresome inability to hold a nuanced position shows you to be simple-minded and barbarous.

@10 – You wouldn’t know a nuance if one bit you.

And a Tory shill calling ANYONE barbarous is about as credible as a Borgia doing so.

Kenneth, I can tell you this for free. If you had seen the so called army of women and children I have seen, you too would feel one inch tall.

Except the shame belongs not to Ken Clarke, but to the people who have tied up the system in red tape and appeals until these bogus claimants can remain in the country for years, decades even, all at our expense. We should have a quick and simple system that takes days, not decades, to resolve. This woman have lived off the rest of us for years and now she has to go home. That is tragic for her children but it is only tragic in the larger sense because she was able to give them some years of what they were not entitled to.

4. jehane

Its not about unlimited immigration

Yes it is. We have a process. We do not need appeals for it to work. Those who are fattening on the system either do so for ideological reasons, ie they want unlimited immigration, or they do so for mercenary reasons. What other reason is there? Let me put it to you simply – this woman has clearly had years to go through the system. She is at the end of her appeals. Our incredibly generous immigration system has decided she does not deserve to stay. What should the law say? What should we do? If not let anyone who makes it to these shores stay for as long as they like.

the legal aid bill is providing a way of putting up a barrier between the poorest and most vulnerable in society and legal assistance in ceratin matters – asylum, immigration, benefits, housing etc.

It is a system for making lawyers rich. Little more.

If a person is really intelligent with english as their first language, they might be able to figure the system out for themselves.

And if lawyers cared about the poor, they would make the system so simple that the poor could understand it. Instead they make it as complex as possible so that their services are always needed – and then demand we pay as much as they feel like for those services. That is stupid.

Chaise Guevara

I normally quite like Ken Clarke, but trying to make a point out of the fact that your opponent’s lawyers are profiting from the legal case between you and your opponent is a really low tactic. He’s the justice minister, if he objects to seeing lawyers get paid he should come up with a justice system that doesn’t need them.

I don’t think that is the point. Surely his point is that there are lawyers who are abusing the system to get rich. Legal services are not like other services. The more lawyers you have, the more demand there is for their services. They sue each other. They manufacture work for each other. Why should we pay what is essentially an unlimited amount as they deliberately try to gum up the works and prevent the law working – at huge profit to themselves?

Time to abolish asylum altogether. If someone does not have the skills we need, they need to go elsewhere.

@13

It appears you know little about the legal aid system, if you did you would realise that most welfare rights matters are paid on a fixed fee basis per case, and only paid once the case is closed – legal aid workers in welfare rights cases are not getting rich on legal aid. I can’t speak to other areas of legal aid. Many legal aid centres are struggling to stay open and provide a quality service due to lack of funds.

the legal aid bill will also stop help not just for the appeal but for the initial claims as well – meaning even those who should be granted asylum or allowed to stay, will not be, because their case is presented poorly, because of lack of a trained legal help. Good representation at the beginning of these matters can stop a lengthy and costly appeals process, and legal aid workers are not supposed to be taking cases with no chance of success – any cases they take should have some basis in law to succeed.

And these systems – the immigration system, the benefits system, have been made complex by government, and I agree that it should be simpler. But there will still be those who don’t understand it, even then. And with areas such as immigration, there are lawyers making lots of money out of people who can pay for their immigration advice – but I repeat, not those who work in legal aid.

@13

Not only are Legal Aid Lawyers not getting rich, a large number are going broke.Maybe people have no sympathy for the adult clients involved but a considerable amount of legal aid is spent on the welbeing of children which is of serious concern.

@ 13 SMFS

“I don’t think that is the point. Surely his point is that there are lawyers who are abusing the system to get rich. ”

I don’t doubt it. I just find it interesting the Clarke is only interested in the money being wasted on lawyers by the OTHER side.

More to the point, it’s an ad hom argument. I’m actually surprised it’s being used in this case – there are reasonable arguments in favour of heavily restricted borders, even if I disagree with them. You more often see it in the context of the HRA, with stories/insinuations about “human rights lawyers” getting rich off the spoils. Basically this: “If we don’t have any credible arguments, let’s whinge about their lawyers making a profit!”

Again, it’s understandable to complain about exploitative lawyers, but using it as an attack on any group that needs legal representation is an ad hom.

14. jehane

It appears you know little about the legal aid system, if you did you would realise that most welfare rights matters are paid on a fixed fee basis per case, and only paid once the case is closed – legal aid workers in welfare rights cases are not getting rich on legal aid.

Now you are changing the subject. I did not say individual lawyers were – although some certainly are. I said that lawyers as a whole were generating massively lucrative work for each other at our expense.

Good representation at the beginning of these matters can stop a lengthy and costly appeals process, and legal aid workers are not supposed to be taking cases with no chance of success – any cases they take should have some basis in law to succeed.

The law is a mess that provides no certainty. So it is irrelevant if they have a legal basis or not as any fool has a chance of success. See the Peruvian with the dog. Sure, if they win outright at the start, we pay less in legal fees. If we simply had an open border, we would save a fortune in lawyers and appeals. But we would pay in other ways.

15. Man on Clapham Omnibus

Not only are Legal Aid Lawyers not getting rich, a large number are going broke.Maybe people have no sympathy for the adult clients involved but a considerable amount of legal aid is spent on the welbeing of children which is of serious concern.

Again, if their parents did not bring them here and if their lawyers did not work to jam up the system, those children would suffer less. Well from being parted from their friends anyway. They probably would suffer more in their own countries. Are you claiming Legal Aid lawyers are incompetent?

@17 As a matter of fact I was talking about legal aid in general. The suggestion of incompetance really underlines the fact that you haven’t the foggest idea about the issues. Do you for example think a fixed fee of as low as £90 for a Solicitor to attend court for a day represents the kind of renumeration compatible with running a London high street office. What about not being paid for 2 years or an arbitrary 10% cut. I dont think incompetance was what I had in mind. You might find it useful to check out the Lords comments on The Legal Aid bill going through the house at the moment.
The opposition is non partisan and unanimous against Ken Clarke. There are big issues here not just moral ones but practical ones of how the State really wishes to treat disadvantaged and vuneral children.

@SMFS #17:

I said that lawyers as a whole were generating massively lucrative work for each other at our expense.

And you’ve already been told that Legal Aid, which funds much of this work, is not “extremely lucrative”.

So it is irrelevant if they have a legal basis or not as any fool has a chance of success. See the Peruvian with the dog.

“Peruvian with the dog”? Is this something we’ve all missed? Are you talking about the Bolivian with the partner whom the Home Office tried to throw out in breach of its own clear policy? The story that Nigel Farage largely made up, and that “Kitten Heels” May then plagiarised?

@17

I wasn’t changing the subject, you stated the system (and the one we were talking about was the legal aid system) was making lawyers rich. I pointed out your error and ignorance on this subject.

I’m unsure of what you’re in favour of – no immigration? no legal aid for immigration matters? No legal aid at all? Justice, immigration and asylum only for those who can pay or adequately represent themselves? A system where money and a good education stack the deck in your favour, and too bad for the poor, the weak, the foriegners and the ill educated? Oh wait, that last one’s the subtext of Tory policies.

It’s nice to see so many people contributing.

3 and 5 Don’t know that I have any magic wand solution. Whatever my own views might or might not be, immigration borders will not disappear overnight, and one can’t win every case. One moves on. 5 I hope legal aid advisers have sensitivity enough to understand how devastating losing a case like this can be for a family.

7 and 8. 7 is saying Kenneth Clarke’s low blow to legal aid lawyers is a cheap shot. You guys should give each other a bit more credit sometimes.

So Much For Subtlety. We may not see eye to eye on things often, I suspect. Why assume accepting refugees and accepting immigrants are mutually exclusive? I have a refugee in my family who was an engineer, after all. Notwithstanding you take the time to read, so thank you.

6 Here’s a big softy on immigration like me. Child trafficking- stamp it out.

I am new enough to this medium to wonder whether I should be silent and deus ex machina or just say thanks.

18. Man on Clapham Omnibus

As a matter of fact I was talking about legal aid in general.

Then you will agree with me that is a massive transfer of money from taxpayers to lawyers. So what’s your problem?

The suggestion of incompetance really underlines the fact that you haven’t the foggest idea about the issues.

Actually it was your suggestion. Legal work in the UK is a billion-pound industry. More than that. On top of which legal aid lawyers and standing under a shower of free money. I agree it is reasonable to assume that if they cannot survive in such a generous market there is something wrong with their general competence – as you seem to be implying.

19. Robin Levett

And you’ve already been told that Legal Aid, which funds much of this work, is not “extremely lucrative”.

Well it is for some lawyers:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004915/500-legal-aid-barristers-earning-David-Cameron.html

But that is not the point. Even if it is poor pickings for each and every individual lawyer, collectively it is, as I said, a very expensive hobby for the rest of us.

“Peruvian with the dog”? Is this something we’ve all missed? Are you talking about the Bolivian with the partner whom the Home Office tried to throw out in breach of its own clear policy? The story that Nigel Farage largely made up, and that “Kitten Heels” May then plagiarised?

That will be the one. The man who should have been deported but because of the idiocies of the legal system, the rest of us had to pay a fortune to ensure he wasn’t.

20. jehane

I wasn’t changing the subject, you stated the system (and the one we were talking about was the legal aid system) was making lawyers rich. I pointed out your error and ignorance on this subject.

Well no you didn’t, you made a claim. You presented no evidence for it. And the system is certainly making some lawyers rich. However that was and is not my point. Which remains the system as a whole is expensive for the rest of us.

I’m unsure of what you’re in favour of – no immigration? no legal aid for immigration matters? No legal aid at all? Justice, immigration and asylum only for those who can pay or adequately represent themselves? A system where money and a good education stack the deck in your favour, and too bad for the poor, the weak, the foriegners and the ill educated? Oh wait, that last one’s the subtext of Tory policies.

I am certainly in favour of an end to asylum seeking. Immigration? Probably that too. Or at least, as I said, only when it is in Britain’s interests. I see no point and a great many dangers to legal aid. The lawyers control the making of law, they control the interpreting of law. It is easy to see the legal process has become a way for lawyers in the Parliament and on the Bench to generate huge income for their friends and colleagues still in Chambers. Legal aid just makes it worse because it gives the legal profession as much access to our pockets as they want. The solution is obvious – allow the Law Society as a whole to determine who is entitled to legal support, and then make it a requirement that every lawyer, as a price of remaining a practising lawyer, is required to provide their fair share of said legal work.

21. Nathaniel Mathews

Why assume accepting refugees and accepting immigrants are mutually exclusive? I have a refugee in my family who was an engineer, after all.

If they have the qualifications we need, they can immigrate.

Here’s a big softy on immigration like me. Child trafficking- stamp it out.

The only way to stamp out child-trafficking is to stamp out asylum seeking.

@SMFS #22:

But that is not the point. Even if it is poor pickings for each and every individual lawyer, collectively it is, as I said, a very expensive hobby for the rest of us.

So you’d prefer to be unrepresented if facing criminal charges?

The cost of legal aid asylum and immigration cases is c£1.50 per head per annum. Not very expensive at all – and hardly a hobby.

That will be the one. The man who should have been deported but because of the idiocies of the legal system, the rest of us had to pay a fortune to ensure he wasn’t.

That would be the legal system that decided that the Home Office had to play by its own rules and not make them up as it went along. Sounds remarkably sane to me. Why should he have been deported?

I am certainly in favour of an end to asylum seeking.

Why?

I am in favour of unlimited immigration, the completely free movement of all people across all state borders. There would then be no need to provide legal aid to immigrants to fight their case to stay here. Furthermore, there would be no need to classify some immigrants as “asylum seekers”.

Of course immigrants should have no entitlement whatever to any state funded benefits so Leila, in the example above, would not suffer the catastrophe of being “evicted” from her home by Social Services, as they would never have provided her with a home in the first place.

Absolutely top comment. Couldn’t agree more. Tories always squeek about “shroud waving” to try and tell us that pointing out the actual consequences of their actions is somehow wrong.

SMFS- the average wage for a qualified solicitor specialising in an area of law in which legal aid is the primary source of funding is £28k. Now i am not claiming that this makes them poor before you point out the median UK wage, but if you think that this consitiutes “fat cats”, then you (and your cats) can expect a visit from the RSPCA in the near future.

As to “she should have been thrown out immediately”, you do relaise that you are talking about a decision made by state functionaries. You are displaying an uncharacteristic faith in beaurocratic decision making, unless you are saying that there are some groups of people for whom poor quality decision making without appeal is enough. Now that wouldn’t be very libertarian, would it?

SMFS.

So no fan of the rule of law, then?