egg

Fox

The like minded people you associate with are not most people. Some people respect the need for a welfare state, and appreciate that not everyone who needs that welfare is a lazy scrounger. Are you seriously suggesting that disabled people who can't work, for example, shouldn't have kids?

Decent work done on immigration.

Yep. The difference is minimal.

Driving under 20 in a 20. Needless.

Half. Unusually benevolent of you mate.

Yep. A bit of a nothing budget. I thought pension contribution tax relief would be hit and I'm surprised that's stayed as it was. I was also expecting NI to extend to other incomes. The reduced cash ISA allowance kind of takes us back to ISA origins with a bigger allowance for stocks and shares. People who want to invest £20k at low risk can just whack their cash in a largely cash or bond based fund anyway so there'll be ways around it if people want to find them. Hopefully that'll settle the markets, and we see a rate drop to give us a much needed jolt.

Yep. Starmer is no lefty, and that's becoming clearer. He wants to be something to everyone, but he's the opposite.

Like revoked. It was for the pre edited version.

Yep!! I think that's the first on here that'll get universal support.

Yep. It's daft regardless of who proposed it. That it's labour is surprising and disappointing.

You agreed with a comment that someone was calling for change to help criminal lawyers. My point is that this doesn't help criminal lawyers.

Its where the investment goes. On one hand there's the judges to service the work. On the other there's the lawyers and the budget. I can say with certainty that there isn't a pool of either, and nobody wants to do legal aid crime. KC's are paid less than trainee solicitors in high street firms. Just chucking more money at the legal aid budget but at current rates won't get the work serviced.

Good. I saw the whining from someone in the media. We're in a world of expectation, rather than needs, and any form of welfare should be more about the latter.

? Where's the suggestion that criminal legal aid rates will increase? Without that, an increase of cases means more criminal legal aid lawyers are expected to work for terrible rates. I'm missing your point.

Criminal legal aid rates are shocking, despite the review. Counsel and Solicitors don't want to do the work, and understandably so. We'll eventually move to an employed public defender model is imagine, but under the current system more cases will mean more adjournments due to unrepresented defendants, and a lack of prosecutors.

Shackled by Still.

Aye. I was guilty! Contempt before investigation for sure. Fair play to the lad.

Yep. Decent players who were poorly coached and managed. Not sure what this new lad is saying or doing, but I like it.

Yep. His height and pace is great. Everything else isn't.

I think it's a bit of both. It's a pace and height decision.

Different issues entirely. Whatever Trial system we have, our sentencing approach needs overhaul.

Ha! The correct solution imo is to have a complete rethink of our sentence structure, and invest heavily into a rehabilitative justice system. Prison is of course necessary, but rarely helps rehabilitate and prevent repeat offending.

I'm not sure how. There's an abundance of jurors out there, and removing them from the equation still leaves a trial, which still requires a judge, a court room, an usher, prosecution and defence counsel, etc. There isn't that court space, those Judges or the budget in the system. I also doubt sufficient underpaid legal aid defence lawyers would be available, ditto prosecutors. That's all aside from stripping away the right to elect a jury trial in many cases, which is a massive part of our legal system. Terrible decision for me.

Analysis