Report comment

Mr Manford,

This article is about a report from front line staff, the judiciary. I'm also one of those chaps who gets an email from the local County Court keeping me up to date with their levels of efficiency, staffing, etc. The changes aren't going well and staffing is down / long term illness is up. A lot of judges (especially the DJs who saw the writing on the wall) have also retired.

Even if the cuts were warranted [and I'm not arguing either way], these cuts are not saving any money. Just so that you understand this isn't a lawyer - bias argument, I can confirm I don't work in any of the areas of law concerned, and I can see ways of this working WITHOUT the use of lawyers, but it would require the mammoth education of normal citizens and a more active legal staff working within the courts, gatekeepers if you will.

It's neither a political or privilege argument - it's a competence argument. If something isn't working, it isn't working. If something is more expensive than was ever planned, it's a mistake - take the Lab gov's forays into mass NHS computerization.

What you can't do is strip away entire layers of advice / representation and expect citizens to suddenly become knowledgeable about the law. It'll take more than a few guidance notes and leaflets from the gov saying "this is how you do it" to do that.

It's inept. It's so clearly inept that even the judiciary, who rarely express an opinion on anything outside of a courtroom, have had to say something.