Report comment

@David Crawford 6 January 2016 02:15 pm

"...Once a person is 'charged' there should be no debate about the matter until the hearing and any appeal has been concluded. .."

If you are talking about sub judice, then yes I agree that where criminal Law is concerned the principle is very important. I also agree that little should be spoken of civil Suits whilst a case is being brought to trial. The matter should not really be discussed in the commons and the Govt. of the day should most certainly not be commenting or interfering (particularly not with a Judicial Review case they are effectively a party to). .

I tentatively think the Claims Handling Society and SRA have completely now lost control over what was the independent adjudication of justice (and had been for probably 1000 years of British Legal History). I simply suspect that their clout and the pressure they could bring over the Legal Services Act 1998 was a minuscule percentage of the Financial Service Sector's clout and pressure (who as most intellectual lawyers (and even some MP's who lack intelligence per se), at the time could see were simply lining up salivating).

But... but .... and it is a hesitant equivocal but ..... how did what was a 'profession' (of solicitors, now claims handlers who sanction prostituting their names on the backs of buses), get to this stage?

We have a major multi claimant, class action firm, getting public funding to pursue a Judicial Review over the potential question of whether there were UK battle field killings (in itself which could be quite an admirable thing), but .... and it is the reason that is being done.

That is not because of the fact that it was done per se, but because of the class actions that are potentially available in the back ground.

That is questionable, namely whether the Legal Aid system was devised for that (or indeed class actions by the back door).