Report comment

Before we get inundanted with "£175k?-chance-would-be-a-fine-thing-suck-it-up" comments, consider this alternative perspective:

1) those appointed to the High Court Bench are invariably highly successful barristers many of whom earn beyond or close to seven figures at the Bar. Yes £175k is beyond the dreams of most mere mortals such as I but it is still an 80-90% pay cut for those barristers

2) yes the pension arrangements that High Court Judges still enjoy are better than most but they are now a lot worse than when they were appointed after their pensions were down-graded unilaterally by Government. Attractive pension arrangements will have been part no small part of the decision to accept the massive pay cut but, tough luck, that has gone (and they can't return to practice now anyway so too bad!)

3) the quality of justice we can deliver still depends on attracting the best and the brightest to the Bench. Whether we like it or not that often equates also to the best paid. If we continue to remove the pull factors for making the move we will no longer attract the best and the brightest, and justice as a whole will suffer

Yes many of us earn but a fraction of what a High Court Judge will and some of us will have cause to doubt from the justice we got from some particular Judge that they were indeed "the best and the brightest" (but equally none of us are going to get appointed as one ourselves so what does that add to the debate?); and yes we have all been shafted by Government one way or another; but does any of that mean that what is happening is right?

Oh. Too late. Already inundated.