Asil Nadir - and the CAB Specialist Welfri's

Richie-from-the-Boro

I was thinking about this response reference the CAB

- Asil Nadir was legally aided; his trial [costing £4 million of taxpayers money] would have paid for 26,666 benefit appeal claimants to get help
- even though a guilty verdict was announced the Conservative party won't pay back the 'man from Del Monte his £440,000 donation
- between 2010 & 2015 the number of all benefit appeals will ramp to 2.5 million @ £429.66 per hearing - they win around 80% of their cases
- ATOS ran the screwed up puters for the Olympics and we sacked them - if 40% + cases they decide upon are wrong why let them decide the fate of our disabled
- it will be like spitting in the worlds oceans when UC starts !

transient

What did ATOS ruin on the IS front at the Olympics? Where were they sacked from the Olympics?
By the way ATOS have the contract with the IOC so nothing to do with their contract with assessing the disabled

Richie-from-the-Boro

Its a scandal that that Maggie's friend the megga wealthy Asil Nadir Polly Peck Peck Peck'd around £4 Bi££ion quid from the British taxpayers for legal aid in a criminal case, while the O/P 11mee in this thread could also potentially face a criminal trial but can not get legal aid. How can it be right that someone who can fund the £20,000 a month rent bill for a Mayfair flat can get legal aid clearly the Man from Del Monte with a private jet, a string of racehourses, stately home... and a £2bn empire is not of limited means. He gets legal aid even though he is more than able to fund his own defence while 11mee is unlikely to be able to do so.

The Ministry of Justice [MOJ] is cutting £350 Mi££ion from the criminal / civil legal aid budget most of the criminal side of the budget remains untouched while the civil side [ £100 million supports the CAB & others] which supports the essential CAB / Law Centres helping those ordinary members of the public who use the Disability & Dosh forum because the cannot afford the specialist high street Welfare Solicitors costs to help deal with cases involving welfare benefits, debt and housing etc and the more complicated cases such as 11mee's very convoluted 10 year old fight with the SoS, very soon we not be able to secure any legal aid funded help whatsoever if we have a welfare benefit problem. The CAB's shoestring budget gets a fixed £150 per case for representing us and the Government intend cutting the funding in this area by 80% .. .. is madness .. .. unless closing down legal aid and the free help for all CAB / Law Centres is a pre-cursor to some nice Tory waiting in the wings to open a private paid for expensive alternative to the CAB / Law Centres. Hmmmmmmm I wonder who [STRIKE]??????[/STRIKE] that might be ?

- Off to watch the footy !

pickpocketlocket

Are you suggesting that those accused of a crime should not be granted Legal Aid?

rogerblack

By simply speeding up the system, and making better decisions in the first place, a comparable abount to the legal aid cuts could be made.

CKhalvashi

rogerblack wrote: »

By simply speeding up the system, and making better decisions in the first place, a comparable abount to the legal aid cuts could be made.

Whilst I agree that it takes a common sense scenario, there do need to be legal protections for those accused of a crime.

CK

rogerblack

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Whilst I agree that it takes a common sense scenario, there do need to be legal protections for those accused of a crime.

CK

I am specifically referring to benefit cases.
At the moment, there is typically perhaps 9 months between a decision being made that is challengable, and a tribunal.
For ESA, in particular, benefit is generally payable during this period.

Go from half an hour to an hour and a half's time taken to make the decision would have costs.

It would avoid other costs though.
For example, properly explaining to people why they are not entitled to benefit and avoiding appeals.
Exploring better why they may be entitled to benefit, in ways that have not been properly explored on the form.
Time to properly consider the applicants case in detail, rather than merely skimming.

Even essentially free things like changing the letters to be more understandable may have an impact.

Richie-from-the-Boro

rogerblack wrote: »

By simply speeding up the system, and making better decisions in the first place, a comparable abount to the legal aid cuts could be made.

- as usual - you got the bullseye in one go !

Richie-from-the-Boro

- until the time arrives where the HCP's are allowed to make common sense rather than treasury engineered decisions, the farce goes on
- of spending more on appeals that they save on taking the benefit from deserving people in the first place, then having a 1T or UT reverse the decision

Half the entire budget goes on criminal and the other half on non criminal other - which is usually welfare based appeals. My points were that the ConDEMS are closing CAB's et al by starving them of funding, they are closing down or severely contacting on a weekly basis. 99% of CAB's have only one [if they are lucky] paid for pro welfare specialist that are trained and qualified to act on 1T's and UT's. Importantly because of cost these individuals are the only people in the world that can take on welfare appeal cases for the masses and bring some kind of justice for the disabled and chronically sick, they are snowed under and reaching breaking point [ESA cases 97,000 support requests in the first three months of this year], that's a 71% overall increase on the same quarter last year.

Whilst at the same time the other 50% of the available money goes to criminal cases, one of whom I've suggested didn't need it, everyone including Nadir has a right to Justice but Nadir had more than sufficient funds to seek justice without lumbering the British taxpayer. That £4 million of taxpayers money given to a multi-mi££ionaire would have been better used paying for 26,666 benefit appeal claimants right to Justice.

CKhalvashi

rogerblack wrote: »

I am specifically referring to benefit cases.
At the moment, there is typically perhaps 9 months between a decision being made that is challengable, and a tribunal.
For ESA, in particular, benefit is generally payable during this period.

Go from half an hour to an hour and a half's time taken to make the decision would have costs.

It would avoid other costs though.
For example, properly explaining to people why they are not entitled to benefit and avoiding appeals.
Exploring better why they may be entitled to benefit, in ways that have not been properly explored on the form.
Time to properly consider the applicants case in detail, rather than merely skimming.

Even essentially free things like changing the letters to be more understandable may have an impact.

I do agree on the principle of this, however, say right now I'm arrested for an offence that I've not committed; Who should foot the bill then?

CK

Richie-from-the-Boro

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I do agree on the principle of this, however, say right now I'm arrested for an offence that I've not committed; Who should foot the bill then?

CK

- the taxpayer .. .. if you as an individual qualify for legal aid you will get it
- is your question on 'criminal offence' related to [£300,000] your circumstances and your welfare benefits ?