Help needed

gb12345

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver wrote: »

I would guess that the OP and wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver are examples of those with their noses in the trough, hence the self interest in the continuous bumping of this thread.
Evidence please??!

I don't need to provide evidence because the key word in my post was GUESS.

I think I was slightly wrong though - you probably do have a self-interest, but it is because you are reliant on legal aid for some case you've got going on.

So why should tax payers have to fund you to have the ability to pick and choose your legal represention. If you can't afford to pay for it yourself then you should accept whatever is provided at the lowest cost to the tax payer.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

I don't need to provide evidence because the key word in my post was GUESS.

I think I was slightly wrong though - you probably do have a self-interest, but it is because you are reliant on legal aid for some case you've got going on
You ASSUME I have an ongoing Case which you assume is Legal aid funded Bad enough. You however would be perfectly happy for me to be in the hands of Stobart Tesco Law and end up with a Miscarriage of Justice that has to go to appeal that will cost the taxpayer money.
Thanks for the kind sentiments!

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

So why should tax payers have to fund you to have the ability to pick and choose your legal represention. If you can't afford to pay for it yourself then you should accept whatever is provided at the lowest cost to the tax payer.

I would be better off with trained and qaulified Lawyers with well established practices who can 1) prevtent a case from going forward because it has no merit 2) argue case with enough arguing to reach a sufficient verdict guilty or not guilty, 3) by lawyers who are paid no more than £42k minus VAT and £50k with vat for your average Lawyer.
Under Serco G4s etc the pile em high stack em cheap will mean I could not chooose a lawyer who 'fits' who understands me who has patience and understanding to know what's what and who understands the vast complexities of the law in hand.
I would most likely be imprisoned and would cost the taxpayer more in the longrun.
It is in mine and our interest for the government to work with the legal system as grayling is planning to f**k it up.
Both for me and MSE.

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

Pollycat wrote: »

What on earth does this mean? :huh:


I admit that I don't know a lot about the law, but I've never heard of someone accused of a crime being referred to as an 'exhibit'.


I wouldn't argue with you about the statement above. :rotfl:


I think you are vastly overestimating other MSE poster's interest in you and your 'cause'.
I personally have no interest in how much you get paid.


Who says 'most of MSE is on the lower end of the income scale'?
To quote you:



Hello rooiewooie :wave:.

Make sure you don't get your username mixed up with wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver when you log on. :rotfl:

I see you didn't bother to read the link? afraid it might unseat your prejudices?:mad::(:rotfl:

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

I don't see how a meticulously argued meritorious Legally aided Case could possibly be construed as 'self interest' let alone have my snout in the trough.
Surely more appropriate for the rich tory bankers who have really fouled up the economy who deserve to be punished.

I asked you to provide hard evidence of the above and you refused prefering instead of me to take your guess on spec. Unfair!

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

So why should tax payers have to fund you to have the ability to pick and choose your legal represention.

Lawyers at the http://www.barprobono.org.uk/ would go through with you carefully all the details of your 'case' which if meritorious would be put to a panel of solicitors and barristers, if gaining merit then right combi of lawyers would be assembled to fight the case and all quality ones who know their onions who can deal with it in the appropriate manner. don't see problem with that as half of MSE would probably need it.

Takeaway_Addict

By carrying on posting Wouldbe you are doing your cause more harm than good.

I say 'keep it up!'

Takeaway_Addict

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver wrote: »

So why should tax payers have to fund you to have the ability to pick and choose your legal represention.

Lawyers at the http://www.barprobono.org.uk/ would go through with you carefully all the details of your 'case' which if meritorious would be put to a panel of solicitors and barristers, if gaining merit then right combi of lawyers would be assembled to fight the case and all quality ones who know their onions who can deal with it in the appropriate manner. don't see problem with that as half of MSE would probably need it.

Half? That's 5 million people right....

Definately need to cut it!

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver

You wish me to sabotage this thread???!!!!!!
I am have been trying to explain things to MSE all along.

Takeaway_Addict

wouldbeqaulitymoneysaver wrote: »

You wish me to sabotage this thread???!!!!!!

No need to wish, you're doing a cracking job already.