(1) Minister of 'Justice' rolls out the Injustice

[nickd]

Minister of Justice rolls out the injustice!

It’s not been widely publicised, but something big is happening in London’s magic legal circles this week. On Wednesday the 7th December , Her Majesty the Queen opens up a brand new space age legal centre costing the Ministry of Justice an undisclosed sum. On Wednesday the red carpet gets rolled out for the opening of the Rolls Building in Fetter Lane, London; - but at what price?






The project was started under the Labour Government and is seen by the coalition as a significant step in the right direction; - a step which will change the face of our British legal system for ever. Ken Clarke, Minister for Justice gives it his full approval as does a city full of high flying corporate city lawyers. They’ll earn millions if not billions out of it; - sadly it comes at a price. Ken Clarke sees relegating social welfare legal aid to the history books as a price worth paying; - it’ll also earn him some much needed credibility as his ministerial position comes under question by an increasing number of his fellows. Bookies are laying down odds that the 'old bruiser' will be the next front bench coalition minister to leave government, but Clarke is out to prove there's life in the old dog yet.


The Rolls Building was recently reported as being sold for £305 million pounds to Legal & General. An agreement for lease has been completed with the UK Government (Ministry of Justice) to pre-let approximately 185,000 sq ft on the lower floors of the building to be used as the UKs new flagship Commercial and Business Court. The remaining 75,000 sq ft office and storage space on the basement, lower ground, ground, sixth, seventh and eighth floors was let to global law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manages LLP immediately following shell & core completion in July 2010.

Many see it as perverse to press ahead with the venture when hundreds of law courts have been closed across England & Wales and the legal aid budget has been massively scaled back to remove vital help for the most vulnerable individuals in society.

Let's take a look at what's been rolled under the red carpet to pave the way for this new space age venture, we'll keep an eye on the Rolls Building and see what lies behind all the glass fronted splendour...

[nickd]

The Rolls Building




Here's a glimpse of what you can expect if you're lucky enough to ever get to visit this magnificent building...







Wow! It looks pretty impressive, the glossy brochure shows it in its full glory, mind you getting pictures is a bit difficult, it's a building somewhat shrouded in mystery. The brochure gives a good insight into what it's all about....

www.unlockingdisputes.com/assets/Unlocking-Disputes-Brochure-2011.pdf

[nickd]

The Justice Minister sees the Rolls Building as an exciting opportunity to attract legal disputes from all around the world to the City of London.

Here he is talking to the City lawyers...






In his speech, he praises the work of lawyers and how they contribute a massive £23 billion worth of income to the UK economy;- no less than 1.9% of GDP

Here's just a little of what he had to say when giving prominence to the direction he sees the legal profession as being headed....


“The first is promoting industry. I place enormous value on UK legal services, which are world-class, but I think we can do more to ensure they thrive. I am almost as much of an enthusiast for English law as I am for English cricket. That's why I am keen to go in to bat with UKTI, the CityUK, the Law Society, the Bar Council and others, on your behalf.


Let me start with our plans to help UK legal services. It's been said, but bears repeating, that the rule of law is one of our greatest exports. This reflects, in part, our national genius for legal services, which generated nearly 2% of UK GDP in 2009 – a rather healthy £23 billion. Exports of law firms totalled more than £3bn in the same year, nearly three times the total of a decade earlier.”



Full speech here

www.mondaq.com/x/151244/EU+Law/Rt+Hon+Kenneth+Clarke+MP+raises+concerns+about+European+contract+law

[nickd]

But hang on a moment, here we are building big brand spanking new law courts; seemingly wanting to attract everyone around the world to sort out their legal disputes in the UK and yet not that long ago the Justice Minister was snarling at lawyers in a bid to reverse a trend in which he saw Britain becoming a 'very, very legalistic and litigious' society in which huge sums are paid to 'fat cat' lawyers.





Now doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical?





Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370985/Kenneth-Clarke-cracks-win-fee-lawyers.html#ixzz1fZRCbMQ6

[nickd]

It's all part and parcel of the Ministry of Justice's 'plan for growth'. Let's take a look at it...




No, not just the front cover! I mean let's take a look at it what it says inside...


It identifies the law as one of Britain’s strengths….

"People turn to us because they know they will find world class, highly specialised practitioners and expert judges in the specialist courts. They understand that a decision from a court in the UK carries a global guarantee of impartiality, integrity and enforceability.


These strengths help to explain why the Legal Services sector generated £23.1 billion or 1.8% of the UK’s gross domestic product in 2009 and constituted £3.2 billion in exports – nearly three times more than a decade earlier.


Worldwide competition for legal services is set to intensify over the coming decade. New York, Stockholm, Paris, Geneva, Dubai, Singapore and Hong Kong all stand ready to compete with London and other UK jurisdictions as a hub of legal expertise. While the UK’s excellence and reputation is undoubted, costs and speed may affect where companies choose to resolve their disputes. We intend to do all we can to protect our competitiveness and build on our success.

Steps are to be taken as part of the Government’s Plan for Growth

the Ministry of Justice is committed to working closely with UK Trade & Investment and the sector to promote the UK as the global centre of legal arbitration and commercial law services.

As part of this we have a fine new Commercial Court building:

Dedicated, high-spec business court under one roof – the Rolls Building brings together the Chancery Division, Technology and Construction Court and Commercial Court under one roof, offering a streamlined service to businesses and maintaining the UK’s reputation as first choice for business law."


It all sounds very impressive, but what about justice for those who will never step foot in somewhere like the Rolls Building, what about those ordinary folk who just want a slice of good old fashioned justice;- often only accessible through a decreasing army of social welfare lawyers?

Read more of the Ministry's plans for growth and we'll deal with the concerns it doesn't seem to cover in the next post...

Link to the Plan for Growth...

www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/corporate-reports/MoJ/legal-services-action-plan.pdf

[nickd]

There's no reason why we shouldn't look to better and modernise our legal system. I'd like to think it's got progressively better over the years rather than worse. Projects like the Rolls Building may seem progressive and in that regard should be welcomed; - however, if it's at a cost of neglecting other areas of law, then I believe we are in grave danger of sacrificing justice for the sake of profiteering;- this would be utterly regressive and simply just not good for justice.

There's widespread concern growing over the potential passing of the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill (LASPO). Here we look at some of those concerns and I'll throw a few more into the melting pot for you to ponder over....

Ministry of Justice - looking out for the rich, whilst neglecting the needs of the poor.

An article by Catherine Baski who wrote in the Legal Gazette on the 2nd November 2011....
[/b]
‘Courts for the foreign rich, not the indigenous poor’

As the bill slashing civil legal aid speeds through parliament, a leading academic has exposed the ‘doublethink’ of the government, which appears to have one set of rules for the rich and another set for the poor.

Dean of Laws at University College London, Professor Dame Hazel Genn, contrasted the Ministry of Justice’s civil justice policy, which seeks to cut civil legal aid and encourage mediation as an alternative to court, with its desire to promote the use of the courts to international clients to settle business disputes.
Read the full article here…

www.lawgazette.co.uk/blogs/blogs/news-blog/courts-foreign-rich-not-indigenous-poor

Ministry of Justice v the needs of the chancellor

Article which touches on how all government department's are too influenced by the chancellor's need for economic growth...

"The coalition government’s Plan for Growth reflects Chancellor George Osborne’s requirement that every department must work towards a revived economy. Every department plan must be tested against this over-arching intention."

"UK Government bids for a world-class legal reputation whilst neglecting the basics back home" - see link below

chrisdale.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/uk-government-bids-for-a-world-class-legal-reputation-whilst-neglecting-the-basics-back-home/


Both of the above articles express very valid concerns over the way the Ministry of Justice reforms are headed, but there are other areas which flag up equally worrying concerns, we'll look at those in the next & final post on this section and go on and pick them apart in subsequent sections which deal with each one in turn. Do feel free to add in your own concerns.

[nickd]

I've called this this thread part 1 ' Ministry of the Justice rolls out the injustice', because - despite all the glory an official opening of the new Rolls Building will bring to London this Wednesday, it heralds a new dawn of change which we should all be aware of; - it's potentially the dawning of a very dangerous era. There's no doubt that the the functionality of the legal process within the areas of the jurisdiction which this division of the Royal Courts of Justice deals with will be greatly improved; - but it does beg serious questions over what will happen in other areas of what seem to be regarded as less important law. The danger is that simply too much emphasis is being placed on promoting UK law as a business whilst denying thousands of poorer people any recourse to law in essential areas of social welfare justice.

From here on, I'll break this article up into sections which deal with what I see as some of the major concerns which this direction in ministerial policy seems to be heading; - I hope you find them interesting.

Here are the sections which I'll take a look at in separate threads which you can access by clicking on the links provided. The links will appear as and when each thread is created.

Enjoy!.......

(Part 2) Ministry of Justice - looking out for the rich, whilst neglecting the needs of the least protected.

(Part 3) Ministry of Justice v the needs of a chancellor

(Part 4) Ministry of Justice - the dangers of predatory capitalism within our justice system, this includes two sub sections:

(A) Profiteering at public expense

(c) Promoting social divides

(Part 5) Ministry of Justice - the changing face of law and what's upon us.

(Part 6) Ministry of Justice - summary

[nickd]

Part (2) Ministry of Justice - the rich versus the poor

The Justice Minister may be modernistic when it comes to promoting profitable UK law as a thriving business





But when it comes to looking after the poorest and least protected in society, he's positively Dickensian


There have been all manor of criticisms and vigorous protests against the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill; - the most powerful argument has drawn attention to how the withdrawal of social welfare legal aid will leave the poorer members of society with little or no recourse to access to justice. Yet government legal reforms are paving the way for regulatory reform which will promote access to justice for those who can afford it most.

Ultimately, it's only the financial service sector, insurance industries and commerce who the justice minister is out to bat for ; - Ken Clarke is playing no more than lip service to the needs of the lesser classes. It's the same old rich versus poor argument, it seems that despite all this modernistic thinking, we are in real danger of reverting back to victorian times.

The economic crisis which is currently hitting many different countries is having a dramatic effect, but are austerity measures just an excuse to further divide the rich from the poor?

In this section I'll take a look at the effect this is having on us as a nation in comparison with others and go on to take a look at why it makes no sense to impose changes in our legal system which increase the social divides even further. I'll also look at how promoting UK as big business may well be seen to promote growth; - but be under no illusion it costs us all in the long run.

[nickd]

The widening rich and poor divide

Here's some excellent viewpoints on what others think of the ever widening gap between rich and poor...


"London's richest people worth 273 times more than the poorest"

"Academic argues in new book that society has the widest divide since the days of slavery"





London is most unequal city in the developed world, with the richest tenth of the population amassing 273 times the wealth owned by the bottom tenth – which creates a "means chasm" not seen since the days of a "slave owning society", according to a new book.

In Injustice: Why Social Inequality Persists published by Policy Press, Danny Dorling, a professor of human geography at Sheffield University and an expert on social disparity, paints a bleak picture of an extremely unjust Britain where differences in wealth have led to a profoundly divided society.

Dorling said Labour had managed to stop the gap in incomes from getting bigger, but this had not stopped the rich getting richer. The wealthiest had amassed assets such as second homes and expansive stock portfolios.

He says the government's latest figures show that in the capital the top 10% of society had on average a wealth of £933,563 compared to the meagre £3,420 of the poorest 10% – a wealth multiple of 273.

"Other comparable cities like New York, Stockholm, Sydney ... have wealthy people, but not as many wealthy people as London," said Dorling. "There is an inbuilt bias towards inequality in UK society today.

"We are getting wealth inequalities in London now as far as we know that have not been seen since the days of a slave-owning elite. The lesson is that it is not enough to just stop the disparity in incomes from getting bigger – you have to make it smaller to stop wealth inequality from getting worse."

See link for whole article..

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/21/wealth-social-divide-health-inequality

____________________________________________________


"London: an urban neo-Victorian dystopia"

"George Osborne's 2011 austerity measures kickstart the inexorable separation of rich and poor"




Here's how Patrick Butler sees how it may all end up...

London, once known for its diversity, became progressively more socially and economically segregated after the 2011 austerity measures kicked in, triggering six years of social upheaval that changed the the city forever.

By 2015, academics had coined the phrase "urban neo-Victorian dystopia" to describe the dramatic social and spatial changes in the city they had begun to compare, with only a little exaggeration, with the London described by Charles Dickens 160 years earlier.

The housing benefit reforms of 2012 and 2013 had swept tens of thousands of lower income families out of inner London, to the fringes of the capital and beyond to Margate, Hastings, Milton Keynes and Luton.

This triggered an inexorable and progressive separation of rich and poor in the capital and helped unleash a wave of social problems.


For a full read of this really interesting look into the future, click on the link to the whole story...


www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/02/uk-2017-london-dystopia

____________________________________________________


An article by Catherine Baski who wrote in the Legal Gazette on the 2nd November 2011....

‘Courts for the foreign rich, not the indigenous poor’



"As the bill slashing civil legal aid speeds through parliament, a leading academic has exposed the ‘doublethink’ of the government, which appears to have one set of rules for the rich and another set for the poor."

"Dean of Laws at University College London, Professor Dame Hazel Genn, contrasted the Ministry of Justice’s civil justice policy, which seeks to cut civil legal aid and encourage mediation as an alternative to court, with its desire to promote the use of the courts to international clients to settle business disputes.

"Speaking last month at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators mediation symposium, Genn said the government’s drive to push parties into mediation reflected a ‘jaundiced view of the law’ that threatened access to justice and acted as a justification for removing resources from the civil justice system."

Other key quotes include...

"Genn also drew attention to rhetoric promoting mediation to support the withdrawal of legal aid.

Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly, speaking at the CEDR 20th anniversary awards in November 2010, had said: ‘The courts should not be used as arenas of conflict, argument and debate when a more mature and considered discussion of the issues at hand between parties could see a better outcome for them.’

And justice secretary Kenneth Clarke, later the same month, stated that our legal aid system is one of the most expensive in the world, which ‘encourages’ the use of courts and uses taxpayers’ money to fund ‘unnecessary litigation’.

Clarke said the government needed to discourage people from resorting to lawyers ‘whenever they face a problem’ as alternative dispute resolution is ‘more effective and suitable’."


The rest of Catherine Baski's highly interesting article can be found here…

www.lawgazette.co.uk/blogs/blogs/news-blog/courts-foreign-rich-not-indigenous-poor

[nickd]

Why the rich versus poor argument is important to legal reform

In their party conference speeches, none of the three leaders promoted social justice as being anywhere near or even part of the agenda. There's fairly widespread support for ensuring social justice is maintained from backbenchers across all the political divides, but the problem is we now have a coalition government which is fixated on deficit reduction being achieved by cutting public services to the bare bone and by achieving economic growth by raising huge expectations on the private sector; - it's an agenda which they will stick to at any cost; - the party line is dictated by the front benches and ultimately the backbenchers soon fall into line when it comes to voting on legislation which supports the coalition in achieving their overall objective in policy.

It's just not populist to promote social welfare related justice. We hear so much talk of disability discrimination; - it's not, it's discrimination against disabled people principally because they are seen as benefit claimants - our media fueled society has promoted hatred towards those reliant on state benefits by it's disgustingly over zealous promotion of them as cheats, fakers, scroungers and spongers.

Equally those who serve the public are increasingly being seen as villainous, sadly it seems that mainstream media has created hatred between the private and public sectors. Public services are continually promoted by the media as a drain on the tax payer.

There's no doubt that the Labour party is the one which most solidly upholds the case for maintaining social justice for those who need it most. Labour's problem is they have been forced into a corner where they stand accused of creating a culture of welfare dependency. Labour should defend their record more vigorously because they did a lot of good work on welfare; - but it just wouldn't cut it with benefit claimant hating voters to be seen to defend them. I think it's a great shame that Labour haven't been able to stand their corner more publicly and gain more publicity for some of the excellent work they did on welfare.

Let's not forget it was after all the Conservative party who created the very same benefits they now condemn. If you look at the real figures on the claimant count you will see that the majority of the increase on expenditure comes from maintaining a higher number of people who live far longer than they used to. The Tax Credit system was hugely problematic in its inception, but it did help move many people from welfare to work; - child poverty was also reduced.

Labour can't really go wagging the finger at Government on being too close to the influence of the financial sector or the city of London because the Blair years promoted the role of the city. However, they can say they negated the promotion of predatory influence by keeping sufficient measures in place to prevent social injustice; - I don't understand why Labour don't remind Government that they were behind the introduction of the highly effective Community Legal Service in the Access to Justice reforms back in 1999, it was seen as the radical and innovative reform and yes it still has a place within our legal system. It seems bizarre
to remove such a useful community tool when there is so much accent on localism.

Labour tried out public funding initiatives (PFI's), some succeeded whilst others failed spectacularly. The Conservatives and Liberals condemned almost all of these at every stage; - yet they now promote them quietly as a solution to the provision of public services on a buy now pay later basis. I'll touch on this in the section dealing with predatory capitalism and highlight how PFI's will cost the Ministry of Justice dearly when it comes to penal & rehabilitation of offending reform. Labour should be highlighting how much this will cost us when it comes to paying back the publicly funded private providers who are fast becoming involved in the Work programme, to name but one of the initiatives in which PFI's are being utilised.

So, despite all of the valiant efforts made by Labour backbenchers such as Yvonne Fovargue, Kate Green, Karen Buck and key Labour politicians such as Andy Slaughter, Sadiq Khan and the ardent Lord Bach, I fear their efforts may be in vain unless they can pull the opposition apart on some of its disastrous policies on welfare reform, PFI's and so forth. Knocking major holes in the coalition's disastrous Work programme on costing would attract more publicity for instance. Few people realise how Government is prepared to pay Work providers up to £14,000 per person to get them back into work.

I covered a lot of my concerns on welfare reform , not least the sheer cost of it and the technical impracticalities which will cause it to flounder, in my article on the welfare reform car crash. It's been well read on this forum but it's hardly the stuff your average Daily Mail, Sun or Express reader will want to sit down and read with their cornflakes in the morning; - it's so much easier to delight in demonizing another benefit claimant whose been caught out auditioning for the X Factor.

I fear all the technical argument against withdrawing legal aid for those with a social welfare problem is only of interest to those who administer it, argue against it, believe in it, or are the very individuals who absolutely need it to get justice against the massive state machine. I'm afraid it's all falling on deaf ears, although the House of Lords seems much more willing to engage in constructive debate than the House of Commons was. We all know how the political heavy weights leading these reforms will bully their backbenchers into supporting them because this is a government which is hellbent on demoting social justice; - it's rife in nearly all of their policies.

On the rich versus poor argument, I therefore think it's important we look at the make up of the key politicians who are pushing this legislation through, we'll take a look at this in the next post at the big three. The rich versus poor argument is all important in this increasingly divided society of ours.

You'll see why this is all about the rich versus the poor.

[nickd]

Let's take a look at the big guns rolling out legal reform....

Ken Clarke



Jonathon Djanogly



Lord McNally



We'll look at each of them in turn in the next 3 posts

[nickd]

Ken Clarke's got a vision






But it's got very little to do with justice for all


Clarke must deliver on something, but his track record so for as justice minister isn't looking too good


The bookies are laying down the odds that Ken Clarke will be the next senior minister to leave the front benches, others are saying that Ken Clarke represents a traditional breed of Conservative that the voters can relate to.

Clarke is seen as being too soft on crime

Clarke's position as justice minister has been to say the least difficult. He found himself in hot water over the radio announcement he made which sounded as though he was demoting the severity of Rape in certain cases; - it didn't go down at all well and earned him some well deserved adverse publicity.

This was followed over his plans to impose a 50% reduction in the prison sentence an offender would receive in certain types of offences, providing the offender pleaded guilty at an early stage. It was seen by many as going too soft on crime, many people could see the sense in what Clarke was proposing; - after all, imprisonment is prohibitively expensive and doesn't always act as a deterent, plus there are definite advantages in avoiding the cost of expensive criminal trials. But the August riots made it clear that the coalition had to be seen to be tough on fighting crime. You can be sure that the Prime Minister had more than a few words to say to Clarke and before long he's been brought into line and was talking tough on beating crime. Much of Clarke's work on this part of the sentencing reforms appears to have been undone and he now spoke in a manner much more in line in with party policy...

Clarke survives after toughening up on the 'feral underclass', we all saw how swiftly rioters and looters were banged up after round the clock quick justice sessions sprang into action all over the country. Unsurprisingly, we didn't get to hear much of the whole operation.

At the Conservative Party Conference 2011, Clarke proclaimed

we must tackle 'feral underclass', prisoners should carry out work while in jail as part of the process of tackling the growing ''feral underclass''[/b][/i]

In his speech to the Conservative Party Conference, Mr Clarke said jails should be ''places of retribution but also places of reform''.

Mr Clarke said he was ''dramatically'' expanding the working prisons programme and welcomed the support of eight major companies, including Virgin and Marks & Spencer.

The Justice Secretary, who has faced claims he is soft on crime, told the gathering in Manchester: ''At Altcourse Prison near Liverpool, prisoners do 40 hours of hard work every week in a metal workshop.

''Part of their earnings goes to fund services for victims of crime and because these prisoners have got some skills, they are less likely - a lot less likely - to return to prison.
''So the burden on the taxpayer, on you and me, is less.


Read more here with a link to a video of Clarke's new tough talking message..

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8806128/Conservative-Party-Conference-2011-we-must-tackle-feral-underclass-says-Ken-Clarke.html


Clarke was talking some sense on his far reaching prison policies, he must be the first Tory minister to have started to recognise that prison doesn't always work and that alternatives could be looked into. But the tabloid headlines dictate coalition policy time and time again; Clarke was undoubtedly leant upon to ensure he was seen to be tough on crime, it was with no surprise that his immediate target was the lower social classes; - Clarke had been brought into line.

He managed to gloss over the damaging remarks he made about the serious impact on Rape by making a rather feeble apology, saying his words had been misconstrued. Tellingly, his turn around from reducing the numbers of people in prison doesn't only coincide with the August riots, it also coincides with the increasing number of private (but publicly funded) funded companies being awarded contracts in running our prisons.

And what about some swifter justice for Mr Asil Nadir, who stands accused of multi million pound fraud? The ex-tory party donor of Polly Peck fame still awaits trial since his return to the country shortly after the Tories were re-elected. His arrival at the Old Bailey saw him turn up in a limousine; - how is it that justice is so slow when it suits the highly flying ex-corporates?



____________________________________________________


Clarke's next skirmish came what has been affectionately called 'Catgate'. Clarke went head to head with Theresa May over the issue of immigration and human rights.





Who would go on and survive catgate?


"Clarke outburst wrecks May's big speech on human rights"

Home Secretary claims illegal immigrant can't be deported because he has a pet cat - but Ken Clarke says it's not true
Mrs May said the Human Rights Act 'needs to go' to restore 'sanity' in the UK immigration system


Ken Clarke created havoc at the Tory conference yesterday by provoking a blazing Cabinet row over human rights law which was quickly dubbed ‘cat-gate’.

The Justice Secretary, who also made incendiary comments on Europe and the Lib Dems, went out of his way to pick a fight with Theresa May over her plans to end rampant abuse of Labour’s Human Rights Act.

Mrs May, in a loudly cheered speech, had cited the example of a Bolivian immigrant who ‘cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had a pet cat’.

Theresa May ended up the cat that got the cream, hardly any wonder given how few women the Prime Minister has in his front bench team. I would say the more worrying aspect of this fallout went much deeper; Clarke was in all probability right in what he was trying to say; - the reference to the immigrant having a cat would only have been one of a number of factors considered by the judge. Theresa may was promoted as coming out on top because her words promoted the government's get tough stance on illegal immigrants and the over protection afforded by the Human rights Act. This was a battle Clarke could never win.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045156/Theresa-May-Ken-Clarke-clash-catgate-Human-Rights-Act.html#ixzz1gFZg1Spf

____________________________________________________


Clarke continues the gaffes as he lays into social welfare lawyers. Outrageously, Ken Clarke has inferred that he believes legal aid lawyers to be disingenuous cowards

Clarke is a Queens Counsel (Highly paid lawyers called QC's like old Kavanagh QC on the television) who one would normally expect to have some compassion for those who help the less well off.

He made an outrageous statement when introducing the legal aid bill into the House of Lords. Here's what he said...

"The last time I met the back bench Peers, in the House of Lords, who were about to debate this I said what you have marching towards you is an army of lawyers advancing behind a line of women and children, saying of course they are not concerned about the income of the profession; their only concern is for these vulnerable clients who will be adversely affected if they are not paid at the rate they currently are." - Clarke also makes a joking remark aimed at those who protect 'vulnerable clients'

You can listen to him on the following video when he spoke with the International Bar Association.





This remark is seen by many, not least myself, to be utterly contemptible. Social welfare lawyers typically earn an average ofn £25,000 per year, work long hours and help people with complicated problems, they are cases involving clients who are not always the easiest to work with because they rarely present with easily sorted problems. A social welfare lawyer most often works for a law centre or local Citizens Advice Bureau and the organisation they work for gets no more than £180 for a debt case or £150 per welfare benefit case, regardless of how low it takes to sort out.

Clarke didn't tackle the thorny issue of his fellow Queen's counsel who actually do rather well out of legal aid. It's well known in legal aid circles that the Prime minister's brother has raked in over a £1 million pounds from legal aid fees.

It illustrates Clarke's contempt for those who help women, children and the vulnerable; - his comments on making a lucrative living out of social welfare legal aid are nothing short of ludicrous.

It's yet another example of how Clarke is all about law so long as it's not there to protect those who need it most. he's making a clear division between social welfare lawyers with a conscience and profit making lawyers who think of little more than their bank balances. These legal reforms are all about promoting profitable law, usually by corporate lawyers but also by high flying QC's who rake in the money from high cost fraud cases and so forth; - there's a clear division between the rich lawyer and the poor lawyer. By rich lawyer, I stress the word rich; - not the many who really struggle to get their fees to cover the cost of running a practice.


____________________________________________________


Ken Clarke's political history

Clarke has been a minister throughout the 18 years of successive Conservative governments from 1979 to 1997, he has contested the Conservative Party leadership three times—in 1997, 2001 and 2005—and was defeated each time. Since 1997 he has been President of the Tory Reform Group. Notably, he is President of the Conservative Europe Group and Vice-President of the European Movement UK. Despite this conflict, and his involvement with the tobacco industry, Conservative leader David Cameron returned Clarke to the Shadow Cabinet in March 2009 as Shadow Business Secretary. When Cameron became Prime Minister in May 2010 he appointed Clarke as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, after appointing Vince Cable, a Liberal Democrat, Business Secretary. He also likes Cricket. He's an ex-criminal defence lawyer which probably goes someway to explaining why over all the savage cuts to legal aid; - the criminal legal aid budget remains almost intact, that'll be Ken looking after the old school.

Quite where Clarke's heart is on his parties position on Europe is hard to tell, many are saying the pro-european is deeply unhappy over the Prime Minister's veto. We'll look at where this may fit in when looking at ex-chancellor Clarke versus George Osborne, but all in due course.

Ken Clarkes's wealth

Oh yes, Clarke's one of the millionaire club.....goes without saying really. If you're interested you can have a look at his expenses and declaration of interests on the parliamentary website.

Next up is Jonathon Djanogly...

[nickd]

So let's take a look at Jonathon Djanogly and a bit of his background, here he is on the campaign with John Major...







Djanogly took John Major's ultra safe in Huntingdon where he became elected as constituent MP, faring considerably better than he did when he fought Oxford East and lost against Labour. He went on to become a prominent minister for justice under David Cameron.


Here's how how Jonathon Djanogly introduces the legal aid reforms at the Conservative party conference in 2010....





He's the second speaker at the conference meeting. He talks of a £9 billion Ministry of Justice bill which needs to be cut to meet his chancellors need to reduce state expenditure. This was prior to the Ministry's announcements as to where £350 million pounds worth of cuts would fall. He starts off with an attack on criminal trial costs, high administration and poor previous 'salami' slicing reform.

Somewhat ironically Mr Djanogly says the starting point in reform was to protect the vulnerable. Oh how things would change as the reforms got rolled out.

The telling point as to how how these reforms would be shaped is very much dictated by the words of the third speaker the vice chairman of the Bar. He starts at around 0.17.35 in the video and here's his opening remark....

"May I say straight away that I entirely agree that the starting point should not be lawyers fees, I'd be surprised if anyone says otherwise"

The remark was met with a comforting laughter around the room. Isn't it strange that when all the talk is on cuts, there's an overriding emphasis on lawyers wanting to protect the fees? I don't mean the fees of hard working lawyers who make little out out of legal aid these days, I mean the kind of fees once earned by Mr Djanogly as a corporate lawyer; - A Daily mail article reports how he used to earn around £300,000 a year as a senior partner for city law firm SJ Berwin, that's an awful lot more than a social welfare lawyer ever sees!


Just look at the SJ Berwin offices, it's nearly as impressive as the Rolls building itself!...







You have to wonder why Djanogly gave up such lucrative work in 2009 don't you? I mean to say, SJ Berwin's the kind of firm that's going places. Here's just a little of how they were promoting their expertise back in 2008....









Property and equity, wow that's big business, why on earth would you want to give all that up? Could it be that our Jonathon wanted to go sliding up the greasy pole to even bigger and better things?







And oh boy does Jonathon know how to make it to the top!, he's made it into the Ministry of Justice and what's more Ken Clarke's left him in almost in charge of steering legal reform through Parliament; - I reckon Sir Harry will be very pleased with the boy wonder!


There's an abundance of articles on the internet about how it is that Djanogly went into politics because of his connections, here's one that sums it up quite nicely...


"Around that legendary city of Nottingham there is a name which is very difficult to avoid and even more difficult to forget. Djanogly. There is, for example, the Djanogly City Academy, previously the Technology College. Then there are the University Djanogly Gallery and Lecture Theatre and a Djanogly playground. Even more splendidly we might come across the Sir Harry and Lady Djanogly Learning Resource Centre – a daringly circular building on an island platform. All this reminds us that the said Sir Harry, apart from owning the largest collection of Lowry paintings in the world, has also been an habitual sponsor of technology and learning and if we ask how he can afford this we need to know only that he has interests in, apart from anything else, the massively famous textile company Coats Viyella (now Coats plc), which he is said to have founded. Another family investment has been their son Jonathan who, after an unexciting academic experience, qualified as a solicitor and is now a partner in the corporate department of a city law firm as well as the Conservative MP for Huntingdon – one of the safest seats in the country previously represented by Prime Minister John Major, who is a close personal friend of Sir Harry.

Millionaire

The Djanogly family fortune is put at £300 million; Jonathan is himself a millionaire, recording shareholdings in companies including Imperial Tobacco and BP. However it has not all been unyielding happiness for among the rural bliss of Huntingdon there has been mutinous gossip on the theme that Sir Harry's close bonds with John Major may have allowed some subtle arm-twisting to ensure that his son was selected to stand for the Tories after Major gave up. Any such resentment could not have been soothed by the new MP's subsequent rapid rise up the Greasy Pole, in opposition and government, until Cameron's victory in 2010 saw him blossom into Under-Secretary of State at the Justice Department, dealing with matters including legal aid, family justice and the law courts.

Read the rest of Ivan's article about Djanogly on the 'greasy pole' here....

www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2011/no-1287-november-2011/greasy-pole-djanogly-–-one-family


Political history


Djanogly was elected as a councillor for Regents Park ward in the City of Westminster in 1994 and re-elected in 1998. He unsuccessfully contested the parliamentary seat of Oxford East at the 1997 General Election where he was defeated by the sitting Labour MP Andrew Smithby 16,665 votes. Before the 2001 General Election he was selected as Conservative candidate for the very safe seat of Huntingdon, following the retirement of sitting MP and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Sir John Major. Djanogly resigned his council seat early in 2001 shortly before the general election campaign.

At the 2001 election Djanogly held the Huntingdon seat comfortably with a majority of 12,792 and has remained an MP since. He made his maiden speech on 2 July 2001. Djanogly held the Huntingdon seat again in 2005 and 2010 with majorities of 12,847 and 10,819 respectively.

He served on the Trade and Industry Select Committee from 2001, was promoted to the frontbench by Michael Howard as an opposition spokesman on Home Affairs in 2004, and served as Shadow Solicitor General between May 2004 and May 2010. In 2005 Djanogly was also appointed a shadow Business Minister in the team shadowing the Department of Trade and Industry (United Kingdom) (now the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) where until the 2010 General Election he worked on corporate governance and business regulations.


This is a minister big on connections





Perhaps that's why he's become all important in these reforms?


Well you get the picture, some may say Djanogly seems to be somewhat lacking in raw talent; - but he's very well connected in the city. He's even been labeled as lazy, it's hard to see him as the kind of MP who is going to move heaven and earth for his constituency; - unless of course it suits. There's no denying that Djanogly has done well to get where he is - however it was!

He's obviously comfortable pacing the corridors of power in and around Westminster, all very handy really when he wants to pop out and see his city connections. The Ministry of Justice aren't being too cooperative when it comes to Djanogly complying with a freedom of information request over his meetings with the Insurance industry, no doubt a probe prompted by his family connections with Djanogly Insurance. We also reported on Mylegal earlier in the year over the possibility that Djanogly may have given the British Insurance Industry just a little bit of a helping hand when it came to drafting their responses to the Ministry's consultation on 'no win no fee' arrangements; - publicly loathed by Djanogly at every opportunity, which is all a bit surprising as we managed to track down an interest he had in two ambulance chasing claim management firms located in Manchester.


City connections are all important


When we talk of the city, the automatic link people make is with the finance industry and the banks in particular. But we'll be looking in a little more detail at the London lawyers, in particular the 'magic circle' which I've already touched on briefly. The instructions these firms take on is phenomenal. You have to bear in mind the role they play in acting for large private firms in procurement, international deals, competition law, high profile law suits connected with the banking industry as well as sometimes working on instructions for or against government itself.

There's link after link of big money tied up in and around the city and other cities too. Take Hammersons, a huge property firm, it leased out very impressive offices to international law firm Allen and Overy amongst its many other property acquisitions. Up to April 2011 David Edmonds was a Non-Executive Director of Hammerson in 2003 and is a member of the Remuneration Committee. He acts as Chairman to the Hammerson Pension Scheme Trustees. He is chairman of Wincanton plc, the Legal Services Board and NHS Shared Business Services Limited. He is also a non-executive director of William Hill plc and the Olympic Park Legacy.

Take this link to an article on the net, it also received coverage in the guardian.....


Hammerson's and the city mayor







Hammerson's city connections attracted controversy when the the 684th lord mayor was inaugurated to great fanfare at the annual Lord Mayor’s Show at St Paul’s and the Victorian Embankment.

But while mums and dads sip mulled wine and prop little ones up on their shoulders, fireworks of a less welcomed nature have already begun as campaigners accuse the current lord mayor, Michael Bear, of pursuing a major conflict of interest over land purchases.

Members of the Barbican Association are questioning the City of London Corporation’s decision to allow a major development in the Barbican area – London Wall Place – arguing that the developer, Hammerson, was given the green light despite of local opposition because Bear is a Hammerson employee.

Bear took up his post as lord mayor during a year-long sabbatical from Hammerson.

See link www.londonlovesbusiness.com/news/lord-mayor-in-row-over-major-development-on-city-fringe/979.article


We'll go on and look at the Legal Services Board because it's an all important part of the Ministry's legal reforms, what's striking about the Hammerson connection is the link between a large international property firm and the way government is looking to expand its legal business in the cities; - acquiring suitable property development space is crucial at a time when space is so hard to find!

reports.hammerson.com/client/13/133289/html/ar_directors-reports_board-of-directors_default.htm.


Connection after connection after connection


There are all manner of city connections, it's a whole web of wealthy individuals (often political party donors) associated with companies and on various boards. Take the well known Tory donor Lord Ashcroft for instance, who does he contact when giving 'instructions'? - law firm Allen & Overy were only too willing to help him out when he got into a spot of bother. I'm not saying these law firms are up to anything dodgy or untoward, it's just that whenever there's something going off in the city, you'll see them involved.

Take the latest news about fugitive Michael Brown being tracked down abroad, it transpires that law firm Allen & Overy were acting for the banks before he fled in an eight week trial in the commercial courts, here's more......

HSBC v 5th Avenue and Brown: LTL 2/12/08 (Commercial Court) and 6/4/09 (Court of Appeal). Instructed by Allen & Overy for HSBC, both on appeal to the Court of Appeal (March 2009) and for the eight week Commercial Court trial. HSBC successfully defended claims arising from the bank fraud perpetrated by Michael Brown, the Liberal Democrat donor convicted for that fraud. The trial was one of The Lawyer's "Top Trials of 2007".

www.maitlandchambers.com/barristers/detail.asp?MemberID=64


The corporate law firms are well and truly entwined with the city and all the deals which go on; - it's why they are so interested in the future.


Like I say more later......!












Read more: www.dailmail.co.uk/news/article-1310704/Justice-Minister-Jonathan-Djanogly-paid-detectives-spy-colleagues.html#ixzz1icrMN9v7


We've got some interesting material on Djanogly, well both the Guardian and Telegraph thought so!