Fascist plan to jail lawyers

Scrote said:
If it's fraudulent then it's not exploiting a loop-hole. That's the same as tax-avoidance and tax-evasion.

What he's saying is that if a lawyer commits or advises his client to commit fraud then there will be a new law specifically created to deal with this that has it's own sentencing guidelines over and above any current sanctions.
Click to expand...

Lawyers advise their clients all the time the best things to say, or not to say ... lawyers game the system just like accountants do to the best of their knowledge and ability to favour their clients interests ... it's what they do. If a lawyer advises someone that their best path is ("path government doesn't like") ... that's doing their job and it should be up to legislators to fix lazy legislation and not threaten people who help operate one of the key parts of our legal system - the right to a fair trial and the right to representation and advice.

Lets keep off tax and stay purely on law then shall we ... what about criminal barristers that earn top whack for getting serious career criminals off the hook on a technicality, or those keeping out rich sex offenders or any of the other things lawyers do that, in my book at least are way worse than trying to help someone who is in fear of their life and persecution at home actually find somewhere safe they can start a new life. I don't like any of it - but again I say fix the system don't try to make scapegoats out of the people that have to work in it.

As has been said, this is deliberately worded and done to further the culture war - it does nothing to actually help anyone, or fix anything other then help add fresh paint to the target the government are trying to paint on "liberal lefty lawyers" backs IMO.
 
If someone commits fraud they should likely be prosecuted, it would causes a loss to the public purse it also brings the asylum system into disrepute and increases negativity to asylum seekers when they should be welcomed.

Are they proposing new specific laws it would appear that if you could prove anything it’s likely to be caught under the Fraud Act already?
 
The job of a lawyer is to win the case. If winning a case by doing something the government doesn't like could risk the lawyer going to prison then there's a chance that lawyers will start to refuse these cases.

It's easy enough to say "don't commit fraud and you're not at risk" but the government are the ones who define what fraud is. If "fraud" is broad enough to cover any loophole then these cases won't be worth the risk for any lawyers. And those that do take the cases will have to err on the side of caution and won't be able to do the best job for their clients.

I'm not sure "just go along with it" is good advice for the left. Not unless fraud is specifically defined in a way that really makes no change to the existing laws. I don't see that happening though.
 
rbmfc1985 said:
The job of a lawyer is to win the case. If winning a case by doing something the government doesn't like could risk the lawyer going to prison then there's a chance that lawyers will start to refuse these cases.

It's easy enough to say "don't commit fraud and you're not at risk" but the government are the ones who define what fraud is. If "fraud" is broad enough to cover any loophole then these cases won't be worth the risk for any lawyers. And those that do take the cases will have to err on the side of caution and won't be able to do the best job for their clients.

I'm not sure "just go along with it" is good advice for the left. Not unless fraud is specifically defined in a way that really makes no change to the existing laws. I don't see that happening though.
Click to expand...
It’s nothing to do with the left or the right.

It’s the process of law and the legal system in this country.

The Tories are ridiculously trying to blame ’lefty lawyers’ for their own immigration mess.

Its not working though because most people don’t understand what they are going on about.

And that’s because blaming the lawyers does not add up and most people in this country recognise the basic right to a fair hearing.
 
HolgateCorner said:
It’s nothing to do with the left or the right.

It’s the process of law and the legal system in this country.

The Tories are ridiculously trying to blame ’lefty lawyers’ for their own immigration mess.

Its not working though because most people don’t understand what they are going on about.

And that’s because blaming the lawyers does not add up and most people in this country recognise the basic right to a fair hearing.
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying it was to do with the left. I was referring to an earlier post that said the left should agree with them and ask why they didn't do it earlier. I don't think that's a good idea.
 
rbmfc1985 said:
I wasn't saying it was to do with the left. I was referring to an earlier post that said the left should agree with them and ask why they didn't do it earlier. I don't think that's a good idea.
Click to expand...
I was only making an additional comment not arguing with you and I completely agree that the ‘left’ whoever that might be should keep out of it. It’s a Tory mess let them own it.
 
rbmfc1985 said:
I wasn't saying it was to do with the left. I was referring to an earlier post that said the left should agree with them and ask why they didn't do it earlier. I don't think that's a good idea.
Click to expand...
HolgateCorner said:
I was only making an additional comment not arguing with you and I completely agree that the ‘left’ whoever that might be should keep out of it. It’s a Tory mess let them own it.
Click to expand...
It's not the mess around processing asylum claims that Labour need to be getting involved with.

It's specifically this call for rogue lawyers to face prosecution that they need to get behind vocally.

Otherwise we're going to go into the election with the Tories making claims about Labour supporting criminal immigrant practices.

It hasn't been brought up by the Tories as a serious attempt to get the law changed. It's just about pushing the lie that the Tories are tough on illegal immigrants.

Labour don't need to actually do anything. They just have to support the governments tough stance on criminality.
 
Scrote said:
It's not the mess around processing asylum claims that Labour need to be getting involved with.

It's specifically this call for rogue lawyers to face prosecution that they need to get behind vocally.

Otherwise we're going to go into the election with the Tories making claims about Labour supporting criminal immigrant practices.

It hasn't been brought up by the Tories as a serious attempt to get the law changed. It's just about pushing the lie that the Tories are tough on illegal immigrants.

Labour don't need to actually do anything. They just have to support the governments tough stance on criminality.
Click to expand...
You are seriously suggesting that labour should back the tory rhetoric of prosecuting "rogue" lawyers? Are you nuts?
 
Laughing said:
You are seriously suggesting that labour should back the tory rhetoric of prosecuting "rogue" lawyers? Are you nuts?
Click to expand...
How is it nuts. This is a fairly transparent attempt to position the Tories as tough on immigration and Labour as supporters of 'criminal' lawyers.

If Labour frame it as the Tories not having done enough about it in their 13+ years in office it leaves the Tories no room for manoeuvre. The whole thing goes away and gets filed in the failed culture-war attempts bin.

If Labour make any noises to suggest this isn't a good idea they'll get crucified.
 
Scrote said:
How is it nuts. This is a fairly transparent attempt to position the Tories as tough on immigration and Labour as supporters of 'criminal' lawyers.

If Labour frame it as the Tories not having done enough about it in their 13+ years in office it leaves the Tories no room for manoeuvre. The whole thing goes away and gets filed in the failed culture-war attempts bin.

If Labour make any noises to suggest this isn't a good idea they'll get crucified.
Click to expand...
As I posted above I think the whole thing is too clever and convoluted for most people, that’s why it isn’t sticking.

Trying to tarnish lawyers as corrupt and sleazy betrays a Tory lack of understanding of the working class and how they think.

Starmer is much better off comparing the Tories to cowboy builders, everybody understands that.
 
Scrote said:
How is it nuts. This is a fairly transparent attempt to position the Tories as tough on immigration and Labour as supporters of 'criminal' lawyers.

If Labour frame it as the Tories not having done enough about it in their 13+ years in office it leaves the Tories no room for manoeuvre. The whole thing goes away and gets filed in the failed culture-war attempts bin.

If Labour make any noises to suggest this isn't a good idea they'll get crucified.
Click to expand...
Holgate summed it up nicely.

To add my tuppence worth. Labour don't need to do anything with jenricks ridiculous statement. It doesn't deserve an opposition response and very few voters will connect with this nonsense.

Labour would look petty and alienate some of their voters without taking a single tory vote.
 
HolgateCorner said:
Yes but you are intelligent enough to assess the detail of what is being said.

How will the average Sun reader with racist tendencies absorb it?

I’m afraid it’s all part of the ‘lefty lawyers’ narrative, as if lawyers are somehow political and have political influence when the reality is that in a free country everybody is entitled to proper representation in court.

Lawyers and Labour are not responsible for the current immigration issues.
Click to expand...
What immigration crisis?
 
Scrote said:
Which is why Labour should hard agree and ask why the Tories are dragging their feet.

We're on here discussing it. The misinterpretation will be headline news tomorrow. Job done as far as Tory central is concerned.


If it's fraudulent then it's not explioting a loop-hole. That's the same as tax-avoidance and tax-evasion.

What he's saying is that if a lawyer commits or advises his client to commit fraud then there will be a new law specifically created to deal with this that has it's own sentencing guidelines over and above any current sanctions.
Click to expand...
That law already exists
 
Laughing said:
This is nonsense on a couple of levels.

If a lawyers client lies the lawyer is under an obligation to keep it to himself. The only time he can break privelige is of his client is about to commit a crime for which he is not being charged.

What is said between a lawyer and his client is priveliged and none of the judiciary business. He can coach all be wants. A prosecuter cannot.

It's an example of escalating culture wars and that alone should be enough to "see something wrong in this"
Click to expand...

If a lawyers client lies the lawyer is under an obligation to keep it to himself
If a lawyer knows that his client is lying, then he can tell the client that he cannot act for him unless he tells the truth. If the client refuses, then the solicitor must inform the judge that his client intends to commit perjury.
A prosecutor can also coach all he wants, e.g, by exagerating costs, expense, how the crime has affected them etc,
 
Laughing said:
You are seriously suggesting that labour should back the tory rhetoric of prosecuting "rogue" lawyers? Are you nuts?
Click to expand...
What exactly is a "rogue lawyer" How many of them have been identified, tried, prosecuted, jailed.- there is nothing to back. Let the Tories identify a "rogue lawyer". Because what they mean by rogue lawyer is someone defending an immigrant or asylum seeker. Or someone overclaiming a few quid on their "benefits".
 
Trug said:
A prosecutor can also coach all he wants, e.g, by exagerating costs, expense, how the crime has affected them etc,
Click to expand...
Are you talking about England and Wales?

If so can you point to some examples as I am very interested in this?
 
JackG said:
I wonder if this is bait for Starmer?
Click to expand...
This smells like a culture war trap for Labour. Starmer has successfully represented asylum seekers in the past. The Mail has already declared him personally responsible for all immigrants living at the Ritz at taxpayers' expense (see Full Fact). The Tories are simply trying to provoke a response from Labour to keep the issue live, no matter how unfounded the accusations. Labour should give it a wide berth.
 
JackG said:
This smells like a culture war trap for Labour. Starmer has successfully represented asylum seekers in the past. The Mail has already declared him personally responsible for all immigrants living at the Ritz at taxpayers' expense (see Full Fact). The Tories are simply trying to provoke a response from Labour to keep the issue live, no matter how unfounded the accusations. Labour should give it a wide berth.
Click to expand...
The tories just won't stop flogging that dead horse, will they?
 
JackG said:
This smells like a culture war trap for Labour. Starmer has successfully represented asylum seekers in the past. The Mail has already declared him personally responsible for all immigrants living at the Ritz at taxpayers' expense (see Full Fact). The Tories are simply trying to provoke a response from Labour to keep the issue live, no matter how unfounded the accusations. Labour should give it a wide berth.
Click to expand...
If Labour (or left figures) push any narrative of this being ridiculous then the Tories get what they want.

If Labour don't say anything then this will be pushed up the agenda as something the Tories see Labour not wanting to touch.

Therefore Labour need to go in quick and hard with absolute support for any measures that reduce criminality and illegal immigration (it doesn't matter what the existing law is, that's not the point). Pushing it back at the Tories as them not doing enough is even better as it nips it in the bud and removes it as a weapon come election time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top