Removal of Parental Responsibilty for Long term Prisoners

Civil liberties gone mad, in the eyes of the law no matter what you do you will unless your child is put up for adoption have responsibilty for your child.

This means you can abuse children be prosecuted and still have parental responsibilty, you can murder somebody, rape somebody and god knows what else but it would never be removed.

This means a child or a partner who has endured years of abuse still has to seek permission to take there child out of the country by somebody who is in prison, the only steps you can have put in place are no contact orders and prohibitive steps order, even then if you were to leave the country for longer than a month you would have to still seek permission from the other parent who could be more of a danger to the childs well being.

Your liberties are taken away when you goto prison and i feel if it is a long term sentence parental responsibility should be removed especially if the imprisoned parent is not released until after the child is of adult age.

Why is this idea important?

Civil liberties gone mad, in the eyes of the law no matter what you do you will unless your child is put up for adoption have responsibilty for your child.

This means you can abuse children be prosecuted and still have parental responsibilty, you can murder somebody, rape somebody and god knows what else but it would never be removed.

This means a child or a partner who has endured years of abuse still has to seek permission to take there child out of the country by somebody who is in prison, the only steps you can have put in place are no contact orders and prohibitive steps order, even then if you were to leave the country for longer than a month you would have to still seek permission from the other parent who could be more of a danger to the childs well being.

Your liberties are taken away when you goto prison and i feel if it is a long term sentence parental responsibility should be removed especially if the imprisoned parent is not released until after the child is of adult age.

Abolish legal aid for civil litigation

Abolish legal aid for civil litigation, e.g. immigration and nationality, debt, housing, family matters, etc. All such cases should be heard by a magistrate or judge with no requirement for solicitors, lawyers, barristers, etc to be present and no costs to awarded other than in the case of vexatious litigation.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish legal aid for civil litigation, e.g. immigration and nationality, debt, housing, family matters, etc. All such cases should be heard by a magistrate or judge with no requirement for solicitors, lawyers, barristers, etc to be present and no costs to awarded other than in the case of vexatious litigation.

rchet

Scrap the legal aid budget.  Lawyers are prepared to take on "no win, no fee" cases, so there is no need for any taxpayer subsidy at all.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the legal aid budget.  Lawyers are prepared to take on "no win, no fee" cases, so there is no need for any taxpayer subsidy at all.

What’s the point in Law if you can’t get it upheld.

This is a call for a review basically.

 

One of the biggest problems I have found with Legal Aid is how it leaves you having to do everything yourself.  15 minutes with a lawyer and that's about it.  The Citizens Advice Bureas are also not up to scratch either.  Due to a massive lack of resources.

Legal Aid is vital to every citizen, yet the poor reliably get dumped to the bottom.  Even though the poor are often caught in the most violent and lawless places.

The idea is to make sure everyone gets Legal Aid.  By re-enforcing the existing system.  So that's review, revoke where required, and add some new bits.

Why is this idea important?

This is a call for a review basically.

 

One of the biggest problems I have found with Legal Aid is how it leaves you having to do everything yourself.  15 minutes with a lawyer and that's about it.  The Citizens Advice Bureas are also not up to scratch either.  Due to a massive lack of resources.

Legal Aid is vital to every citizen, yet the poor reliably get dumped to the bottom.  Even though the poor are often caught in the most violent and lawless places.

The idea is to make sure everyone gets Legal Aid.  By re-enforcing the existing system.  So that's review, revoke where required, and add some new bits.

Stop ambulance chasing lawyers robbing the state

Change the law so that any lawyer taking on a legal aid case who looses the case must pay the legal costs of the defendant.This would prevent spurious cases being brought before the court and save the country MILLIONS.

Employers are currently paying high insurance  fees because of this dispicable exploitation of the current stupid law.

Currently an employer who wins a case where an employee takes spurious court action against him and looses the case , the employer cannot get his costs paid. So he cannot win or break even.

Why is this idea important?

Change the law so that any lawyer taking on a legal aid case who looses the case must pay the legal costs of the defendant.This would prevent spurious cases being brought before the court and save the country MILLIONS.

Employers are currently paying high insurance  fees because of this dispicable exploitation of the current stupid law.

Currently an employer who wins a case where an employee takes spurious court action against him and looses the case , the employer cannot get his costs paid. So he cannot win or break even.

Repeal s.54 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and provide legal aid where permission to appeal is granted

Section 54 of the Access to Justice Act prevents a matter being taken before the Supreme Court if the Court of Appeal (at the Royal Courts of Justice) has refused permission to appeal. This refusal prevents the proper development of law, and effectively gives the Lord Justices of Appeal a right of veto over its own precedent being considered and reviewed by a higher authority (the Supreme Court).

Repeal of s.54 of the Access to Justice Act will assist in reducing delays to legal reform, and in the example set out below, would have ensured that child welfare is better safeguarded. It would protect both the judiciary and our legal system from reputational harm.

For the law to be upheld, it must be open to scrutiny and perceived to be beyond reproach. There must be a system of checks and balances. This statute precludes this.

Where the Royal Courts grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, the applicant should have the assistance of legal aid, given that matters of great constitutional or social importance go before the Supreme Court. Where it is accepted by the Lord Justices of Appeal that an application is meritorious, the limited financial means of an applicant should not preclude arguments being properly set forth by counsel. In such circumstances, the fees for an application should also be waived. Where there are general points of law to be reviewed which impact on more than a single applicant's case, there should be no barrier to a full and open review, and one where the applicant is assisted by expert counsel. Such an outcome is in the public interest.

Why is this idea important?

Section 54 of the Access to Justice Act prevents a matter being taken before the Supreme Court if the Court of Appeal (at the Royal Courts of Justice) has refused permission to appeal. This refusal prevents the proper development of law, and effectively gives the Lord Justices of Appeal a right of veto over its own precedent being considered and reviewed by a higher authority (the Supreme Court).

Repeal of s.54 of the Access to Justice Act will assist in reducing delays to legal reform, and in the example set out below, would have ensured that child welfare is better safeguarded. It would protect both the judiciary and our legal system from reputational harm.

For the law to be upheld, it must be open to scrutiny and perceived to be beyond reproach. There must be a system of checks and balances. This statute precludes this.

Where the Royal Courts grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, the applicant should have the assistance of legal aid, given that matters of great constitutional or social importance go before the Supreme Court. Where it is accepted by the Lord Justices of Appeal that an application is meritorious, the limited financial means of an applicant should not preclude arguments being properly set forth by counsel. In such circumstances, the fees for an application should also be waived. Where there are general points of law to be reviewed which impact on more than a single applicant's case, there should be no barrier to a full and open review, and one where the applicant is assisted by expert counsel. Such an outcome is in the public interest.

Legal Aid

Tighten up the legal aid rules.  The monies should not be going to illegal immigrants to appeal against their deportation orders, when UK citizens cannot get entitlement when they need it.  Nor should it go to the likes of MPs and other reasonably wealthy people when they are caught breaking the law.

 

Perhaps it should only be allocated to people who have lived in this country for a minimum of 10 years and have paid their taxes, etc.

Why is this idea important?

Tighten up the legal aid rules.  The monies should not be going to illegal immigrants to appeal against their deportation orders, when UK citizens cannot get entitlement when they need it.  Nor should it go to the likes of MPs and other reasonably wealthy people when they are caught breaking the law.

 

Perhaps it should only be allocated to people who have lived in this country for a minimum of 10 years and have paid their taxes, etc.

Restore a proper legal aid system

Fair access to the legal process is a cornerstone of a democratic society. This means that legal aid has to be available to enable those who would otherwise be denied access to the courts to put their case.

Of course there has to be regulation and some assessment of merits (more likely to succeed than not) but then the level of legal aid must be adequate for a proper case to be argued and for lawyers to get a reasonable (not lavish) return.

This means:

Abolish fixed fees

Abolish the new rule that payment is only made on conclusion of a case.

Why is this idea important?

Fair access to the legal process is a cornerstone of a democratic society. This means that legal aid has to be available to enable those who would otherwise be denied access to the courts to put their case.

Of course there has to be regulation and some assessment of merits (more likely to succeed than not) but then the level of legal aid must be adequate for a proper case to be argued and for lawyers to get a reasonable (not lavish) return.

This means:

Abolish fixed fees

Abolish the new rule that payment is only made on conclusion of a case.

legal aid for none working disabled home owners

that legal aid should be available for disabled people who live in their own homes and are not working or not working and living off savings. many disabled people are unable to undertake cases of disabled discrimmination, appeals, tribunals, or cases is disabled harrassment due to been unable to obtain legal aid if they own their own home have inherited their home, and are not working nor claiming benefits due to inheritances or savings – this leaves them open to abuse without legal help and their rights to justice, liberties and legal advice

Why is this idea important?

that legal aid should be available for disabled people who live in their own homes and are not working or not working and living off savings. many disabled people are unable to undertake cases of disabled discrimmination, appeals, tribunals, or cases is disabled harrassment due to been unable to obtain legal aid if they own their own home have inherited their home, and are not working nor claiming benefits due to inheritances or savings – this leaves them open to abuse without legal help and their rights to justice, liberties and legal advice

stop compensation payouts to criminals

stop all compensation awards to criminals .they get free legal aid .if a law abing citizen wanted legal aid and had a property they would be made to sell their home.human rights laws should be for the law abiding people of this country not for every tom dick or harry who decides he can live a life of luxury by living a life of crime. if i cant get dental treament because i cannot afford it and have to suffer who do i sue?.

Why is this idea important?

stop all compensation awards to criminals .they get free legal aid .if a law abing citizen wanted legal aid and had a property they would be made to sell their home.human rights laws should be for the law abiding people of this country not for every tom dick or harry who decides he can live a life of luxury by living a life of crime. if i cant get dental treament because i cannot afford it and have to suffer who do i sue?.

RESTORE RIGHT TO FREE LEGAL AID IN CRIMINAL CASES

In June 2010  a law came into operation which makes it impossible for British People to have a Fair Trial. If you are accused now by the State you will have to pay to defend yourself unless you are on State Benefits.    for full details see  http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/docs/cds_main/Legal_aid_is_changing_-_briefing_pack.pdf


This means that the endless resources open to the State will be waged against you and you must either defend yourself in person or risk loosing your home in order to mount a defence.

If you are subject to a Restraing Order  freexing your assetts you will be in the invidious positon of  because of your assets having too much money to qualify for legal aid  but be unable to use your assetts to pay for leg assistance to defend yourself.
 

Why is this idea important?

In June 2010  a law came into operation which makes it impossible for British People to have a Fair Trial. If you are accused now by the State you will have to pay to defend yourself unless you are on State Benefits.    for full details see  http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/docs/cds_main/Legal_aid_is_changing_-_briefing_pack.pdf


This means that the endless resources open to the State will be waged against you and you must either defend yourself in person or risk loosing your home in order to mount a defence.

If you are subject to a Restraing Order  freexing your assetts you will be in the invidious positon of  because of your assets having too much money to qualify for legal aid  but be unable to use your assetts to pay for leg assistance to defend yourself.
 

Legal Aid should not be available to non UK nationals

Legal Aid should only be available to UK nationals. There is absolutely no reason why this benefit should be available to anyone who is not a British Citizen and no reason why British Citizens should carry the cost of Immigration Appeals, lawsuits etc etc. Many of the solicitors involved in these representations are bogus and many UK citizens have difficulty themselves obtaining legal aid.

Anyone who is refused a visa/refused entry on arrival whilst holding a visa should only be allowed to appeal from abroad and should be liable for all costs unless the appeal is successful. This would save on detention costs as well as legal aid.

Why is this idea important?

Legal Aid should only be available to UK nationals. There is absolutely no reason why this benefit should be available to anyone who is not a British Citizen and no reason why British Citizens should carry the cost of Immigration Appeals, lawsuits etc etc. Many of the solicitors involved in these representations are bogus and many UK citizens have difficulty themselves obtaining legal aid.

Anyone who is refused a visa/refused entry on arrival whilst holding a visa should only be allowed to appeal from abroad and should be liable for all costs unless the appeal is successful. This would save on detention costs as well as legal aid.

Repeal or Amend ‘ RIPA’ (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act)

Under anti-terrorist laws the powers of Covert Surveillance was extended to a large range of State organizations, including Local Councils. Even organizations to which you may owe money to.

The threshold of who can authorize surveillance is considerably lowered; Previously these powers could only be authorized by Senior officers in Police and Security Services and the Home Secretary.

The purposes for which it can be used for have been greatly extended

Councils have been using these powers in a major way for a whole range of low level crimes and misdemeanours (Even ‘Dog Fouling’ ) . I am sure you have read other stories in the Press.
 

One family was watched for a month, by Council agents from  cars, filmed, schedule recorded, followed on the School Run etc. Why? To make sure that they weren’t cheating on their School Application Form.
 

The offending article is literally two lines in a paragraph. (Sorry but I lost the files on my Laptop so you will have to check it out yourself.)
It truly is The Devil In the Detail.

Without Repealing or Amending this section of the Bill it is a waste of time.The relevant bill is named; ‘Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act’ (RIPA)


Ministers saying ,it should be regulated better will not make the fundamental change necessary. After all, regulations can change at whim, but laws are much harder to change.

 

.


 

Why is this idea important?

Under anti-terrorist laws the powers of Covert Surveillance was extended to a large range of State organizations, including Local Councils. Even organizations to which you may owe money to.

The threshold of who can authorize surveillance is considerably lowered; Previously these powers could only be authorized by Senior officers in Police and Security Services and the Home Secretary.

The purposes for which it can be used for have been greatly extended

Councils have been using these powers in a major way for a whole range of low level crimes and misdemeanours (Even ‘Dog Fouling’ ) . I am sure you have read other stories in the Press.
 

One family was watched for a month, by Council agents from  cars, filmed, schedule recorded, followed on the School Run etc. Why? To make sure that they weren’t cheating on their School Application Form.
 

The offending article is literally two lines in a paragraph. (Sorry but I lost the files on my Laptop so you will have to check it out yourself.)
It truly is The Devil In the Detail.

Without Repealing or Amending this section of the Bill it is a waste of time.The relevant bill is named; ‘Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act’ (RIPA)


Ministers saying ,it should be regulated better will not make the fundamental change necessary. After all, regulations can change at whim, but laws are much harder to change.

 

.


 

liberties

Remove the right for anyone to film people in their private property for any use against them in a court of law or for media purposes, the right to defend yourself property and family with extreme force, free legal guidance at all times not just for the criminals or foreigners.  British people to have the first choice of all jobs available before any other nationalities

Why is this idea important?

Remove the right for anyone to film people in their private property for any use against them in a court of law or for media purposes, the right to defend yourself property and family with extreme force, free legal guidance at all times not just for the criminals or foreigners.  British people to have the first choice of all jobs available before any other nationalities

Make Legal Aid more meaningful

There have been many instances of accused people pleading guilty to charges beacuse they would not be able to pay costs.

Solicitors, Lawyers et. all are often reluctant to take Legal Aid cases because it is more profitable for them not to do so.

The Legal profession like any other is entiltled to fair renumeration for their expertise.  It is a sad reflection of society that if given the choice of being paid under the existing legal aid system or being paid by chargeing a fee it is no surprise which will be chosen.

A workman is worthy of his hire and the legal profession is no different.

Solicitors in attendance at Police station should be paid a fair rate based on the amount of time thay have to be there not a flat rate regardless of the time spent.

Those in attendance should be qualified and not just a law student studying for a degree.

Recently it was reported that some ex members of parliament were granted legal aid when charged with the missuse of their expenses, there have been examples of other members of the public not in the same financial position not been granted it.

I would like to see Legal Aid be made more available not less, and not be at the discretion of a Judge.

Why is this idea important?

There have been many instances of accused people pleading guilty to charges beacuse they would not be able to pay costs.

Solicitors, Lawyers et. all are often reluctant to take Legal Aid cases because it is more profitable for them not to do so.

The Legal profession like any other is entiltled to fair renumeration for their expertise.  It is a sad reflection of society that if given the choice of being paid under the existing legal aid system or being paid by chargeing a fee it is no surprise which will be chosen.

A workman is worthy of his hire and the legal profession is no different.

Solicitors in attendance at Police station should be paid a fair rate based on the amount of time thay have to be there not a flat rate regardless of the time spent.

Those in attendance should be qualified and not just a law student studying for a degree.

Recently it was reported that some ex members of parliament were granted legal aid when charged with the missuse of their expenses, there have been examples of other members of the public not in the same financial position not been granted it.

I would like to see Legal Aid be made more available not less, and not be at the discretion of a Judge.

High Court Action and other civil cases

I have been sued by a company who felt that the wished to ruin me and my family's life. They basically used a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Because it was in the High Court I could not access legal aid, after using my life savings to try to clear my name.
This company and its directors won out of sheer spite and very deep pockets.
Why is it that those with enormous sums of money are able to chose, and be allowed,  to destroy someone's life with their ability to buy as much legal backing as they can?

Why is this idea important?

I have been sued by a company who felt that the wished to ruin me and my family's life. They basically used a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Because it was in the High Court I could not access legal aid, after using my life savings to try to clear my name.
This company and its directors won out of sheer spite and very deep pockets.
Why is it that those with enormous sums of money are able to chose, and be allowed,  to destroy someone's life with their ability to buy as much legal backing as they can?

Cap the amount people receive on Legal Aid

Legal Aid allows conviced offenders to pursue spurious claims against prison procedures and/or personnel or to try to claim compensation from govenment sources under the Human Rights Act. Wealthy people who are successful at hiding their assets can also use Legal Aid to fight expensive cases which normal working class people would not be able to do.

Solicitors who specialise in prison work are making a fortune providing:

– 'advice' to offenders when they have been caught red-handed during illegal activities,

–  defending them in hearings, processing petty complaints (about quality of food, lighting etc)

– helping them complain about their treatment under the Human Rights Act etc.

There should be a cap on the amount that any one person can claim in legal aid to prevent misuse and to reduce the cost.  This would also reduce the number of petty complaints that have to be dealt with by the police, prison service, NHS etc.

Why is this idea important?

Legal Aid allows conviced offenders to pursue spurious claims against prison procedures and/or personnel or to try to claim compensation from govenment sources under the Human Rights Act. Wealthy people who are successful at hiding their assets can also use Legal Aid to fight expensive cases which normal working class people would not be able to do.

Solicitors who specialise in prison work are making a fortune providing:

– 'advice' to offenders when they have been caught red-handed during illegal activities,

–  defending them in hearings, processing petty complaints (about quality of food, lighting etc)

– helping them complain about their treatment under the Human Rights Act etc.

There should be a cap on the amount that any one person can claim in legal aid to prevent misuse and to reduce the cost.  This would also reduce the number of petty complaints that have to be dealt with by the police, prison service, NHS etc.

LEGAL AID AS A RIGHT FOR VICTIMS OF PROVEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

I have been the victim of an extreme act of domestic violence by my then husband.  He was imprisoned for 6 years (getting out after only 3) but because he was in prison, he (the offender) was automatically awarded legal aid for the divorce proceedings.  I (the victim) was initially granted legal aid, then had the certificate cancelled because I was given a modest severance payment from my employer who terminated my employment because I was unfit to work after being attacked!  Legal Services then claimed over £1500 back for work that was done under the certificate (then placed a charge on my property).  My ex husband (the Offender) fought all through the courts, hiring barristers etc because he was getting it free!  I was in no position to allow this to happen and so had to continue with my right for justice.  The courts subsequently found in my favour and awarded costs – but because he was being funded by LSC, the costs were claimed against LSC under Section 11 of the Access to Criminal Justice Act 1998.  When legal services were invited by my solicitor to pay the costs the found a loophole which neither the Judge, nor my Barrister were aware of.  Legal Services refused to pay under the Community Services (cost protection) (amendment Regulations 2005 (S1 2005 No.2006).  The effect of this Amendment to the regulations in 205 was to remove costs protection, as envisged by s.11 of the Access to Justice Act, from family proceedings.  In short, it meant that they won't pay – so I am left with all the legal costs it taken me to rid myself of a convicted violent man!!  PLEASE amend this regulation once more to read "except in cases of proven domestic violence" ……. women (or men) who are fighting for justice after violent acts such as this should be supported every inch of the way to get them out of these disastrous and life threatening marriages or partnerships!   This is a TERRIBLE amendment and in effect the regulations as they stand effectively nullify s.11 of the Access to Just Act in family proceedings – it should NOT do so in family proceedings which become necessary because of an act of extreme violence against one of the parties of the marriage!

Why is this idea important?

I have been the victim of an extreme act of domestic violence by my then husband.  He was imprisoned for 6 years (getting out after only 3) but because he was in prison, he (the offender) was automatically awarded legal aid for the divorce proceedings.  I (the victim) was initially granted legal aid, then had the certificate cancelled because I was given a modest severance payment from my employer who terminated my employment because I was unfit to work after being attacked!  Legal Services then claimed over £1500 back for work that was done under the certificate (then placed a charge on my property).  My ex husband (the Offender) fought all through the courts, hiring barristers etc because he was getting it free!  I was in no position to allow this to happen and so had to continue with my right for justice.  The courts subsequently found in my favour and awarded costs – but because he was being funded by LSC, the costs were claimed against LSC under Section 11 of the Access to Criminal Justice Act 1998.  When legal services were invited by my solicitor to pay the costs the found a loophole which neither the Judge, nor my Barrister were aware of.  Legal Services refused to pay under the Community Services (cost protection) (amendment Regulations 2005 (S1 2005 No.2006).  The effect of this Amendment to the regulations in 205 was to remove costs protection, as envisged by s.11 of the Access to Justice Act, from family proceedings.  In short, it meant that they won't pay – so I am left with all the legal costs it taken me to rid myself of a convicted violent man!!  PLEASE amend this regulation once more to read "except in cases of proven domestic violence" ……. women (or men) who are fighting for justice after violent acts such as this should be supported every inch of the way to get them out of these disastrous and life threatening marriages or partnerships!   This is a TERRIBLE amendment and in effect the regulations as they stand effectively nullify s.11 of the Access to Just Act in family proceedings – it should NOT do so in family proceedings which become necessary because of an act of extreme violence against one of the parties of the marriage!

Loss of the right to Free Legal Aid after third offence

The Government should stop funding criminals who abuse the legal aid system. Any person who has to apply for free legal aid should, lose the right after their third criminal offence. Tax payers pay for this but are often not entitled to use it because  they " earn too much". Why should they then keep paying for habitual criminals who keep using it  time after time or in some cases day after day. By allowing criminals to keep abusing the system with no worries about having to pay for their legal cover, we are in effect encouraging them to continue their life of crime. If the legal aid system was denied to them after their third offence, they may well think twice before committing further oiffences. the money saved could then be used to help honest tax payers with their legal problems, ie divorces, legal disputes etc.

Why is this idea important?

The Government should stop funding criminals who abuse the legal aid system. Any person who has to apply for free legal aid should, lose the right after their third criminal offence. Tax payers pay for this but are often not entitled to use it because  they " earn too much". Why should they then keep paying for habitual criminals who keep using it  time after time or in some cases day after day. By allowing criminals to keep abusing the system with no worries about having to pay for their legal cover, we are in effect encouraging them to continue their life of crime. If the legal aid system was denied to them after their third offence, they may well think twice before committing further oiffences. the money saved could then be used to help honest tax payers with their legal problems, ie divorces, legal disputes etc.