No To PCT: My Response to Their Response

This isn't how I wanted it to turn out. It's more comedic than serious and doesn't show much about how bad their response was. Oh well. Enjoy. 

So, their response was honestly petty (France!). It was full of errors including one which many many many teenage boys would probably point out and snigger out. You all know what I'm talking about... Anyhow. The response doesn't seem like it’s from the MoJ, more from a shop with a bad intern sending their responses out. (Sorry bad interns...) So I'm here like... I could write so much better! Obviously I won't cuz I'm on our side. But yeah I was sitting in my desk chair when I got the email with the response and when I opened it I expected some big thing I wouldn't be able to understand, cuz I'm 12 and all, but NO. Sorry, but it was a let-down. Shame I'm such a stickler, this could take a while... The stuff in (bold) is anything from me. 

"We have one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world and spend more than £1billion of taxpayer's (apostrophe should be after the 's' not before- more than one person) money on criminal legal aid each year. We must ensure (that) we get the very best value for every penny spent. 

We are tackling areas which are eroding public confidence - such as wealthy defendants who can afford to pay their own costs routinely receiving legal aid (...) ; prisoners being given legal aid for issues better dealt with by via the prisoner complaints system; a small amount of high cost cases swallowing up many millions in pubic (and there we go. This made me laugh, I'm sorry...) money; and those who do not have a strong connection to this country qualifying for legal aid. (So?)
Under the proposals for reform of the criminal legal aid scheme that we are consulting on until 4 June, quality assured duty solicitors and lawyers would still be available - just as they are now. (But you’re saying they won't be, not in the same way) All providers would be required to satisfy specified quality standards (One word: Stobart. How the heck do truck-driving lawyers have good quality?) when they submit their tenders and subsequently through contractual requirements. They would therefore all be capable and competent of delivering criminal legal aid services to any client. (Umm... No)”

And there we are. I'm sorry but... this is their argument? I mean come onnnn MoJ, you could have had a 6yr old write this. Or a 14yr old boy, cuz you knew what they're like... Idiots. (Like Mr. Grayling! Wait I just insinuated that Mr. Grayling is a 14yr old boy. ANYWAY)
 And there's a lot of lying in it, also. I mean, half of it is lying. I didn't even bother annotating the lies because there were just too many and this would have ended up as one big bold bracket. I mean, if you're not going to do something and we know that, why even TRY to lie? What's the POINT?
 So in conclusion, the MoJ response really wasn't great. Probably hastily written by a member of staff, it had (hilarious) spelling mistakes, insinuated that they only used one tax-payer's money (he must pay a lot of tax...) and lied. Not the greatest response ever.  MoJ, if you want to win this (obviously I don't want you to, I'm just being friendly...) I think you need to step it up a bit...