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...
PETITION | FACEBOOK | TWITTER ( @NoToPCT )
#SAVEUKJUSTICE
PETITION | FACEBOOK | TWITTER ( @NoToPCT )
#SAVEUKJUSTICE
