Enemy of the State: Chris Grayling

grayling

What do you call a Justice Secretary who wants to ensure that access to the justice system is restricted to the fewest people possible – only, in fact, those who can afford it?

What do you call a Justice Secretary who is overseeing plans to ensure that legal aid in civil cases is cut by £350 billion, meaning people who need qualified advice on social welfare debt, employment, family problems, clinical negligence, divorce and housing problems will not get it? Those people may have to pursue the cases on their own behalf, clogging up the civil justice system, perhaps for years to come.

What do you call a man who, as Employment Minister, presided over a scheme of ‘Mandatory Work Activity’ for the unemployed that was worse than useless at getting them into employment but made a great deal of money for the useless ‘Work Placement Provider’ companies to whom he funnelled government money like there was no tomorrow?

You call him Chris Grayling, that’s what.

This walking, talking blight on common sense is now talking about cutting legal aid in criminal cases, eyeing up £1 billion that is currently spent on it.

He wants to sell off guilty defendants’ cars to pay their legal costs. What does he think that’s going to do? Well, let’s put it in his own language. If cutting people’s benefits is likely to “encourage” them into work, taking away a thief’s car is likely to “encourage” him to steal another. His policies will increase crime.

And he wants to introduce price competition into criminal legal aid, ensuring that the cheapest lawyers – not the best – get the work.

He calls it “working to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system as a whole, to move towards swifter resolution of cases before the courts”.

But Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger has said the cuts already going ahead are likely to restrict access to justice. That’s not efficiency.

And Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, has spoken of similar fears that cutting legal aid might undermine the rule of law, with people resorting to violence.

The bar council has warned that the introduction of price competition is “a blunt instrument” assuring “none of the safeguards and qualities which we must expect from our justice system”.

And, as Lord Bach has pointed out, there will be no savings in the end, as the state “will eventually have to pick up the pieces when things get much worse than they need to”.

Sadly, Mr Grayling – who has no legal grounding whatsoever – will ignore this sensible advice. One can only conclude that he wants to increase criminality.

This blog has already discussed the possibility that Defence Secretary Philip Hammond wants to use the armed forces to quell any civil disturbances in the UK. Is Grayling trying to engineer such disturbances deliberately?

You read it here first.

23 thoughts on “Enemy of the State: Chris Grayling

  1. aussieeh

    Two years ago myself and a friend I had known for almost fifty years had a falling out. He called me thick, stupid and said I didn’t know what I was talking about, because I had said that the ultimate goal of the government was to cause riots racial or otherwise, that would allow them to use Marshall law and put armed troops on the streets. I would go one step further and say they will not be British troops as I don’t think British troops would fire on British citizens. These pigs are Nazis with murder in mind. Oh and by the way I still haven’t spoken to my old friend

    1. Big Bill

      More likely it will eventually be the mercenaries who come in to establish order, Blackwater and the rest of the American corporates. I don’t think our army will like that very much though… could get messy! If I were in charge for the neoliberals I’d be letting everywhere burn except the City, the one place that needs to.

  2. Big Bill

    It’s inevtiable this will lead to civil disorder. Disagreements which can’t be settled through the courts will simply be settled unlawfully. Grayling’s a blinkered idiot, utterly out of his depth in any ministerial role.

    1. Owen Williams

      We certainly HOPE it’s inevitable – because what if the fine, dumb, apathetic sheeple of this country do what they usually do: NOTHING?

      What if they do nothing, and just continue on with their daily lives like nothing’s wrong, because they’re too wrapped up in paying for their precious mortgage that’s rigged-up by the banks like bloody Pinocchio?

      This fine mess will only descend into Civil Disorder if the citizenry care enough to give a shit – and I’m not sure they do. I mean, WE care, yes, of course — but for every person I know who cares, I can think of DOZENS who couldn’t care *less*, and not a fair few more who would even stop to question my credibility for having the gall to suggest such things. “Evidence!” they say, “Show me some evidence! Where is it?!” I tell them to find it themselves, but because I won’t hand it to them on a platter, it’s the least they can do to laugh in my face.

      And when I finally DO present them with that evidence they so clamoured for, they stop laughing and SPIT in my face instead.

      People don’t care. They DON’T WANT to care. They’ve got their own petty shit to deal with, and cat’s-piss to the rest of us. Just so-long as no-one disturbs their daily pilgrimage to and from the office.

  3. Grocky Groc

    the other part of the equation is the privatised prisons to come which will need a constant stream of customers – sorry, prisoners in order to be profitable. Prisoners that will be ‘made ready for release’ into the real world by being made to work.

  4. JANE DODGEON

    i thought one of the fundamental laws of government was that politics couldnt interfere or change the justice system, and that any change for the justice system had to come within. seem to remember a case in africa where a president interfered with a judicial decision and all hell was let loose.

  5. psychoerg

    This government is an utter abomination that will indeed create great civil unrest. They are forcing certain groups into a state of anguish and torment without a care for the consequences. The country should demand a general election before the country explodes into civil war. I personally despise tories of any hue and only ever wish them bad luck, great pain and agony. The only good tories are those to be found listed in obituary columns. There is never enough of them however in the listings to clear the air of their vile stench.

  6. Stephen Bee

    This is why we don’t control the horse and donkey meat trade..its a cover -up or we’d realise most of them end up in Parliament!! LOL

  7. Phil The Folk

    We faught a world war where millions died to get rid of people with evil minds like Grayling, and now we have them in government! This is very worrying!

  8. Gary Donaldson

    The question is though are you ready to fight ? do you know how to ? do you know how to bring a Helicopter with some pretty simple stuff ? because if you don’t you’d better learn real quick or prepare for Serfdom , it’s your choice .

  9. Joan

    Even the US provide a lawyer if you can’t afford one. How on earth can we let them make us fall behind them?

  10. Thomas

    Making untrained people pursue cases in the civil courts against trained lawyers is unfair, will jam up the courts and lead to more vigilantism, more crime,and more fights in the streets.A Justice Minister who wants more crime should be thrown out as he’s clearly on the wrong side.

  11. matt downes

    Cutting benefits will obviously create more poverty not jobs.cutting legal aid will create more prisoners & will make liable cases only accesable 2 the very rich.bring on the revolution. Seems like chris grayling is a monster (like ian duncan smith)to our briitish way of life.I think the cons have been mesmerised by the schwazsticker

  12. chairmanoftheblogs

    You have made a mistake in your article. The entire UK annual budget for legal aid is 2 Billion, so i think you mean they want to cut 350 million from the budget, not 350 billion.

  13. steve

    is that before he sacks all the forces as MOD cutbacks mean retired officers not get as many free jollies

Comments are closed.