The Legal Aid bill is social engineering by other means


by Guest    
11:20 am - September 11th 2011

Tweet       Share on Tumblr

contribution by Nathaniel Mathews

Sam is a bank manager who lost his job in the recession. He owns a house and has big debts. Pretty soon he’s in court facing the loss of his home. His family might be on the street tonight.

He comes to the duty solicitor for help, half an hour before his hearing. It so happens we can help. We can ask the District Judge for an adjournment so that Sam can get a chance to restructure his debts.

Samantha lives on an estate a stone’s throw from here. She has kids too, and lives on survival benefits.

She too owes money for a benefit overpayment of thousands, that is being clawed back at £10 a week. When you’re living on the breadline that can make a huge difference. We can help by asking the District Judge to give us time, and make an offer of £5 on the repayments.

My hope is that once Sam and Samantha are back in court again, we will have done deals with their creditors, repayment schedules will have been renegotiated over a longer time-scale, and two families will keep a roof over their head.

That is what rocks my boat, day after day: keeping people in homes, and off the streets. What’s more, Legal Aid pays us to help these two families, regardless of class and colour.

Actually, if the Legal Aid Bill goes through, this won’t be true.

In the new Bill even if I know that I could persuade the benefits authorities that they have misinterpreted the regulations, the words are not allowed to leave my lips. Knowledge of the benefit regulations will no longer be funded by Legal Aid, because the new regime will be so easy to use, so transparent, that knowledge of the law will be an expensive inconvenience.

Put baldly, the Coalition has specifically removed any process invoking welfare benefits legislation from Legal Aid funding, because it’s so pure and simple any fool can learn it, apparently (the regulations take up volumes).

The Tory Legal Aid minister, Jonathan Djanogly wants to keep the home-owner vote, and isn’t interested in people on estates who are not likely to vote for him anyway. The effect of this will inevitably be that in the future Samantha will likely have a suspended possession order made sooner, be more likely to default, and be evicted in less time than before.

It is alarming to me that this year already there has been a 17% hike in homeless people accepted by Hackney Council (think of how many more are turned away). The recession and Housing Benefit cuts are already hitting home. Think how bad it will get once the Legal Aid Cuts start.

In Hackney, 64% less people would lose a service, that’s over 5,000 people. In Liverpool, it’s 80%.

For God’s sake, are these people trying to cause riots by social engineering, because if I was a mad scientist, this is how I would start.

We only need 83 MP’s to change this Law, so please send them a letter, an e-mail, a tweet, a Wells Fargo pony mail by God!

—
Nathaniel blogs more regularly at Frontline Hackney

   Tweet   Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,Law ,Westminster


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Seriously now

Though I agree with the general gist of this, keep your clients out of it.

2. Chris

I assume that the names have been changed. Otherwise Sam and Samantha is a coincidence.

3. Margin4error

It strikes me as the politics of envy. A lot of people envy the handouts given to others that they don’t get themselves. That the “something” is very very little seems irrelevent. Measures to stop people having benefits in any form will go down well for a while now.

4. Leon Wolfeson

It’s a terrible bill. There have been, to my knowledge, at least three fully-costed alternatives suggested, including one from the law society itself.

And it will clog up the courts with litigants in person…

5. Nathaniel Mathews

Yes, the names have been changed. Quite honestly the cases are so common as to be generic.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Kate Harrad

    PLEASE RT!!! RT @ndphmathews: The Legal Aid bill is social engineering by other means | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/2eHfjth via @libcon

  2. Nathaniel Mathews

    #legalaid cuts= social engineeering http://t.co/21o91hv

  3. Rachel Hubbard

    Legal Aid bill is social engineering | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/xIyAELe @libcon Think how bad it'll get once the Legal Aid Cuts start.

  4. Ruth Hayes

    “@ndphmathews: The Legal Aid bill is social engineering by other means | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/9XnNNDc via @libcon”>> brll post Nat

  5. Juliette Frangos

    “@ndphmathews: The Legal Aid bill is social engineering by other means | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/9XnNNDc via @libcon”>> brll post Nat

  6. Jon Robins

    “@ndphmathews: The Legal Aid bill is social engineering by other means | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/9XnNNDc via @libcon”>> brll post Nat

  7. David Standard

    “@ndphmathews: The Legal Aid bill is social engineering by other means | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/9XnNNDc via @libcon”>> brll post Nat

  8. Andy Slaughter MP

    RT @ruthilc: “@ndphmathews: The Legal Aid bill is social engineering by other means | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/B5ze4uZ via @libcon”

  9. David Mcc

    PLEASE RT!!! RT @ndphmathews: The Legal Aid bill is social engineering by other means | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/2eHfjth via @libcon

  10. Nick Armstrong

    RT @ruthilc: “@ndphmathews: The Legal Aid bill is social engineering by other means | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/B5ze4uZ via @libcon”

  11. Jennifer Moore

    PLEASE RT!!! RT @ndphmathews: The Legal Aid bill is social engineering by other means | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/2eHfjth via @libcon

  12. IpswichCAB

    The #legalaid bill is social engineering by other means ~ http://t.co/PQ8NHAd

  13. Alex Braithwaite

    The Legal Aid bill is social engineering by other means | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/RgQSgXy via @libcon

  14. Nick

    RT @ruthilc: “@ndphmathews: The Legal Aid bill is social engineering by other means | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/B5ze4uZ via @libcon”





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.