Goverment geting even worse

Steven

Senior Moderator
There is a politics section on the forum...

And you do realise there is cross-party consensus to cutting the legal aid budget. The dispute is merely where to cut it ;) A bit of personal research to make an informed opinion helps rather than reading the headline now. I will tell you the current legal aid reality is this: only the poor and the rich get their day in court. If people on legal aid where forced to pay like the middle class then at a stroke divorce and contact family cases would not reach court and people would be much more amicable to settling. I appreciate that may not be to everyone's taste, but it is the current reality
 
Last edited:

chipchomper

Active Member
Its a farce anyway from my experience and can only be of any benefit to people out of work, even then its not always a possibility.
 

vader100

Well-known Member
Maybe it will force people to actually try to resolve differences and disputes in a more amiable way than with the growing litigious attitude we have now.
 

peebly

Active Member
:rolleyes:


I just see the poor getting a bum deal, again.

Which is why I stopped voting years ago.

They say anything to get you to vote for them, but it does not matter who you vote for they all carry on from where the last lot left off.

Even if you vote for the BNP, UKIP etc nothing would change.

Surly you've realised by now that your just a number putting money in there pockets.
 

Steven

Senior Moderator
No having come close to a divorce without legal aid it would make getting a divorce that much harder
Not entirely accurate. Only a contested divorce over money, property and children will end up in court. Otherwise you sign a piece of paper and leave it to the solicitor. In an uncontested divorce petition there is no need to go to either hearing for the decree nisi and decree absolute

As I said contested family cases are the preserve of the poor and rich. Without legal aid, many cases will be settled much earlier when people baulk at the 4, 5, 6 figure costs of legal representation
 

chipchomper

Active Member
Not entirely accurate. Only a contested divorce over money, property and children will end up in court. Otherwise you sign a piece of paper and leave it to the solicitor. In an uncontested divorce petition there is no need to go to either hearing for the decree nisi and decree absolute

As I said contested family cases are the preserve of the poor and rich. Without legal aid, many cases will be settled much earlier when people baulk at the 4, 5, 6 figure costs of legal representation

Not exactly true it would give the better off parent grounds to do as they wished knowing full well the other party cant do anything, I have been through this issue with the other party doing everything she could do to run up costs, as it happens I had already suffered from the legal aid system and was infact paying from my own pocket but essentially running out of money and putting a great strain on my house and relationship from debts is what brought the proceedings to an end not an amicable solution.
I find your opinion somewhat insulting.
 

Steven

Senior Moderator
Please explain then. Self-evidentially the rich can afford litigation. So what exactly is so insulting about saying without legal aid, the poor will settle out of court instead of pursuing expensive litigation, as the middle class have to? It is not opinion, it is a statement of the current realities of the family court system. Unlike others who rely on personal experience or cite third hand experience of their relative/friend, I myself have attended many private family hearings as a neutral. So yes, I do feel confident to post as I did because I have seen the system operate first hand many many times.

If it is the use of the word "poor" which offends, then well you are taking offence where none is meant, which is outside of my control. I use the term colloquially in the context of the ability to qualify for legal aid/pay for litigation, to differentiate those who use legal aid versus the middle class and the rich.

The morals and effect on delivering justice as a result of these proposed reforms is a separate issue. You should not confuse what I observe with what I feel
 

chipchomper

Active Member
Whats insulting is that issues will reach a resonable solution if both parties are in the same financial situation otherwise money talks and the better off party gets to dance all over the justice system until the other party runs out of cash.
Also the only reason it makes people less likely to go to court is because they cant afford it not because solutions have been found, the difference is that you dont get to see it or hear about it that does not mean the problem no longer exists.
 

Kebabhead

Distinguished Member
Why should the taxpayer be expected to make it easy?

Who ever said getting a divorce was easy

If you don't have the finances to pay for a divorce how on earth are you expected to get one

Divorces get costly when contested particularly when it comes down to children
 

Steven

Senior Moderator
Whats insulting is that issues will reach a resonable solution if both parties are in the same financial situation otherwise money talks and the better off party gets to dance all over the justice system until the other party runs out of cash.
Also the only reason it makes people less likely to go to court is because they cant afford it not because solutions have been found, the difference is that you dont get to see it or hear about it that does not mean the problem no longer exists.
Like many things in life, compromise takes two. Whilst desirable, one does not need legal representation if they so choose, even if they can afford it. A judge does not prejudice you for representing yourself in court and very much so in family cases which often concern the nitty gritty of personal family life rather than technical legal rules. Conversely the experienced and focussed guidance of a solicitor *can* bring an agreement, as well as the fees they are charging. A contested divorce is a contested divorce, but anyone seeking a fair financial settlement for children or seeking a contact order should not and would not in any case be put off by a lack of legal aid funding and arguing their case regardless

As I said before people are sometimes surprised by family judges looking to the future and not interested in the past. I have seen some instances were parties were so caught up in the bitterness of not wanting the ex to have the upper hand, it took the judge to make them realise they actually had common ground and an agreement - if they had bothered stopping to see it
 
Last edited:

DPinBucks

Distinguished Member
Who ever said getting a divorce was easy
Well, I didn't quite mean it that way. I should really have said 'easier'.
If you don't have the finances to pay for a divorce how on earth are you expected to get one
Well, certainly not by me paying for it, that's for sure. Why should you be expected to get one at all? The two of you got yourselves into it. Why should anyone else pay to help you get out of it?
Divorces get costly when contested particularly when it comes down to children
I agree. What I don't see is why they should cost so much; and if they do, why you think it should be my responsibility to pay for it.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Star Wars Andor, Woman King, more Star Trek 4K, Rings of Power & the latest TV, movies & 4K releases
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Starzplay streaming service rebrands as Lionsgate+
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
JVC adds Filmmaker Mode to latest D-ILA projector firmware
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Bowers & Wilkins launches Px8 headphone
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sky set to launch its plug-and-play Sky Stream solution
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Movies Podcast: 26th September 2022
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom