Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Barristers crying about legal aid fees

Options
13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    Then why does every second bar/cafe/restaurant have notices up looking for staff, and we also have a large cohort of people on jobseekers (who clearly aren't seeking any jobs)?



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    But people with cancer or other severe disease are not "dossers" are they, they are acutely ill?

    I'd apply the same logic to free travel and free GP visits. A basic allowance for all, and after you exhaust your annual allowance you pay your way.

    So you have watered down to a basic allowance for "dossers" not for all, correct?



  • Registered Users Posts: 906 ✭✭✭Everlong1


    I didn't, actually. What I said was that there seemed to be a belief by many posters - which I was sympathetic to - that the legal profession was benefitting greatly from FLA. I did, however, include the caveat that the first article I linked to seemed to contradict that belief. And I've made it clear in my subsequent posts that I accept what Arthur Dayne and other posters are saying about this perception not standing up to the facts.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I don't see the relevance but yes there were cuts to social welfare for under 26 year old's to encourage them to stay in education and find jobs. Can't really argue with that logic when you say yourself Ireland is at full employment and needs to continue churning out workers that will contribute to the social fund.

    The rest was not even close to summarizing what I said. I said those who rack up multiple offences will continue to do so so why reward them with social welfare, free legal aid and free houses. Nobody suggested reducing or removing social benefits from law abiding citizens so in the grand scheme of things it would probably have a marginal effect on crime rates but the state would have more money to spend on those that deserve it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    I didn't say that cancer patients are dossers. I said the people showing up weekly with the sniffles are dossers, which they are. They clog up the system for patients who really need to be seen, because it's free and they've nothing better to do.

    Take away their unlimited GP visits and watch the system open up to those who badly need to see their GP.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Lionel Fusco


    Ah here you can't be coming in here with your common sense and your facts.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    According to the industry people who traditionally worked in these roles sought employment elsewhere because of the pandemic.

    Again this isn't my opinion we are at full employment, more employed than at any other time in the history of the state.

    Your assertion that we have turned into a feckless work shy nation has no basis in reality.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Nope you believed the conspiracy.

    You don't get to moan about "barrister bashing" when you got the ball rolling.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    This thread is rapidly descending into a catch-all populist whinge. Dole, health malingerers, free legal aid, soft on crime blah dee blah.

    Merry go round of gripes that are either overstated, display an ignorance about the legal system or outright not true. Standard.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Come back with those goal posts.

    I'd apply the same logic to free travel and free GP visits. A basic allowance for all, and after you exhaust your annual allowance you pay your way.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    How would the state have more money if crime increases?

    Also what about the victims of crime?



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Indeed. Pure "In my day......" Angry man rant nonsense.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    You jump to serious conclusions. I didn't say we are a feckless work shy society. But there are thousands who are the definition of your statement. Anybody who is on jobseekers in 2023 should be absolutely grilled as to why they cannot get work, when there are so many places crying out for staff!



  • Registered Users Posts: 906 ✭✭✭Everlong1


    I accept everything you've said up to your last paragraph. I'm astonished, frankly, to hear that we're tougher than "most of Western Europe", but if that's what the figures say then fair enough. As far as my comments about FLA incentivising criminals, all I can go on there is simple common sense. Surely it stands to reason that if a recidivist thug knows full well that there'll be no financial consequences for him or his family (i.e. the half dozen kids he's probably fathered by at least two or more mothers at that stage), then that's one less thing he has to worry about before going about his latest spree? These types of people are taught how to game the system from birth. You can be sure that the benefits of FLA is fairly high on the list of things they swap helpful hints and tips about during their open air scumbag masterclass sessions held on the Liffey boardwalk after they all get their FREE methadone fix (free for them of course, paid for, just like FLA, by poor dumb hardworking Johhny and Joan taxpayer).



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2




  • Registered Users Posts: 906 ✭✭✭Everlong1


    Heaven forbid that people use an online discussion forum to actually, like, discuss things. Could it possibly be that the reason all of these topics are being raised is because they are actually interlinked?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    There are precisely zero developed countries with an absolute zero percent employment rate. We're at functional full employment, our economy is and labour market is running at full clip. What little long term unemployement there is, is about the same as comparable European countries. And those people have problems that would make them unemployable in the first instance.

    Labour activation schemes for that cohort is good money after bad because they're problem isn't indolence, they're statistically highly likely to be addicts of one sort or another or have chronic mental health conditions. And then again, people don't want to spend money on that either because of the cry of WASTERS and free this and that.

    There's no winning with the angryman front, mostly because they're making up problems that aren't there or radically overstate the ones that are. So there's no point in even trying. All I can say is try to enjoy swimming in the misery, even though it's not good for your wellbeing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    So now the rage has moved onto to people on Jobseekers. 😐️

    The vast majority of people on Jobseekers are not long term unemployed, they are between jobs for a multitude of reasons.

    So no obviously they shouldn't be "grilled" because it will make angry people on the internet feel better, they are perfectly entitled to on job seekers, there is a reason it exists.

    Fúck knows what any of this has to do with the topic of thread which is bashing Barristers.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    You've moved from legal aid to people having children with multiple partners and the Liffey Boardwalk.

    No, I've no interest in entering your angryman hall of mirrors.



  • Registered Users Posts: 906 ✭✭✭Everlong1


    I'd be a bit more cautious about dismissing people's genuine concerns as "populist whingeing" and "angry old man rants." That kind of arrogant, "we know better than the ignorant little people" attitude is precisely what delivered Brexit. And Trump. And is looking very likely to deliver a Sinn Fein majority government at the next election.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Lookit, you're banging on about "scumbag masterclasses", free methadone, and are terribly concerned about who's having children and with who.

    It is 100 percent, top-shelf, classic fetid populism powered by anger.

    I'll take your febrile claims of "genuine concern" and file them where they deserve to be filed.

    And don't even bother anyone's head with invoking Trump when what you typed easily could have come spilling out of his gob. A quick Google could churn out a very comparable statement from him to what you posted.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Who says crime will increase? You assume it will but that's not a given.

    What about victims of crimes? Did i suggest they should be treated any differently?



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Who says crime will increase? You assume it will but that's not a given.

    You did. 🤷‍♀️

    But where has cutting off social supports led to a decrease in crime?

    What about victims of crimes? Did i suggest they should be treated any differently?

    If crime goes up, the number of victims go up.

    You were the one who mentioned monetary value, I think the value in having less victims can't be expressed monetarily.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    you wont find too many barristers representing people for urinating in public or traffic offenses lads

    that's about as much as the district court covers

    its mostly gardai, the public and a few solicitors and cases come thick and fast, little work to be done

    solicitors make a packet gouging people charging 100s and hour for filling out a few forms or writing a letter

    you wont find many on the bread line



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I think you find it was you that made the assumption that crime would increase 🤔, no real way of knowing what effect removing social supports for repeat offenders would have on crime rates unless we were to trial it. Having no social supports for career criminals may force them into a full time employment to support themselves and their families resulting in them have less time to commit crimes, data shows that rehabilitated criminals that get full time employment shortly after release are less likely to reoffend, that why most prisons focus on giving prisoners the skills required to get them jobs. We are at full employment so they should have no problems finding work.

    The current system allows them to continue to commit crimes while ensuring they have a few bob in their back pocket from tax payers that they are commiting the crimes against. If they are caught the state will pay to have somebody negotiate the penalty they recieve which will most likely amount to a slap on the wrist depending on the crime and when they do it the next 100 times the state will continue to pay out to try and reduce the penalty. Surely at some stage they should be saying you're on your own now best of luck or off to jail with you as you are proven to be a menace to society.

    I have no issues in law abiding citizens getting social supports or free legal aid for a first or second offence after that I feel you should be on your own.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Having no social supports for career criminals may force them into a full time employment

    Would you employ a career criminal?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Sure why not, if it helps them get back on track and makes them less of a burden on the state. I'd be delighted to be doing my bit.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,908 ✭✭✭Sultan of Bling


    Career criminals will never be forced into employment.

    If they can't get free money from the taxpayer, they'll get free money by other means i.e. criminality



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,007 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Sure you would. 😂

    Anyway instead of internet edgelording societal problems which will only make them worse.

    Maybe we should start doing what they have done in other jurisdictions which will actually make a difference.

    Invest more in social supports. Drug rehabilitation, decriminalisation, mental health services, education, sports, activities, etc.

    As the IPS point out recently up to 70% of inmates have addiction or mental health issues. Tackle that and you will bring down crime and make society better.

    But the reality is Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world, the narrative that it is a crime riddled shít hole which is often citied is not reflected in actual reality.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    if I was in prison I'd be a bit anxious and depressed myself, oh wait now I'm in the 70%, its not that they are depressed when they are robbing your grannys tv

    cause and effect



Advertisement