Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #LegalAidLies
Most recents (9)
Oh boy. It’s been a while since we’ve had one of these.
Presumably this is in honour of the paperback publication of #FakeLaw next week, 27 May 2021.
Let’s look at why this trash from the Mail is as misleading as it is dangerous.
[THREAD]
Presumably this is in honour of the paperback publication of #FakeLaw next week, 27 May 2021.
Let’s look at why this trash from the Mail is as misleading as it is dangerous.
[THREAD]
1. Readers are invited to conclude that £66,000 (not £70k) is too much to spend on this very serious case, in which a child was killed. A “vast sum of taxpayers’ money”, we’re told.
And there’s a quote from this chap.
(We’ll come back to his searing legal analysis, don’t worry)
And there’s a quote from this chap.
(We’ll come back to his searing legal analysis, don’t worry)
2. But the journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right for a criminal trial like this. Such as...
At the risk of giving this kind of #FakeLaw the publicity it craves, the reality is that thousands will read it, and I do think it’s important to put the truth out there.
So here goes.
More #LegalAidLies from the Mail... [THREAD]
So here goes.
More #LegalAidLies from the Mail... [THREAD]
1. We start as ever with a claim that the defendants “got £17,000 off taxpayer”, like they were handed a bag of swag. This is in fact the cost of legal aid set by the government. It’s like saying someone who receives a NHS heart transplant “gets” the cost of the operation in cash
2. Readers are invited to conclude that £17,000 is too much to spend on this very serious case. The journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right. Such as...
Gather round, children.
The Mail on Sunday is pushing some vintage #FakeLaw today, with a classic reheating of some #LegalAidLies in the ongoing war on asylum seekers.
Let’s take a brief look. [THREAD]
The Mail on Sunday is pushing some vintage #FakeLaw today, with a classic reheating of some #LegalAidLies in the ongoing war on asylum seekers.
Let’s take a brief look. [THREAD]
The “scoop” is that a law firm, Duncan Lewis Solicitors, has been paid £55million in legal aid over the past three years.
Part of their work involves representing asylum seekers.
Hence the headline of “£55m for lawyer blocking deportation flights”.
But look closer.
Part of their work involves representing asylum seekers.
Hence the headline of “£55m for lawyer blocking deportation flights”.
But look closer.
Firstly, despite the focus in the article on the founder, this is a huge solicitors’ firm with over 800 staff and offices across the country. The headline “£55million for lawyer” implies that this sum went to one individual. It of course did not.
Lie number one.
Lie number one.
Some Sunday morning #FakeLaw to deconstruct, courtesy of our regular guest star, The Sun.
Buckle up, kids [THREAD]
Buckle up, kids [THREAD]
1. Firstly, this man did not “spend £165,000”. That is a lie. This was the overall cost of legal aid in long-running serious criminal proceedings. This is like saying someone who receives a NHS heart transplant is “spends” the cost of the operation. It’s nonsensical.
2. In any case, readers are invited to conclude that £165,000 is too much to spend on this case.
But the journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right. Such as...
But the journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right. Such as...
Gutter journalism. #FakeLaw by The Sun and The Mail.
A truly vile exploitation of a grieving widow to make dishonest and intellectually void attacks on legal aid and the rule of law.
Here’s why it’s nonsense:
[THREAD]
A truly vile exploitation of a grieving widow to make dishonest and intellectually void attacks on legal aid and the rule of law.
Here’s why it’s nonsense:
[THREAD]
1. To start, these men did not “get £500,000 of taxpayers’ cash in legal aid”. £465,000 - not £500k - was the overall sum paid to their lawyers. This is like saying someone who receives a NHS heart transplant is “gets” the cost of the operation in “cash”. It’s nonsense.
2. Readers are invited to conclude that £465,000 is too much to spend on this case. The journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right. Such as...
Lord Faulks QC was the right-hand minister to Chris Grayling at the MoJ from 2014, when legal aid was obliterated and Grayling was attempting to restrict judicial review, branding it “a promotional tool for left-wing campaigners”.
There’s nothing like an impartial tribunal.
There’s nothing like an impartial tribunal.
Other fun facts:
Lord Faulks was responsible for spreading #LegalAidLies by falsely claiming, in Parliament, that legal aid lawyers earn “£200 an hour” fullfact.org/law/legal-aid-…
Lord Faulks was responsible for spreading #LegalAidLies by falsely claiming, in Parliament, that legal aid lawyers earn “£200 an hour” fullfact.org/law/legal-aid-…
During Grayling’s efforts to pass the most pointless law of all time (the “Heroism Bill”), Lord Faulks was mocked in the House of Lords as “the straight man in Mr Grayling’s comedy routine.” lawgazette.co.uk/law/ridiculous…
Gutter journalism. #FakeLaw.
1. This man was not “handed” £2.5m. This is a lie. That was the overall cost of legal aid in long-running serious criminal proceedings. This is like saying someone who receives a NHS heart transplant is “given” the cost of the operation.
1. This man was not “handed” £2.5m. This is a lie. That was the overall cost of legal aid in long-running serious criminal proceedings. This is like saying someone who receives a NHS heart transplant is “given” the cost of the operation.
2. Readers are invited to conclude that £2.5m is too much to spend on this case. The journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right. Such as...
3. How much of that figure includes VAT, which goes to the Treasury? How many lawyers & support staff worked on the case? What work was involved? How many hours, days, months went into this extremely serious case where the defendant was looking at a potential life sentence?
Gutter journalism. #FakeLaw.
1. This man was not “handed £400k”. This is a lie. That was the overall cost of legal aid in his criminal and immigration proceedings. This is like saying someone who receives a NHS heart transplant is “given” the cost of the operation.
1. This man was not “handed £400k”. This is a lie. That was the overall cost of legal aid in his criminal and immigration proceedings. This is like saying someone who receives a NHS heart transplant is “given” the cost of the operation.
2. Readers are invited to conclude that £400k is too much to spend on this case. The journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right. Such as...
3. How much of that figure includes VAT, which goes to the Treasury? How many lawyers & support staff worked on the case? What work was involved? How many hours, days, months went into this extremely serious case where the defendant was looking at a potential life sentence?
Gutter journalism. #FakeLaw from beginning to end.
1. Khan was not “given £350,000”. This is a lie. That was the overall cost of legal aid in his criminal proceedings in 2012. This is like saying someone who receives a NHS heart transplant is “given” the cost of the operation.
1. Khan was not “given £350,000”. This is a lie. That was the overall cost of legal aid in his criminal proceedings in 2012. This is like saying someone who receives a NHS heart transplant is “given” the cost of the operation.
2. Readers are invited to conclude that £350,000 is too much to spend on this case. The journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right. Such as...
3. How much of that figure includes VAT, which goes to the Treasury? How many lawyers & support staff worked on the case? What work was involved? How many hours, days, months went into this extremely serious case where the defendants were looking at potential life sentences?
