Give with one hand...

Two stories in the news that demonstrate a classic lack of common purpose by the government:

On the one hand, as the BBC reports: "More than £13m of funding is being provided to help support victims of sexual and domestic violence".

On the other hand, as The Times reports: "Dozens of law firms are having to turn away vulnerable clients, including victims of domestic violence, because they have exhausted this year's legal aid budgets."

Make sense of that.


  1. The £13m will be distributed to various quangos and what are known as "fake charities". These are bodies which are listed as charities but churn government money in to lobbying for more, er, government money.

    Neither the quangos nor the fake charities will do much for anybody except their own employees.

    I assume you know this, but say it for the purposes of anyone who does not.

  2. I saw the new education to educating people that hitting women was bad.

    Don't people know that anyway?


    Aparrently a women dies a week from DV. So what? A price worth paying.

    Better spend the money on heart screening for men or breast screening for women. Would save many many times more lives for the money wasted on DV which causes more net deaths through splitting familys up anyway.

    This gender politics by people who actually hold real power (Labour party) really upsets me and worries me about the future. Hope that influential wing of their party dies. What happened to representative politicians?

  3. "Dozens of law firms are having
    to turn away vulnerable clients"

    No one has to turn anyone away, the legal profession could reduce their fees to something reasonable and compete in true open market competition rather than relying on government handouts.

  4. Hear Hear. I am not sure, but think the US may be right to veto health care reform and for people to spend their own money instead. It is certainly a closer argument then the liberals in this country shout. On balance I think they may be right - the americans, (without the guns though).

  5. "No one has to turn anyone away" - how much should someone on state benefits be charged?

  6. Violence is a job for the police.

  7. Not sure I mentioned anything about People claiming state benefits?
    But what if perversely by injecting billions of pounds of revenue into the legal profession it effectively negates the need to compete in open and fair competition and allows firms to set artificially high charges.
    No doubt another cogent argument that will be despatched into the dissonance reducing area in your mind kept for those with an axe to grind against Family Law professionals.

  8. Sorry, but either you don't understand how legal aid works, or your mind has been clouded by your obvious dislike for the legal profession. With respect, I suggest that you read up on the subject.

  9. He has a point though, I am not sure this social engineering on things like refuges and cafcass and family law is money well spent by government at all. I omit social workers as they do an important job. Pathetic arguments over if someone once called someone else a silly cow with no witnesses is silly.

  10. John
    I am well informed on the principles and administration of the welfare state and with respect I suggest you read up on economics and try to answer the question properly (if you did you would find it is a sound argument).
    But hey ho why bother when "with my obvious dislike for the legal profession" you can easily write me off so easily as someone with an axe to grind against family law professionals(at least I am in good company with Richard Dawkins).


Post a comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.