“In my own experience, I wish there was one solicitor who would take on all of my levels of harassment:
‘criminal lines’ of arrests with treatments as ‘criminal suspect’ and prosecutions where the sentence can be ‘negotiated’;
‘moral damages’ while I’m still due for a Return to Bail date in January;
‘civil actions’ for an Application in the High Court never having been heard;
‘civil actions’ to get my pension payments and housing benefits re-instated;
the ‘privilege’ of being on Police Bail, i.e. under house arrest since August 2015;
the difficulties in recuperating one’s property ‘seized legitimately’;
compensation for the serious damages to my health.
If everything was hunky dory in the State of Denmark, there wouldn’t be a need for McKenzie Friends, let alone a RISING need – due to
cuts in Legal Aid
and the rise in removing children!
This article by an ‘internationally recognised law firm based in central London’ in LEXOLOGY is a fairly neutral assessment of the role of McKenzie Friends.
But it does stress ‘confidentiality’ and does not convey at all what we have encountered:
the secrecy in family courts to supposedly protect the identity of children, but in reality cover-up crimes against them;
the lack of professionalism of Legal Aid solicitors who ‘take the money and run’;
the need for access to professionals by parents who are imprisoned after their children have been removed;
the consistently rising trend of removing children from their biological parents.
The MoJGovUK twitter account says: We work to protect the public and reduce reoffending, and to provide a more effective, transparent and responsive criminal justice system.”
Especially when they work pro bono as we do?
It’s all about money, isn’t it: for he who pays the piper plays the tune! Does the legal profession care whether money in circulation adheres to the Bank of England Act 1694? Do they understand what is dishonest with our money system? Would a book on Capitalism and Morality make a difference?
Legal professionals are paid by Legal Aid or from private wealth. Whether they do or don’t achieve ‘justice’ seems to be a question of which barrister is better at the ping pong that judges observe before them.
I’m told that judgments are written before hearings and that barristers and judges agree them between each other.
It’s a game of nit-picking, without any holistic or systemic approach. It’s an opportunity for abusing power and…
View original post 347 more words