Internet Outrage

So, today I am extra ranty. Well, not at maximum, but still...

I made the mistake of commenting on a Comment Is Free piece in The Guardian.

Now, usually I steer away from this as it is guaranteed to get my dander up. I was weak. I succumbed.

It really is becoming the Daily Mail of the left. Or just idiots, I just can't decide. It doesn't really matter what the piece was about, but for the sake of completeness it was about Sarah Catt. She's the lady who ordered drugs off t'internet to induce labour at 39 weeks gestation. The baby hasn't been found. She was convicted this week of Administering a Noxious Substance with Intent to Endanger life (s23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861) or Administering Drugs to Obtain an Abortion (s58 OAPA 1861) depending on which paper you read. She was given 8 years.

I think it's up to 650 comments so far. Mostly speculation and faux outrage. It seemed to suit most people to ignore basic facts: she wasn't convicted of murder; she would have received Legal Aid; she did get credit for a guilty plea; she did have a psychiatric report and she was legally sane.

Whilst I may not agree with a lot of the comments, I do appreciate that this type of case attracts many differing opinions and reactions.

What boils my piss is people who do not understand the basic facts and choose to ignore them because it suits their argument. Any comments left stating bald facts with citations to back them up are pretty much ignored.

I guess people like believing what they like to believe. Facts are an annoyance to be skimmed over. Or they like a spurious argument because something else irked them today and they fancy being ranty and cross. ( and yes, I am aware that I fancy being ranty and cross in this, but I'm not subjecting anyone else to it or expecting agreement to an opinion post)

It is the internet after all, but still, never let facts get in the way of a good argument eh?

What's worse? A joke about rape, or a comment that's meant?

****POSSIBLE TRIGGER WARNING****

 

 



Loath as I am to post even more about 'rape jokes', I have decided it's probably OK on here as no-one reads it anyway.

Please note that the following is my own personal opinion, not research based and is more anecdotal musing than anything else. I say this just in case I get picked apart, which is not the reason why I'm posting this.

A few days ago, I was pointed towards a blog about rape jokes. I'm not going to name the blogger, as I don't really want to give him any more of the publicity which he appears to crave.

The general gist of the blog was that the blogger had been to see some comedians at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, and had been offended by the 'rape jokes' told by several comedians there. Although he does make it clear that he doesn't mean offence, he means that they are dangerous per se.

His theory appears to be that comedians should self censor and stop telling jokes about rape, as they upset rape victims hugely, and may cause rape, as part of promoting rape myths.

The first tranche of comments on the blog were supportive of this.

I then came on, and said I was female and had been the subject of sexual assault and attempted rape, and that I didn't support his stance - that I found rape jokes funny sometimes, and sometimes not. It was my own choice what I found funny. I didn't speak for rape victims, it was my personal opinion. I don't believe in censorship on the whole. Education, yes. Censorship, no.

I didn't intend to say much if I'm honest, I just felt that he was lumping 'rape victims' into one amorphous mass, and that not everyone thought as he thought we should. Just 'Hi, I'm an attempted rape victim, and I find some of the jokes funny'

Another comedian, RM, agreed with me, and gave much fuller answers and far more of them.

Another woman also posted a fabulous post – that she had been raped, and that she didn't agree with him either on the whole. She was pretty much ignored by the blogger.

At one point RM posted saying I was being slagged off on Twitter by the blogger. These were the tweets:

 .....and.....

 

 

 

It upset me far more than I thought it should, and I obsessed about why. Finally it dawned on me - it read like I hadn't been raped properly, therefore my opinion didn't count. And also, that a rape joke is precisely that, but those tweets were intended to discredit, undermine and belittle my comments and opinions because they conflicted with his.

The tweets went on as RM tried valiantly to defend me - saying that what did he mean? Had I not been raped enough or something? The replies came back with definitions of rape, and that there was no 'half rape'.

I never claimed to have been penetrated. My experience, which I don't intend to go into, partly because it is not salacious gossip to be drooled over by some pervert who finds this blog, and partly because it is not relevant. My experience was prolonged and frightening. I don't consider it to be any less of an 'experience' just because I managed to get free.

Obsessing over all this, I find that I have re-visited the event for the first time in a long long time. For many years, I justified what had happened by excusing the behaviour as done whilst he was mentally ill, and that I didn't want to ruin his life by reporting it. I excused it as 'not that bad - so many others have had far worse experiences and I should just get over it then'. Minimised it to the point where I buried it. Standard stuff I guess.

Turns out my 'trigger' isn't rape jokes. It's some patriarchal alpha male who I have never met, minimising what happened to me, dismissing my opinion and telling all his followers that I'm not a 'real' victim. That's what it feels like to me anyway. I'm blogging about this, trying to make sense of why a tweet from someone I've never met, and whose opinion I don't really care about, has caused me to feel so angry, upset and sad at the same time. But it's because he has dismissed what happened to me. It wasn't bad enough. I don't count. In tweeting the above, it felt like 'Come look at this idiot - she thinks she's been raped - tell her how wrong she is and how worthless her voice is'.

If he wants comedians to take responsibility for the jokes that they tell, and to self-censor, then he ought to do exactly the same in his writing. No-one knows what individual triggers are. Indeed, I didn't know what mine was until this.

I understood his premis for comedians taking responsibility for their actions in the jokes that they tell - that they understand possible reactions and consequences to their performance.

I didn't understand why he sought to be all patriarchal on my ass - to pretty much pat me on the head and tell me sssshhhhh the grown ups were talking. I felt belittled by his male patronage.

 

In the end, the result of all this, is that I have spent the last week uncomfortably revisiting an experience that I thought I had dealt with and left behind me. I am furious that something as small as this guy belittling my experience has done that. No rape joke has ever done that. My job has entailed over the years dealing with both perpetrators and victims of sexual assaults and rape. That never triggered anything.

 

One insignificant guy on the internet did.

 

Just goes to show eh?

 

 

Sunday courts - Just Say No

Well, it's been a while!

Since I last talked to myself, there has been many a tale in the criminal defence world that I can't be arsed to remember.

The latest is the Sunday court pilot. The latest Blue Sky thinking from government is that it would be a jolly jape to open courts on a Sunday. Marvellous.

This all stems from the riots last year. The courts worked 24 hours to process alleged offenders, and according to government, this worked terribly well. Apart from all the appeals.

It was such an apparent success that someone decided that we should all be working more antisocial hours. Because it was For The Public Good.

The plan (formally anyway) is that courts should open on a Sunday for remands only, just as they do on a Saturday.
Remand courts can't do much. All they can do is determine bail and take pleas. If pre sentence reports are needed, they can't be done. In all likelihood, they can't set a trial (it's unlikely that the CPS will have a witness calendar on a Sunday) They really only exist to stop people being held in a police cell for longer than they have to be.

Our worry is that if we allow this pilot to happen, then it's a slippery slope. Next on the agenda is Saturday trials, evening courts till 8pm..... Would YOU want to give evidence at a trial at 8pm, on a Sunday? My guess is no. People see it as something to be done during the week, a job to be done. Not to interfere with family time, free time.

Criminal defence solicitors already do a 5 day week interspersed with police station work during the night, and Saturday remand courts. We are NOT happy that the one day we aren't at work, and if we're not already on call, that now we have to trip trap to court again. We have families and friends we'd like to see. Personally, Sundays are the only full day I have with my boys - Saturdays are dad days. I will not work and miss that day. It's important to my whole family.


We all work hard. The court staff work hard. So do the CPS, the Probation Service, and the security staff. No-one wants to work until 8-9pm or at the weekends. The defence solicitors predominantly come from small firms of 1-4 duty solicitors. Trying to juggle 24 hour working is hard enough without adding this.

15 years ago, when I first started this job, the courts were far far busier. A day on court duty meant seeing between 10 and 15 clients. Today? On a good day, 3. On a bad day, I get to read a lot. Out of court disposals have meant a huge decline in people having to attend court. Then, i could have understood a need to open courts in the evenings and at weekends. Now? Simply not the need.

We have half the courts we had 15 years ago - the rural ones have been shut. The courts that are still open are at half capacity, but with half the staff. We. Just. Don't. Need. Weekend. Courts.

So far, firms have had to make expressions of interest to be on the duty solicitor rota for Sundays.
So far, in my area, NO-ONE has made an expression of interest. (officially anyway - i'm quite sure some are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of being the only firm participating)
So far.

At some point, irrespective of our views or participation, the pilot will be declared A SUCCESS, and rolled out countrywide and extended. It will happen regardless of anyone's views because this is a political decision that has already been made. It's not a decision borne of necessity. It's Efficiency, Convenience, and For The People.

Say No To Sundays.

Before I have to revert to religion and claim religious discrimination. And I really don't want to have to do that.

New job. Different problems

Well, a lot has happened since I last talked to myself on here.

I finally left my job! I spent 6 months poking at another firm saying Gis a Job, Gis a Job, and finally they gave in. It's a firm that only does criminal law - magistrates, crown and prison law. Where my soul is.

I couldn't take the Other Place any more - it was badly run, not many clients were actually helped by our intervention, and everyone hated working there.

The New Place is run by eccentrics and staffed by the same, and it's bloody marvellous. Everyone there is there because they love what they do, are passionate, and believe in true social justice. Many of us have had a rough time,  for various reasons, and most of us are a little quirky. But everyone is warm, friendly, and amazing at their jobs and I love it!

As far as Legal Aid is concerned, I've really only swapped one set of issues for another. Civil is currently sounding its deathrattle, and quite frankly I don't expect that anything will radically change from the bill to it being enacted. Defeatist, but sadly probably true. The combination of cuts, job losses and the loss of the vast majority of Civil Legal Aid is truly abhorrent. And the effect will be the marginalisation of many of society, impotent to challenge wrong decisions, see their kids, divorce, etc etc.

Criminal law and its problems sees even less media coverage/public sympathy. Mainly because it deals with those in society that we would rather pretend didn't exist. The druggies, alcoholics, ASBO kids, gangs, kiddy fiddlers......  Criminal defence lawyers are ranked scum too - to be honest, that doesn't bother me one iota - it's other people's prejudices that lead to that conclusion, not mine.  Who's the first person (apart from your mum) that you'd call if you were arrested......? A solicitor. Necessary evil we are. Like flypaper.

One of the major proposals for cuts within crime ( apart from general cutting of fees) is that it is proposed that advice in the police station is means tested. At the moment, EVERYONE is entitled to speak to a solicitor free of charge when arrested and taken to a police station, and the chances are, to have a legal representative present when you are interviewed.
Imagine you are arrested in the middle of the night and dragged to the police station. Probably in your boxer shorts. If you're lucky, the police let you get dressed. Would you have the time or presence of mind to grab 3 wage slips? No? Well tough, you'll be on your own in the police station.
Will you know if they have the right to search your house? Take your computer and phone? Take intimate samples? Keep you for 24 hours? Should you answer questions or keep silent? No? This government says tough, you should know a solicitor, and be able to pay them before you have any of these questions answered. Seem fair?

The reality is not many people will care. Unless it happens to them. And that's where all the Legal Aid cuts collide. They aren't vote winners. They don't affect Middle England.

....but I love my job..... as long as it lasts. The death knell is starting to toll quietly for Criminal Legal Aid, and it won't be long before it becomes deafening. 

Playing the Game

The Game in question is difficult to define. I am no good at it however. Many of my colleagues are very good at it. They attend and hold many meetings, conduct many reviews and advocate many presentations to other people who are good at It.

What never seems to be done is much actual work. Actually seeing clients and achieving what the client wants to achieve. There is much bluster about Judicial Reviews, appeals and everlasting pointing out minor errors on the part of the Other Side. What no-one seems to ask is what the client actually wants.

We have one case where we have not seen or spoken to the client for over SIX months. We are progressing the appeal and review and general arsing about, but what no-one has done is actually see if the client WANTS us to do this.

I am loath to say this. In fact I may drink to forget later on, but I think David Cameron might be a little bit right about charities. The more contact I have with them, and the more I see of the work they do, the more it concerns me, the level of funding they receive. In a lot of cases to do no more than refer the person on to another charity, who will 'assess' the client and refer them on again. I am wholeheartedly NOT saying this generally about charitable organisations - there are many who do amazing work on very little money.

My own opinion is also that sometimes, the more places a person is referred to, the more that person becomes convinced that whatever the issue, is Someone Else's Responsibility. No-one seems to help them to take charge of their own lives. The charity becomes a crutch for them, not a helping hand.

In my own personal life, I have some shite going on. Some of it is my own doing, some of it is not. I could refer myself to many of these agencies for 'help'. I could scream and bemoan my lot (well, I do actually do that to be fair), but what I don't do is expect someone else to pick me up and do it all for me. Some might say that maybe I should learn to ask for help. In my darkest moments I have ( I got brief counselling after my father's hideous lingering death), but then you dust yourself off and move on.

In other words, the Game seems to be what some Not for Profit organisations are good at. Morally, I find it difficult to be a part of that. Practically, I need to pay the mortgage, and the private sector is fucked (daring to try and make a profit was not playing the Game apparently). I will need to get better at looking Very Busy and Important. And hold more meetings.

More Legal Aid rantings.

Well I keep meaning to update this, but life got in the way, and the letters m, ' and @ don't work on my laptop anymore. Happily I have dug out an old keyboard and the laptop now resembles something from Back to the Future.

My main  gripe/rant is still legal aid, and the cuts thereof, so stop reading now if you don't care.

I've been going through (yet again) the Green Paper on this, and what I keep coming back to is the disproportionate effect on women, those with disabilities, the mentally ill and those of ethnic minorities. When I was in private practice, the people who needed face to face advice were:

- those who didnt have access to a phone - whether they didn't have one, the violent partner wouldn't let them access one, or their English wasn't good enough.
- those with mental illnesses who needed the reassurance of a real person in front of them
- people with literally carrier bags of correspondence from debt companies/other solicitors about eg contact with their kids and who want and need to hand it over to someone to deal with
-people who  have drug or alcohol misuse issues who need to come in first thing in the morning when they can take in advice.
-people who couldn't read the letters we sent out to them - we regularly sent out blank letterheads to clients who couldn't read and had no phone. They recognised the logo, and came in to see what we needed!

In my northern rural market town practice, we essentially offered a legal version of a GP - we covered most things, and deferred to specialists if need be. We and the other practices considered ourselves part of the community, and we served that community as best we could. My own practice regularly gave free advice because we believed that everyone should have access, regardless of ability to pay, and the senior partner passionately believed in social justice. He even has 'Justitia omnibus' on his gravestone.

Increasingly, because of the constraints put upon us mainly from Legal Aid, we had to drop services like debt and welfare advice and hope the CABs would take up the slack. By the time I gave up and gave the practice away (yeah - note 'gave' not sold - by then no-one in their right minds would BUY a practice with legal aid contracts!) we had become little more than yet another anonymous company obsessed with targets and policies.

That was a lament for the rose tinted past, sorry. My point was supposed to be that we served the community. This government is suggesting that anyone in future wanting legal aid, should phone ONE SINGLE NATIONAL number, and be told where they can go for advice, IF they are allowed to go at all. If it is deemed that their problem can be solved in a phone call, well they won't get to actually see anyone. It will all be dealt with facelessly. What happened to the Big Society? What happened to looking after people who need help? Do we honestly think we can discharge our social responsibility by giving people who have no phones a call centre number?? Human contact is sorely underestimated, and personally I find it difficult to tell over the phone if a client has genuinely taken in what I have told them - I need to read their expression, and I'm sure clients must feel the same.



All that leads to my second rant - work! Having been my own boss for so long, and been able to voice my opinion freely, it's very hard being subject to restrictions by my boss on what I can comment on. The short answer is I'm not allowed to comment publicly on the cuts, what they mean for clients or any potential redundancies within the firm.

To be frank, this boils my piss.

The company relies on legal aid, the Financial Inclusion Fund and other local funding, all of which have either just been cut, or are about to. Not even being 'allowed' to post links to newspaper articles on the cuts on Facebook makes me feel like a truculent teenager.

I have had offers from various national papers and professional journals to give my opinion on the cuts, and the effect this will have on clients and the workforce, and I can't comment. Given the national apathy on the cuts to legal aid, ANY raising of the profile is good. The only thing I have been able to do is part of the company response to the Green Paper. As long as I didn't denounce telephone advice, and eschewed the traditional methods of delivery   i.e. a PR exercise.  It reads like a press release.

Unless the company has a frigging millionaire behind the scenes, the likelihood is that it will not survive. I am not party to any discussions that management has, but quite frankly not many services like ours will survive without that much wished for motherfucking fairy. And the loss to clients will be catastrophic.






:

More Legal Aid ranting, now with added housing reform rant

It's been a while since I wrote on this blog. Partly because no-one reads it anyway, and partly because I have had my head wedged firmly up my own backside for a month.
I only came back to it as I posted on my Conservative MP's blog today. Mainly because he thinks the 'reforms' to housing issues are a marvellous idea. Housing law practitioners don't.

Read this:
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/

It's a blog written by some housing law practitioners, and when I did housing  law, was considered to be the best, most up-to-date and well written way to keep up with new cases and law. If they think this reform is a bad idea, it probably is.

The new proposals are, on first glance to the average Daily Mail reader, a marvellous idea. Get rid of noisy tenants quickly? Sorted. The devil is in the detail as the blog states. Sadly there is no detail as yet. What constitutes an annoying tenant etc etc? And don't forget, the tenant probably won't get any legal aid to defend what may be a vexatious claim.

ANYWAY,  it was my first foray into contacting an MP about anything - let's see if he responds at all! If you're reading Guy Opperman, I'm not sure where you stand on most issues apart from housing, and snow on local roads. It would be useful for your blog to say a little more than how many local people you have met

On the subject of Legal Aid (which is a subject which I will bang on about ad infinitum so if it bores you, leave now), JusticeForAll held their lobby campaign launch today at Westminster. They have huge support from the legal community, and it seems that many MPs attended (not sure why yet, or in what capacity - for all I know, free muffins were being handed out). I don't hold out much hope of the Green Paper being substantially amended from what we have now, but at least the legal community has finally got it's collective arses up and done something joined up.

Me? I'm currently expecting to be made redundant - well, the company I work for gets most of its funding from either Legal Aid, or other government funding, so unless a motherfucking fairy appears, then my, and many others (around the country as well ) work days are numbered.

Next blog? What other job can I possibly do seeing as my career is being made redundant by this government? I could retrain, but I can't afford to  - I can't afford tuition fees, a giant mortgage, 2 kids, and an imminently expensive divorce. Shipping law appears to be the only area still advertising jobs. Think they want a jaded legal aid solicitor?? Worth a CV I guess. 

If anyone is interested, links to more information:

http://www.justice-for-all.org.uk/
http://mylegal.org.uk/
http://guyopperman.blogspot.com/