80 new rape courts

[CassieMaddox]

Labour pledging this as part of their manifesto commitment to reduce VAWG.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/08/labour-pledges-80-new-courts-in-bid-to-tackle-backlog-crisis

So pleased to see an actual tangible action targeted at something that will help women. I'm looking forward to seeing what else is in their manifesto now.

I really don't think you've understood my post, @Bodeganights, I'm not denying other people anything, I'm talking about my personal reactions and priorities.

Its about how long it takes to become a solicitor or barrister or judge. So now its down to university's having the space and courses. Schools pushing kids to become legal people.

This assumes that solicitors and barristers never change course, therefore the Criminal Bar and criminal solicitors' firms will never recruit from people working in other fields. That isn't so - plenty of people who go into the legal professions do change into different fields for various differing reasons. It's not too much of a stretch to work out that people who moved from legal aid crime to exclusively privately paid crime work, for instance, would go back to it if pay rates became more realistic; ditto people who moved away into other fields of law. Then there are the people who always wanted to do crime but didn't because the pay rates are so awful. And people who would just like a change.

It also assumes that only solicitors and barristers can represent people, which again isn't so. Legal executives have rights of audience in magistrates' courts, and can gain higher rights relatively quickly.

As for judges, you don't have to have been practising in criminal law to sit as a judge in a criminal case, so again we don't have to wait for a whole generation to get their A levels and work their way up to become judges. If Sunak can find 15 Rwanda judges as quickly as he claims it shows it can be done.

I'm not being starry-eyed, I know that this won't happen overnight and I'm quite sure Starmer knows that. But none of that means it cannot happen at all.

Wouldn't it be easier to retain the barristers we've already got? They seem to want to leave because the pay and conditions are not sustainable. So until that issue is fixed its irrelevant how many new lawyers are trained if they wont be able to afford to practice.

Heard Starmer on the radio earlier at the manifesto saying this idea that the country is flat lining and we can't do anything about it shouldn't be accepted and he won't accept it. It reminded me of many othe attitudes on this thread "It's too hard, we can't fix it"

It's in the video here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-69111362?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=666ad0f04736400cb3a879dd%26Our%20manifesto%20is%20for%20hope%2C%20growth%2C%20and%20wealth%20creation%2C%20Starmer%20says%262024-06-13T11%3A00%3A35.449Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:2272554b-bb4d-4fee-8d84-5b4278248f8e&pinned_post_asset_id=666ad0f04736400cb3a879dd&pinned_post_type=share

"It's too hard, we can't fix it" - don't know who you're quoting there, as not a single poster has said that, or even implied it. It's just your (repeated) accusation, unfounded.

Heard Starmer on the radio earlier at the manifesto saying this idea that the country is flat lining and we can't do anything about it shouldn't be accepted and he won't accept it. It reminded me of many othe attitudes on this thread "It's too hard, we can't fix it"

But that's the opposite of what he's saying, if he says he won't accept a general acceptance that we're flatlining. He's saying he's going to fix it.

And if you take them from one area of law, there will by definition be a hole in other areas of law. And that's assuming anyone wants to move.

You think a magistrate wants to do rape cases? Aren't they limited to two year sentences?

You really want your rapist and your case to be dealt with by legal executive's? Are there even any legal executive's?

On a side note, wth are legal executive's?

It takes time to train people, if there were masses of judges and barristers languishing around, they will have found other jobs and probably unwilling to come back to court work.

It's not an accusation at all. It's my impression from the thread. A lot of posters have poured scorn on the proposal because they think there aren't enough barristers/how much will it cost/where is the money coming from etc.
Starmers line about "accepting flat lining" resonated with me in that context.

SOrry if I was confusing 🤣 That's what I was trying to say. He won't accept the flat lining. Not he's going to deliver flat lining 😂

Your incorrect impression. "Pouring scorn" means making valid knowledgeable criticisms of the details of this proposal, or wanting further clarification before deciding on its worth.

I am really pleased Labour have announced this alongside a whole raft of measures for reducing VAWG. Its surprising to me the negative response on this thread. Really not sure why you are taking it so personally.

What are you wanting to get out of this thread? You don’t appear to want discussion or express a curiosity about other people’s views with a view to deeper understanding.

I don't find any of the "reasons" as to why people should accept long waits for rapes to get to trial particularly illuminating. I find it infuriating. Patriarchal acceptance of harm to women.

See, this is an excellent example of the misinterpretation of what people are saying here. No one on this thread is accepting of long waits for rape trails to get to court. No one here is being patriarchal about this.

It is not a case of Starmer's promises being the only way to address this issue.

How would you address the issue fedup?

I’m not fedup, but would like to know exactly which issue you are asking about. Long waits for trials? Rape? VAWG in general? Because all of those have been addressed in the thread already, so what else do you want to ask?

The long waits for trials to get to court. Fedup intimated there were solutions to it other than Starmers suggestion of more court space and resources. I'm interested to hear what they are.

No, Starmer is promising resources that he can't deliver, at least not with the ideas he's suggesting or in the short term. That's the point, not that there's some miracle solution that doesn't require additional resources!

OK. So in fact you think there aren't any alternatives to Starmers unworkable suggestion?
The logical conclusion of that to me is that there is nothing to be done about it AKA accepting it.

FFS, alternatives have been discussed in this thread.

No.... your logic is flawed, if that's the conclusion you are drawing.

I truly find it dry when Beer isn't around. It really feels like watching paint dry.

Oh wrong thread sorry!

What do you think the solutions are then fedup? So far I've only heard what they aren't.

I've already answered upthread. Plenty of useful suggestions made on this thread by several other posters that I would generally agree with.