Ministry of Justice and the CPS, are they wasting money?

The Ministry of Justice having cut legal aid fees to unreasonable levels and closing Magistrates' Courts has apparently blown about £43 MILLION on consultants!  Why?  On its website the MoJ boasts of being one of the largest Government departments.  So my question is does the MoJ not have the personnel in its department to give it the advice it needs?  So having save some £22 million from closing courts it wastes it on outside help.
Next, the Miserly of Justice having thought what a jolly idea to pass responsibility for payment of legal aid fees to the Legal Services Commission failed to ensure there were enough staff there to continue to pay graduated fees in Crown Court cases with in the 28 days that had been in force.  Obviously, someone there must have thought what a jolly wheeze to delay payments so that the Department kept the money in its coffers for a bit longer.  So now the delay in payments is up to and often in excess of 8 weeks!  This the causing considerable hardship to very many advocates and firms of solicitors.  This system has been in force for a year with absolutely no sign of improvement.
So will this change soon?  Well there is the EU Late Payment Directive which comes into force in 2013 that has an EU-wide  deadline of 30 days for payment.  The Government had said it was to fast-track this to 2012 but then reneged on it. There's a surprise! Mr Prisk, the Business Minister, has said that he wants to re-form the Late Payment Working Group to review payment performance in the UK economy.  Well I suggest that he starts with the MoJ  and the LSC.  They could so with a kick up the proverbial.
Oh and by the way did you know there is a Court Fund Office for England and Wales?  To save money no doubt it has been moved -  out of the jurisdiction, though not offshore, though it could be if Salmond get his way - its gone to Glasgow!
The CPS.  Did you go to the paperless service of case papers lecture in Middle Temple Hall.  This system is coming into effect in April- May 2012.  Has it been thought through?  Doesn't seem so.  How does an unrepresented defendant get the papers.?  How does a client in custody awaiting trial get papers?
well no doubt in the latter case the defence solicitors will have the expense of printing them all out.  How does a witness at court refresh his memory before giving evidence or get challenged on inconsistencies etc?  A full print will still be necessary. No guarantee all witness statements will be typed and thus word/number searchable.  And NO, exhibit references in the witness statements will not be hyperlinked in the statement - just a few of the problems of this idea.
Oh and no doubt due to the planned savings on printers, print ink, stationery and the like the HCAs in the CPS are going to get a nice little HP tablet computer  - some 3000 of them!
So its a Tablet for the inhouse HCAs and a paracetamol for counsel!

"Bean" a four letter word!

So it is OK to tell the police to 'f... off' according to Bean J.  I don't think so. Why should public servants be subjected to foul mouthed yobs swearing at them and not be able to arrest them.  The use of such language may be part of common usage, common being the operative word, but it is unnecessary.  The actor David Jason was right when he said that there is too much swearing on TV.  It appears to be the imperative to try to get away with as much swearing and use of the 'f' word as possible on TV shows.  Why?  It merely demonstrates a lack of vocabulary and intelligence.  Comedy shows do not need to be punctuated by these words.  The great comedians used the double entendre to great effect without resorting to swearing.  Watching Buzzcocks the other day, it featured the 'f' word it seemed just to try to be salacious.  It was unnecessary and detracted from the show.
Enough of swearing.  Life sentences should be abolished and replaced with determinate sentences.  I think not. There has to be a deterrent for the taking of life.  The statutory tariffs are a good indicator of the level of culpability involved.  The Chief Justice, Lord Judge, is on the point when he said that the law of murder needs to be looked at.  Well look not merely at what amounts to provocation but also to the absurdity of the intents.  For murder either an intent to kill or to cause serious harm but in 'attempted murder' an intent to kill.  Perhaps the intent in murder should be that, namely an intent to kill!

Ministry of Justice and LSC show some common sense!

Some common sense by the Ministry of Justice and the LSC.  Some might say 'about time too'! But who am I to comment.  Having apparently threatened to seek to persuade the MoJ to link advocacy fee rates to QASA case rankings and in consequence abolish fees for Silks, the LSC has now signed a letter (5/10/11) to say that is not the case.  Well done Max Hill QC Chair of the Criminal Bar Association.
Well like many, I thought that was what they were proposing.  Was I wrong?
Is it 'never mind the quality feel the width' of coverage from advocates of any calibre however poor?
There needs to be some regulation of ability but aren't the judges the ones to do so, seeing advocates in court, rather than some tick-box system?

What is the BSB up to with a 100% increase of CPD?

The BSB proposes an increase of 100% in the CPD hours! Why, when its Working Group presents no evidence to support such an increase and overlooks the many hours of research necessary not only on keeping up with the new cases but of research on individual cases?

Is it regulation for regulation's sake with no benefit to those we serve? It would seem that is the answer.