UK: Rise of the juristocracy.

[Lazy Lob]

From the Spectator

Who should we get to sort out our venal and cavalier bankers? It’s an interesting question. The Labour party wishes to inflict upon them a plague of lawyers, to use Jeremy Bentham’s apt expression, presided over by some bewigged and self-regarding judge. A judicial inquiry, then, which will end up costing the equivalent of a whole bunch of bankers bonuses and then some.The argument seems to be that the government, in preferring the inquiry to be carried out by parliamentarians, is affording the matter too little seriousness. Select committees are all well and good for the minor stuff, but such is the public outrage on this particular matter that the inquiry should be carried out at a higher level, a level beyond parliament. The body which makes the laws is not good enough, it lacks import; paradoxically, it is easily trumped by the body which does its bidding by administering those laws.

If you were looking for a tacit admission of the declining power of parliament and MPs, then here it is. If you were looking for more evidence that we now live in a juristocracy, rather than a parliamentary democracy, then here it is.

It is an odd position for the Labour party to take, ideologically, you might think; as Jeremy Bentham again argued, why should we prefer the opinion of the few to that of the many? If the public is enraged by the bankers then it should surely be the properly elected representatives of the public who channel

20

that generalised disquiet into some sort of specific and I daresay ineffectual action. What do the judges represent, other than the pinnacle of a remote, elitist, self-serving, privileged, over-remunerated and vaultingly ambitious profession? And yet it is quite possible, if not probable, that the public might be on Labour’s side in this argument; somehow, inexplicably, judges and lawyers are respected by the general population. They think they are to be trusted, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whereas — well,

Solicitors are what this country has, these days, in lieu of an industrial manufacturing base we know exactly what the man in the street thinks about politicians. He thinks about the same of them as he does of journalists, both rather lower in public esteem than, say, a pox doctor’s clerk or even an estate agent.

And how they have grown, both in size and importance over the past 20 or so years, these legal monkeys — nationally and internationally. The number of solicitors, for example, in this country has increased threefold over the past 25 years: there are now 128,000 of them, beavering away, forever urging you to sue someone or something or simply realise your right to the £2 billion worth of legal aid we pay out every year to line their capacious pockets.Attempts, incidentally, to prevent the exponential growth of legal aid founder at the European Court of Human Rights, where the judges there do what judges always do, primarily — look after their own interests and the interests of their profession. It is a human right for people to have legal aid; if ever there was a clear case of Bentham’s phrase ‘nonsense on stilts’, this is it.

But such hyperbolic stilts. At the rate we are going, by the year 2050 almost everybody you meet will be a solicitor. An extra 88,000 of these creatures in the past quarter of a century. They are what this country has, these days, in lieu of an industrial manufacturing base. To give you an idea of what it is they get up to, the number of personal injury claims as a consequence of motor accidents has increased by 80 per cent in the past seven years: that’s the main reason why your car insurance premiums are so high.

There are more barristers, too: 15,300 of them at the moment, up 500 on the number we had — a number which seemed, to me, fairly sufficient, all things considered — ten years back. And yet the entire profession has managed to remain far more aloof from the general trend towards egalitarianism, the pressures upon the other trades and professions which insist that somehow the nation be represented equally, there should be no discrimination, and so on.

I do not have the figures as to how many high court or appeal court judges attended private school. My guess is that ........

I continues here:

http://www.exacteditions.com/read/th...1815/21/3?dps=

[Arfah]

Nice find Lazy.

The self serving bankers get sorted out by the self serving and unnecessary lawyers at the behest of the despicably dodgy politicians so they can be treated leniently by a hang tied judiciary for the benefit of the dastardly media moguls

Or words to that effect

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

There is only the Spectator and The New Statesman that are even remotely willing to take swipe at the judiciary and good on them. I can't remember his name but one of the regular Spectator writers recently did an article that portrayed the UK middle class as miserable despoilers of all things enjoyable by the British working and upper classes.

[CMNot]

So, er, where is this 'general trend towards egalitarianism'?

So, the question is:

Who should we get to sort out our venal and cavalier bankers

And the answer:

Not proferred. I see some circular reasoning, a couple of fallacies, and absolutely not appempt to answer the question posed from what I am willing to bet is a privately educated middle class journalist.

So, same old same old then.

[Kit]

The proliferation of lawyers can be traced along the growing sense of entitlement in our culture. Everybody deserves their "fair share". You cannot define fair, so therefore, lawyers flooded in to meet that demand.

[RuneX2]

I’ve long thought that unelected and anonymous courts and judges have usurped the power which in a democracy more properly should belong to the people. To such an extend that it is doubtful whether our current system even merits the designation “democracy”. And the further away from the people the judges sit, the more of a mockery they make the power of the people. The so called European Court of Human Rights, and other pan-European courts are the worst.

In America at least some judges have to be elected by the people, and as such much answer to the people.

[poolboy]

I’ve long thought that unelected and anonymous courts and judges have usurped the power which in a democracy more properly should belong to the people. To such an extend that it is doubtful whether our current system even merits the designation “democracy”. And the further away from the people the judges sit, the more of a mockery they make the power of the people. The so called European Court of Human Rights, and other pan-European courts are the worst.

In America at least some judges have to be elected by the people, and as such much answer to the people.

america is not a good example of democracy

id rather be tried in a euro court rather than an american court

[CMNot]

The proliferation of lawyers can be traced along the growing sense of entitlement in our culture. Everybody deserves their "fair share". You cannot define fair, so therefore, lawyers flooded in to meet that demand.

W

T

F

I must have missed these Entitlement Acts that these solicitors have been hired to squabble over.

When the people vote in legislators term after term after term, they'll get all the lawyers they ever wanted.

Interesting tidbit. zaNu Liabour came to power in 1997, and legislated over each successive term more than any other prior Government in history. By a long way. 15 years later, we have ten times the lawyers we had. Only a very British idiot fails to understand these figures. Ergo, the author is an idiot. He can chew on that fallacy.

[Corrupt]

Interesting tidbit. zaNu Liabour came to power in 1997, and legislated over each successive term more than any other prior Government in history. By a long way. 15 years later, we have ten times the lawyers we had. Only a very British idiot fails to understand these figures. Ergo, the author is an idiot. He can chew on that fallacy.

Didn't they average something stupid like 10 laws a day?