Lansley - judge, jury and executioner?

I'm spitting bricks at this article from the Telegraph

First because of the title - 'Lansley defiant amid claims of Lord rebellion over NHS reforms'.
Almost every group you can think of has come out against the reforms - yet Lansley won't back down. He's like a stubborn child, digging his heels in to get what he wants.

But this is bit that really gets my goat:

a Department of Health source pointed out that PCTs are already being wound down while doctors are forming commissioning groups.

In other words, the reforms are being implemented before they have been voted into law. Such arrogance! Is he that sure that the reforms will pass? I suspect it's because he wants them implemented so they have to be passed because it's too late not to. Again, arrogance.

It's like a jury delivering a verdict before the evidence has been heard. If something isn't legal yet then surely it should be il-legal?

These reforms need to be stopped - at least and until they are passed into law. Anything less should be regarded as a criminal act.

Legal aid 'reforms'

Yesterday, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke announced a series of reforms to legal aid that will effectively cut off millions of people access to the courts.

From the BBC:

Legal aid will be cut for a wide range of civil cases, including:

Divorce, welfare benefits and school exclusion appeals
Employment
Immigration where the person is not detained
Clinical negligence and personal injury

So if you're poor you will not be able to afford to get divorced, you won't be able to sue if your hospital or doctor messes up a medical procedure, you won't be able to appeal if the DWP decides you're not disabled enough and you have no recourse if your employer decides to sack you unfairly.

How is this fair? How is this democracy?

The government hopes its proposals will significantly change the public's attitude to dispute resolution and encourage more people to solve their legal disagreements without recourse to either a lawyer or the courts.

Yes, because this is likely to happen. Their idea of what is necessary or not is beyond skewed. How are the warring couple going to solve their 'disagreements' without a court?
How is the person left in chronic pain because of clinical negligence supposed to resolve things with the hospital without a solicitor?
How is the disabled person supposed to appeal against a wrong ATOS assessment if they have no way to pay for it?

This is one of the most insidious cuts yet. The ConDems really do seem determined to take us back to the 1800's.

Justice and rights? Of course - but only if you afford them.

Source