Tony Blair’s Supreme Court: How big is the trough from which lawyers feed?

Watching the smug faces at the Supreme Court today as they fulfilled Tony Blair’s plan for Britain to be ruled by lawyers, I was reminded of two major contributions the profession has already made to our lives, the near bankrupting of general practice and the unleashing of mass immigration.

By October last year lawyers were winning so much money from the NHS in fees and damages, the fees often hugely outweighing the damages, that GPs, who have a legal obligation pay for their malpractice insurance, were resigning in large numbers. To give the reader an idea of by how much lawyers were playing the system, a part time GP doing two surgeries a week was obliged to pay £560 pounds a month in insurance to the grasping profession.

With the prospect of premiums doubling or trebling the GP’s insurers threw in the towel forcing the government to take pick up an Everest sized bill. It means longer waiting lists and less treatment but it will not stop lawyers feeding on a banquet of public money. There are plenty of lawyers in the House of Commons who will see to that.

Meanwhile those of you who have waited patiently in line at doctors’ surgeries or hospital outpatients behind people who have no apparent connection whatsoever with Britain, but are being treated free gratis and for nothing, might wonder how this came about. Enter m’learned friends once more.

Several years ago the Department of Health, following a lawsuit brought by an immigrant claiming his human rights were violated by being asked for evidence of his eligibility for NHS treatment, issued instructions to GPs that they were under no circumstances to ask for any identity documents from patients. Doctors have not helped; the BMA, about as left wing as a rail union on continuous strike, has consistently urged successive governments to treat the NHS as the IHS (International Health Service) by not asking any questions of foreign patients even if they drive up in a Rolls Royce.

The huge numbers of ineligible claimants involved can also be laid at the door of lawyers. Over the last three decades, provided you can get yourself in front of an immigration adjudicator along with a state funded lawyer, (many migrants have no difficulty paying £4000 for a channel crossing and often pay for a private brief – up to £450 an hour) you can be pretty certain of a favourable outcome to your appeal to stay. If not, nobody will stop you leaving the court and vanishing. Nor is there anything to prevent you turning up later for expensive surgery or medical care,even if you shouldn’t be here. Doctors are told not to check.

One cannot help feeling that the immigration appeal service is designed as a lawyer’s carousel going round and round spilling money into immigration briefs’ pockets. Appeals, counter appeals, re-appeals, rulings, re-freshers, counter rulings, fund this gigantic cash machine.

Liked this Blog ? Why not post it to a friend ?

Subscribe To Quarterly Digital Edition

Subscribe To Quarterly Traditional Print Magazine (delivered to your door)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

7 Comments on Tony Blair’s Supreme Court: How big is the trough from which lawyers feed?

  1. “One cannot help feeling that the immigration appeal service is designed as a lawyer’s carousel going round and round spilling money into immigration briefs’ pockets. Appeals, counter appeals, re-appeals, rulings, re-freshers, counter rulings, fund this gigantic cash machine.”
    Exactly like the overseas aid, a cash cow for all involved, corruption from the very top, regularly feeding billions into the pockets of dictators as well as corrupt politicians and businessmen around the world.

  2. Your Supreme Court lawyers should have recused themselves from the Miller case. They’re mainly Remainers.

    Their decision was politically biased; judicial activism at its worst.

    The High Court’s decision was the better one.

  3. Watched the very lengthy Parliamentary interrogation of Boris Johnson on BBC TV last night. Temporarily switched off when that tubby SNP windbag in the bright blue jacket stood up to “ask a question of the Prime Minister”.

    One striking feature of the whole event was so many women from the opposition benches whining (and I do mean whining) that Boris’ aggressive language and his use of the emotive terms “capitulation” and “surrender” had put their lives in danger. Brexiteers, it seems, were tweeting death threats to remainer MPs they considered traitors. Needless to say the memory of Jo Cox murder was invoked. The only solution was for Boris to apologise for lying to the Queen and daring to express disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling. He must “consider his position” ie. resign so that a caretaker Prime Minister and government of national unity can be installed without these political snowflakes having to face a general election.

    The reverence with which the words “Supreme Court”, “the highest court in the land” were uttered from the opposition benches suggest that the MPs who were over-awed by this institution have little awareness of its short and dubious history.

    • Complaints about language are what BJ said – humbug. haven’t the remainer left endorsed or appeased ‘comedians’ who have threatened shooting and hanging recently. The BBC reports the attacks on Boris as headline news without a word about where the real violence comes from.

      Unilke you, I found it unwatchable for the reason you give and also for the frequent halfwitted windbag displays from the speaker.

      • We need to be wary when the Liberal-Left talk about “safety”. It often signifies that they are planning to extend their control into new territory.

        There is something deeply depressing about this rising fear of robust debate. It has parallels in the lowering of standards in other areas life – education springs to mind as does the eagerness of the police and armed forces to soften entry requirements in the interests of diversity. This feeble generation seek not to prove themselves by measuring up to the challenges posed by time honoured institutions. Rather, they see the challenges as discriminatory and would like institutions changed to accommodate their weaknesses. This, to my mind, is yet another symptom of the feminisation of our culture.

        The speaker, who only the day before had seemed filled with triumphant enthusiasm, looked increasingly weary and even bored as the debate wore on. I wonder if he actually regretted the reconvening of Parliament as it just means more work once the gloating is over.

  4. In the latest ruling about prorogation I notice a phrase which begs a huge question – unless I am missing something – and that is “without justification”. I would have thought that the justification was already writ large – namely that an unrepresentative Parliament was riding rough-shod over the will of the people expressed in a People’s Vote, namely. a Referendum ordered by Parliament., which decision would be acknowledged and duly proceseed. Some hope.