A drop in the ocean in the great schemes of things....but replicated by how many more

I agree that the cost to the NHS of the Sandie Peggie case was totally avoidable had the law been correctly interpreted, so not even a question of common sense. But given that the DIE official consulted (her salary = more wasted NHS funds) gave evidence this week that included her saying she did not know what her own sex was, but if she had to hazard a guess she's probably female , there was no common sense involved at all.
Just to amend what Easybee has said - whether Dr Theodore Upton had a GRC or not may be irrelevant as where it is justified, it is possible to exclude transgender people with GRCs from single sex spaces such as changing rooms.

I feel everyone involved in the decision to pursue the case against Sandie Peggie should be sacked for misconduct. Their job is to study the information before making a decision it is clear this was not done in this case. They have wasted money which to me is a serious as stealing it.

When organisations behave in this way, driven by ideology in the Fife case, it is perfectly understandable why people have no faith in institutions.

MaizieD

Your proposition might be a valid one if the UK was a household on a fixed budget. But it isn’t. It is a state with its own sovereign currency which it can create and issue in any quantity, and at any time, it wants.

Money issued, for whatever reason, by state spending goes into the economy and generates economic activity (i.e. that elusive ‘growth’ the government is so keen to achieve)

Of vourse, the already wealthy mop up most of the money the state spends into the economy. In this instance (justice) I’m thinking of highly paid barristers… The real waste is that the very wealthy mop up the money and then withdraw it from the economy by ‘saving’ it. Money issued most useful when circulating and driving economic activity.

You may not approve of facilitating access to justice by giving legal aid to those who can’t afford to pay it themselves (which is most of the recipients, not the outliers described on this thread) but that seems to me to be a political problem, not a financial one.

Oh my - this is why I am here - for the properly intelligent and informed comments from amazing Gransnetters. Thumbs up to keeping quiet too. But, we should still care about whether judicial systems are working effectively. Not only because we might not be using resources well, but because they might not be seen to deliver justice. If we don’t, risk that we end up with a leader like Trump who appears to be able to ignore the courts with alarming consequences.

Absolutely spot on

Maizie, I’m with you on justice being available to all.
I’m always interested in your economic info for which I thank you

The 'outliers are indeed very annoying, but I would hate any move away from making justice accessible to all, regardless of their means.

The point I was mainly addressing was the waste of money aspect. It might seem like it, but only if one believes that the state has a finite amount of money available to spend.

MaizieD I support legal aid in most cases. The outliers named here are unusual

Iam64

NHS Fife was totally wrong in supporting Dr Upton and criticising Sandie Peggie. I suspect it was following the SNP line of trans nonsense. Thank goodness the judges ruled accurately on what a woman is.

The Rochdale sex offenders relinquished their Pakistani citizenship so claimed to be stateless. Thankfully the govt in Pakistan now accepts they’re their problem. Let’s hope the can be deported and stopped from visiting the uk ever again.

My bug is Baby Victoria’s parents costing us a fortune in their behaviour during two trials. Legal aid for a married couple who supported each others defence, where one partner has a large trust fund

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Your proposition might be a valid one if the UK was a household on a fixed budget. But it isn’t. It is a state with its own sovereign currency which it can create and issue in any quantity, and at any time, it wants.

Money issued, for whatever reason, by state spending goes into the economy and generates economic activity (i.e. that elusive ‘growth’ the government is so keen to achieve)

Of vourse, the already wealthy mop up most of the money the state spends into the economy. In this instance (justice) I’m thinking of highly paid barristers… The real waste is that the very wealthy mop up the money and then withdraw it from the economy by ‘saving’ it. Money issued most useful when circulating and driving economic activity.

You may not approve of facilitating access to justice by giving legal aid to those who can’t afford to pay it themselves (which is most of the recipients, not the outliers described on this thread) but that seems to me to be a political problem, not a financial one.

Thanks for that, Parsley - interesting stuff.

There is no shortage of money in this country- that's a myth told to keep poor people poor.

We are in fact a very wealthy country it is just that some who have lots of it don't want to share it out...

I was going to give Peter Murrell as an example as well so I Googled the reason for legal aid being awarded to him. Apparently, his assets have been frozen pending the embezzlement trial and his house isn't taken into account. I hope he has to pay it back once the outcome of the trial is decided.

Can we add Peter Murrell to the list of such expenses? He’s been given legal aid for his embezzlement charge. He lives/lived in a nice house, plus that campervan.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq8z7y0xj0xo

Yes I agree Iam and Cold the Baby Victoria case is another example of money wasted on legal aid it's just appalling.

Then there are those, such as victims of the blood contamination scandal rumbling on for years and more latterly the people who were vilified unjustly over the Post Office debacle, they still await proper recompense. Sometimes I can't help thinking there's a hideous master plan just waiting for these victims to die, some have of course, and yet we can seemingly chuck public money to criminals. It's sickening.

My bug is Baby Victoria’s parents costing us a fortune in their behaviour during two trials. Legal aid for a married couple who supported each others defence, where one partner has a large trust fund

It's shocking that Constance Marten gets legal aid despite having a £2,400,000 trust fund.

NHS Fife was totally wrong in supporting Dr Upton and criticising Sandie Peggie. I suspect it was following the SNP line of trans nonsense. Thank goodness the judges ruled accurately on what a woman is.

The Rochdale sex offenders relinquished their Pakistani citizenship so claimed to be stateless. Thankfully the govt in Pakistan now accepts they’re their problem. Let’s hope the can be deported and stopped from visiting the uk ever again.

My bug is Baby Victoria’s parents costing us a fortune in their behaviour during two trials. Legal aid for a married couple who supported each others defence, where one partner has a large trust fund

It's not a court case - it's an Employment Tribunal and one that NHS Fife could have avoided if they had not kept Sandie Peggie, a nurse with 30 years of unblemished service, suspended for 18 months on the flimsy accusations because she complained about having to undress in front of a biological male who identified as a woman.

It is Dr. Upton who should bear the costs of the case,. He accused Sandie Peggie of bullying after she resisted his attempts to use the nurses' changing room, and asked for her to be sacked, then suspended. He claimed the right to use female spaces as he was 'biologically female. He was not, neither did he hold a gender recognition certificate which at that time, would have allowed him access. NHS Fife supported him and did not check the facts.