I’m a little late to this. You know I’m no fan of Rand Paul, but his thoughts on free speech and racial profiling with Hannity are just loony tunes. Alex Seitz-Wald: Libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) made headlines last week for single-handedly obstructing the renewal of the Patriot Act, calling the law an unconstitutional infringement on civil liberties . His demand to insert a series of amendments to weaken the law nearly allowed it to lapse and put the country at “ risk ,” but Paul said it was worth it to prevent the government from continuing to “ blatantly ignor[e] the Constitution .” But when Paul went on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s radio show Friday to discuss his opposition to the national security law, he suggested implementing a far more serious infringement on civil liberties. While discussing profiling at airports, Paul called for the criminalization of speech: PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison. Listen here : Paul’s suggestion that people be imprisoned or deported for merely attending a political speech would be a fairly egregious violation on the First Amendment, not to mention due process. What if someone attended a radical speech as a curious bystander? Should they too be thrown in prison? And who defines what is considered so “radical” that it is worth imprisonment? I believe Paul has said he’s not as rigid as his father on certain Libertarian ideas, but Paul Krugman puts it this way: He’s not unusual. There are genuine libertarians out there. But political figures who talk a lot about liberty and freedom invariably turn out to mean the freedom to not pay taxes and discriminate based on race; freedom to hold different ideas and express them, not so much Digby describes him thusly : How shall I put this delicately? The man isn’t playing with a full deck. He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed. He’s a few tacos short of a fiesta platter. His jogging trail doesn’t go all the way round the lake…He’s an idiot. The fact that we have to count on him to be the guardian of the constitution in the US Senate says everything you need to know about the state of civil liberties in this country. GGreenwald writes: Indeed, the First Amendment not only protects the mere “attending” of a speech “promoting the violent overthrow of our government,” but also the giving of such a speech. The government is absolutely barred by the Free Speech clause from punishing people even for advocating violence. That has been true since the Supreme Court’s unanimous 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which overturned the criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had threatened violence against political officials in a speech. Liberals and Libertarians agree on civil liberty issues all the time, but it’s the rest of their belief system that turns out the Rand Pauls and poses a danger to the health of our Democracy. Rachel Maddow exposed him pretty easily. Sean Hannity does have a way of extracting cuckoo for cocoa puffs rants from those that actually try to hide them to look more reasonable. (h/t blue aardvark )
Continue reading …
Poll suggests beleaguered economy weighed down by onerous €78bn bailout will be the latest surrendered by a leftwing leader Portugal goes to the polls on Sunday under the yoke of a painful €78bn bailout and with socialist prime minister José Sócrates set to become yet another leftwing casualty of Europe’s economic crisis. Polls this week showed the opposition centre-right Social Democrats (PSD) of Pedro Passos Coelho between five and eight points ahead as Portuguese voters choose a government to see them through dire economic times. Passos Coelho is expected to seek the support of the rightwing Democratic Social Centre (CDS) party to form a government if predictions that the two parties will jointly win almost 50% of votes prove true. If Socrates is ejected the 27-member European Union will be left with five left-led governments: in Spain, Greece, Slovenia, Austria and Cyprus. Spain’s socialists suffered a 10 percentage point defeat in municipal elections last month, suggesting they will also lose power at a general election due by March. That could leave just four leftwingers, representing 4% of the EU’s half a billion citizens, at the helm of the member states. Europe’s pronounced tilt to the right is most noticeable in its approach to both the economic crisis and immigration, as well as in a tendency to shift power towards the European council and away from the European commission, according to the analysis of José Ignacio Torreblanca of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “The right blames the crisis on government deficits, while the left sees the origins in the private sector and the markets,” he said. The handling of the bailouts of Portugal, Greece and Ireland and their accompanying austerity plans reflected both the right’s power in Europe and its insistence that government indebtedness is to blame, Torreblanca said. Both Sócrates and Passos Coelho have accepted the basic conditions imposed by the EU and the International Monetary Fund for the country’s €78bn bailout. These require major cuts to public spending on health, education and pensions in a country with faltering growth and 11% percent unemployment – and a credit rating that is the second worst in Europe after Greece. Sócrates has accused Passos Coelho of a “radical agenda” to curb free healthcare and schooling. A recent Bank of Portugal report warned of “particularly severe” economic hardship over the next two years with an “unprecedented” drop in family income. A strike by drivers that prevented rail commuters getting into Lisbon and Oporto on Friday morning is part of a growing undercurrent of resentment amongst public employees, who stand to suffer most from the austerity measures. Alvaro Santos Pereira, a university economist and blogger, warned that Portugal could only pay back its loans if it grew at more than 3% a year, redistributed the debt contained in private-public partnerships and cut its deficit to zero. “If these conditions are not met I fear that, unhappily, a restructuring of Portugal’s debt will become inevitable,” he said. A snap election had to be called precisely because Sócrates failed to get further austerity measures through parliament. Portugal Europe European Union Giles Tremlett guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Document says most decisions reached through informal channels rather than formal coalition machinery The deputy prime minister’s office is ineffective, Liberal Democrat junior ministers are spread too thinly, and many policy decisions are made in regular evening phone calls between Nick Clegg and David Cameron, according to one of the most thorough studies of the coalition’s workings so far undertaken. The study, conducted by the respected Constitution Unit, involved interviews with more than 60 key players in Whitehall. It found most decisions were reached through informal channels as opposed to the formal coalition machinery set up by the government when it began. The report said the key bilateral meeting of the week is between Cameron and Clegg and takes place on Monday morning every week, attended by chiefs of staff and senior officials. There are preparatory meetings for the bilateral talks on Thursday or Friday. Cabinet colleagues and officials can ask for items to go on the agenda to get resolved at this level, and the report disclosed that Cameron and Clegg often talk by phone on Sunday evenings ahead of reaching a decision in the formal bilateral on Monday. The Constitution Unit said it did not find the two parties were at ideological odds or involved in frequent personal disagreements. Its report said: “The informality of coalition decision making is based on high levels of trust between the leadership of the two parties. Trust, and the importance of compatible personalities, is essential for coalition government.” The high levels of trust have made it difficult for the Liberal Democrats to demonstrate their influence, the report suggested. It said the deputy prime minister’s office has been ineffective in coalition brokerage, whilst its special advisers had been outnumbered. And it singled out the home office as a department in which the Liberal Democrat minister Lynn Featherstone has little influence partly due to ideological differences with the home secretary, Theresa May. The report found: “The Lib Dems are still reeling from the loss of their state funding, given only to opposition parties. This has led to the loss of many of their staff. It may help explain their under-powered performance, particularly with the media. “By going for breadth over depth, and seeking to place a minister in every department, the Lib Dems have spread themselves too thinly. “Their objective was to influence every aspect of government policy. They may have achieved this, but it is very difficult to demonstrate to the public.” In some of its harshest criticism, the report found: “The deputy PM’s office has not established recognisable priorities for the Lib Dems; Lib Dem junior ministers struggle to play the cross-departmental role envisaged for them; special advisers do little to help, because (outside Cabinet Office and No 10) they do not have the confidence or experience to operate as coalition brokers.” Discussing the failure of Liberal Democrat ministers to follow policy across their departments, the unit found that “in practice, many Lib Dem junior ministers have been unable to perform this role: they lack the capacity to monitor policy across a whole department”. It added: “Lacking special advisers of their own, various ad hoc solutions have been reached, including additional support within their private office, relying more heavily on their parliamentary researcher, or calling upon the already overstretched Lib Dem policy unit”. The unit’s report also reveals something about how the civil service has tried to accommodate working for two parties simultaneously. It reveals: “Papers for cabinet committees must state what has been done to ensure collective approval – that the policy has been checked against the coalition agreement; cleared with the Treasury; and with the parliamentary business managers. It says the six key civil servants or political advisers are Jeremy Heywood/Chris Wormald, as the senior civil servants, Oliver Letwin/Douglas Alexander as politicians and Ed Llewellyn/Jonny Oates as political advisers. They are tasked with ensuring issues “do not jump between the different tracks”. In a sign of the ideological unity inside departments, the unit said: “There have been very few – if any – cases where ministers in departments have divided on party lines. “Indeed, across whole swathes of policy the coalition partners have discovered little difference in their policy responses when confronted with the hard choices of government. “Serious disagreements are more often between ministers of the same party, in classic interdepartmental disputes (eg Ken Clarke vs Theresa May on justice versus security; Vince Cable vs Chris Huhne on business disliking climate change policies). Issues are seldom presented in terms of reconciling Lib Dem and Conservative views – it is generally about reconciling technical issues or conflicting interdepartmental interests.” If the secretary of state does not wish to involve a junior minister, the coalition agreement cannot make it happen, the report found. It suggested the Liberal Democrats will have to do more to strengthen their backbench committees in parliament to strengthen the party’s visible influence. Liberal-Conservative coalition Nick Clegg David Cameron Lynne Featherstone Oliver Letwin Douglas Alexander Vince Cable Chris Huhne Kenneth Clarke Theresa May Conservatives Liberal Democrats Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Wonder Why Anthony Weiner Was Attacked? Wingnuts Needed A Diversion From His Clarence Thomas Recusal Campaign
June 3, 2011 No Comment
enlarge ‘Weiner thought he was going to make us do what ?’ Rep. Anthony Weiner has been working since February to hold Clarence Thomas accountable for hiding his wife’s income to avoid the appearance of a conflict, and his campaign was finally getting some traction. So what do the wingnuts do? They quickly create a diversion : Rep. Anthony Weiner says Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from any health reform cases cases that come before the high court, and he and 73 other Congress members have formally asked him to in a letter. Their problem is that Thomas’ wife, Virginia, has reportedly earmed money lobbying against the health insurance reform law. “As an Associate Justice, you are entrusted with the responsibility to exercise the highest degree of discretion and impartiality when deciding a case,” Weiner and Co. wrote. “As Members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” they wrote. “We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act.” They point to her touting her connections to clients who want the health reform law tossed. One of those connections might be considered to be her husband, they argue, and say Thomas should duck any cases that raise the appearance of a conlict of interest. They also note that Thomas had failed to disclose the $686,589 that Virginia Thomas earned from the health reform-opposing Heritage Foundation from 2003 to 2007, and that his wife stood to gain from his decision in the Citizens United case. Karoli adds: Does anyone remember hearing that Justice Thomas released his financial disclosures on May 27th? Here’s a little tidbit for you: His disclosures indicate a direct cash investment of between $15,000 and $25,000 into Ginni Thomas’ Liberty Consulting lobby firm…the one that she started after resigning from the Liberty Central Tea Party astroturf group. The disclosures also indicate payment from Liberty Central and Liberty Consulting to Ginni Thomas in 2010, post Citizens United . And Anthony Weiner was pushing hard on Thomas to recuse himself from any ACA-related lawsuits before Andrew Breitbart sprung into action. This timeline is interesting: Sept 9, 2009: Citizens United argued. Nov 6, 2009: Virginia Thomas launches her new Liberty Central 501(c)(4) organization, which raises 550K in 2009. Jan 21, 2010: Citizens United decided. Virginia Thomas announces that Liberty Central would “accept donations from various sources — including corporations — as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.” November 14, 2010: Liberty Central announces that Virginia Thomas would be leaving the organization. November 16, 2010: Liberty Consulting incorporated in the state of Virginia. February 4, 2011: Politico reports that Virginia Thomas had launched Liberty Consulting.
Continue reading …Howard Kurtz Bashes Sarah Palin With His Own Ignorance Of Insurance Mandates
June 3, 2011 No Comment
CNN's Howard Kurtz took a cheap shot at former Alaska governor Sarah Palin Friday via his Twitter account. Unfortunately, the joke's on him for his mocking of the former vice presidential candidate conveyed to his 73,000 followers his own total ignorance of insurance mandates: How addle-minded. What folks like Kurtz conveniently ignore is states that have car insurance mandates don't require all of their citizens to own cars. As such, it is not a mandate to purchase car insurance. It is a mandate to purchase car insurance only if you own and drive an automobile. This is a distinction media members like Kurtz for some reason can't grapple with. Beyond this, in states with such requirements, the car owner is mandated to purchase liability insurance only. This insures that if the driver inflicts medical or property damage upon another individual with his/her automobile, he/she has insurance to cover those damages. However, states do not require car owners to purchase collision or comprehensive insurance which covers damages to one's own health and property. This is another important distinction, for the individual mandate associated with ObamaCare is a requirement for people to insure health risks to themselves not others. This is part of what many on the right believe to be un-Constitutional, something the Supreme Court will decide some time soon – we hope. Therefore, there is absolutely no similarity whatsoever between these mandates, and someone of Kurtz's intellectual capacity should not only be aware of this, he should also not be assisting the disinformation campaign the President and his Party have been imposing on the citizenry for over two years. Quite the contrary, as a so-called journalist, he should be at every turn trying to dismantle this immoral strategy by providing the public with the truth whenever possible. This is especially important when some of his loyal Twitter followers take his word as Gospel and retweet this nonsense to others. Ironically, Kurtz sent this rather insightful message eight minutes before his Palin bash: Now that's something we can all agree on. Please give your brain a much-deserved time out, Howie, along with your computer and Twitter account. If not for yourself, do it for the sake of the nation.
Continue reading …
Health and Safety Executive seals off damaged parts of Chevron plant at Pembroke Dock, where four workers died Safety experts have sealed off smoke-blackened sections of the Chevron refinery at Pembroke Dock, south-west Wales, where four workers have died in a huge explosion. Three male painting contractors and a female fire-watch officer are believed to have died when a large storage tank blew up, rocking local houses and sending a plume of black smoke into the sky on Thursday evening. A fifth worker was seriously injured. The Health and Safety Executive has taken charge of the section of the large complex, which has a good safety record but is at constant risk of serious accidents. Dyfed Powys police are also investigating as well as informing relatives of the victims. Names may be released on Friday by Chevron, which has halted all but essential work on the site as a mark of respect. Core refining operations have not been affected by the loss of the tank and serious damage to a similar one alongside, but the plant’s general manager, Greg Hanggi, said that all 1,400 staff were “hugely shocked” and support and care was being arranged by the company for all who needed it. The firm is conducting its own inquiry into what happened. Wales’s first minister, Carwyn Jones, sent a message of sympathy and described the shock across the country. The Welsh secretary, Cheryl Gillan, said: “I am deeply saddened by the news and send my condolences to the families and colleagues of those who have tragically lost their lives. Our thoughts are also with the injured. “We’ve been in contact with Chevron and Milford Haven Port Authority and have asked to be kept fully informed about the investigation into this tragic event. It is essential to understand how this tragedy occurred.” The refinery dominates the town and underpins the local economy. Accidents in the dangerous processes involving volatile fuels and gases have long been part of the area’s history in spite of all precautions. The last serious one was in 1994, when an explosion and fire damaged property in Milford Haven, seven miles away. Tony Spicer, 75, a retired welder at Chevron who lives close to the plant, said: “At a refinery you are working within a time-bomb and at any time something can go wrong. I think that an accident and loss of life is inevitable from time to time. It’s not always human error, it is just something that can happen. “If the refinery finished tomorrow, a lot of people would be out of work and it would hit the local economy. Everyone from the milkman to shopkeepers would be affected,” he said. Another pensioner, Huw Morgan, 83, whose cottage at Newton is a mile from the refinery, saw the explosion from the summerhouse in his garden. He said: “There was an enormous black cloud of smoke going up like a mushroom. You could see it just mushrooming up.” Work on the nearby power station being built for npower has also stopped as a mark of respect. An npower spokesman said: “We were very sad to hear of the incident at our neighbouring Chevron site. Our thoughts are very much with the families of those involved. “The explosion has not directly affected our site or the work taking place, but together with our main contractor, Alstom, and the trade unions, we have decided to close our site for the day as a mark of respect. The site will return to normal activities tomorrow.” Mid-Wales fire and rescue service, whose 10 fire trucks had the blaze under control within an hour and a half, said that there had been no health risk from fumes and debris flung out by the explosion. Assistant Chief Fire Officer Chris Davies said: “Material released into the atmosphere as a result of the blast was immediately dispersed. The wind was blowing offshore, away from residential areas. Members of the public can be reassured that there is no ongoing risk to health as a result of the incident.” The injured worker is being treated for serious burns at the Morrison hospital in Swansea, where he was airlifted by the Wales air ambulance service. A fuel tanker close to the storage tanks was destroyed by the fire. The refinery was known as Texaco until 2005 and is one of the largest in western Europe. Earlier this year the Texan oil conglomerate Valero agreed to buy the site for $730m (£458m) and another $1bn (£611m) for assets including Chevron’s petrol stations in the UK and Ireland. Simon Hart, Conservative MP for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, said: “This is a really important business but it is a dangerous one. But credit where credit’s due, the refinery has had a long, good record. We should not go around dishing out blame until the investigation is over.” Wales Oil Oil and gas companies Energy industry Chevron Martin Wainwright guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• Jobs created fall 39,000 short of predictions • High energy prices take toll on economy • No evidence for impact of severe weather US employers hired far fewer workers than expected last month, pushing up the jobless rate, as high energy prices and the effects of Japan’s earthquake took their toll on the world’s largest economy. Companies added 54,000 workers last month, the labour department said, the weakest reading since September and only a third of the 150,000 increase forecast by Wall Street. Revised figures for March and April mean that 39,000 fewer jobs were created than previously estimated. Private employment rose by 83,000, the smallest increase since last June. The overall jobless rate picked up to 9.1% from 9%. The labour department said last month’s tornadoes and flooding in the midwest and the south did not materially affect data collection. It said that while some workers in those areas may have been temporarily displaced from their jobs, it found “no clear impact of the disasters on the national employment and unemployment data for May”. James Knightley at ING said the figures were “undeniably weak” but saw reasons for optimism. “In terms of what is driving the weakness in the labour market we feel that the lagged effects of rising energy costs plays a major part,” he said. “This has hurt household spending power since they are spending more of their income on fuel and gasoline, leaving less money to spend on other goods and services. This is damaging businesses from the revenue side, while their costs too have been increasing because of higher fuel bills. “Consequently, with profits being squeezed, hiring has slowed and job layoffs have increased. However, retail gasoline prices have since fallen 10% in response to developments in oil prices. This should help improve household finances and spending, while also boosting confidence.” He added he hoped that employment and the overall economy would improve in the second half of the year. “However, the fact that we are still so far away from the 5%-6% unemployment rate that Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke has suggested is desirable implies that rate hikes remain a long way off. That said, we still believe the first rate hike will come earlier than October 2012, which is what Fed funds futures are currently pricing.” Kathy Bostjancic, director for macroeconomic analysis at research organisation the Conference Board, talked of “choppiness” in the economy. “With households worried about high gas and grocery prices, and the slow pace of wage gains, spending could even slow a little more this summer,” she said. “Employers spent a great deal of time and attention reducing costs over the past few years and are reluctant to add to their cost structure unless they can be certain the economy will not hit a soft patch. This degree of caution could remain in evidence right through Labour Day.” US unemployment and employment data US economy Economics Ben Bernanke United States Julia Kollewe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Via Ed Morrissey , Gallup has released a new poll showing that a narrow plurality of Americans reject income redistribution via high taxes on “the rich.” In light of today's miserable jobs report, Morrissey notes, the numbers at first seem counterintuitive. But a closer look reveals the opposite. Check below the break for more. Here's how Ed explains Americans' continuing skepticism of “soak the rich” class warfare: Redistributionist policies will always appeal to those who see themselves as outsiders to economic success. One might expect that the terrible economy of the last three years would have boosted the popularity of Barack Obama’s populist agenda, but it seems the opposite has occurred. Americans know that job creation comes from private investors taking risks with their wealth in order to create even more wealth, and not from government confiscation of wealth to create new bureaucracies that create nothing but red tape. We have spent the last two years watching what happens when government takes wealth out of the economy, and the results — chronically high unemployment, bad housing markets, and a falling dollar that brings high fuel and food prices — are no longer dim reminders of the 1970s, but our current environment. Is that analysis on point, you think? What are your thoughts on the poll?
Continue reading …Jon Stewart: Donald Trump Disrespects New Yorkers by Taking Sarah Palin to a Pizza Chain
June 3, 2011 No CommentJon Stewart slammed Donald Trump for disrespecting New Yorkers by taking snow-billy Palin to a pizza chain and for eating his stacked slices with a fork.
Continue reading …
Day of action organised by Justice for All protests against government cost-saving plans which ‘target the most vulnerable’ In East Ham, they formed an orderly queue. In Gloucester, protesters gagged their mouths. Outside the Supreme Court of Justice in Westminster, the Women’s Institute stood in silence. A day of action organised by the Justice for All campaign against government plans to carve £350m out of the annual legal aid budget and control access to the courts is being staged across the country. Details of the Ministry of Justice’s final proposals and a draft bill on the cost-saving reforms are due to published this month, possibly as early as next week. The MoJ’s own impact assessment study suggest that 500,000 fewer cases a year will be entitled to funding under the plans, while the Legal Action Group estimates that as many as 650,000 will removed from access to legal aid. Opponents of the bill claim the most vulnerable will be targeted. Women will no longer be able to obtain legal help for many of the issues associated with leaving a violent relationship, according to the National Federation of Women’s Institutes. Ruth Bond, chair of the organisation, said: “The proposals on reforming legal aid risk fundamentally undermining the justice system. We are particularly concerned about the impact on women who have experienced domestic violence.” One of the more controversial Ministry of Justice proposals is for legal aid to be available in family cases only where there are allegations of physical violence. Many fear this will create a perverse incentive for false claims, making divorces even more embittered. Other groups who taped their mouths shut outside the supreme court to symbolise their exclusion from justice included the Fawcett Society, Refuge, Women’s Resource Centre, End Violence Against Women Coalition, Women’s Aid England and Rights of Women. The Justice for All campaign is an alliance of over 3,000 organisations and members. Gayle Emerson, of the Citizens Advice Bureau, said: “The response to the government’s consultation has been overwhelming. People are concerned about the cuts. This is so damaging. It will make it more difficult for women to leave violent partners.” Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green party, said: “Reducing legal aid will increase the hardship of many as well as proving to be a false economy “If people do not get the help they need at an early stage, their problems will worsen. Their problems become more difficult to solve, and that increases demand on other public services, such as health and social care. The worst-off will be hit hardest by these changes. ” The Labour MP Stephen Timms organised what he described as a “very British protest” against the cuts: an orderly queue symbolising how “legal aid cuts will leave vulnerable people with nowhere to turn for help but their MP”. In Gloucester, Birmingham and other cities there were silent, gagged marches by protesters. “Thousands of desperate people across Coventry would be silenced by these cuts,” said Sue Bent from Coventry Law Centre. “Over 8,000 vulnerable people come to us every year to get fair treatment at work, safe shelter, manage their debts and support their families while they seek work. Where will they go now?” Steve Woodcock from St Paul’s Advice Centre in Bristol, said: “The proposals will reduce access to justice for many individuals and families who are more likely to face injustice due to discrimination and poverty. This government seems determined to increase the gap between those that have and those that don’t.” John Cooper QC said: “I’ve seen how vital legal aid is to assist the most vulnerable. Though it’s there to protect people who find themselves in criminal courts, it’s equally important to safeguard those who find themselves fighting for the welfare of children or disabled people. It truly is the national health service of the legal system.” The Ministry of Justice has defended its plans on the grounds of necessary savings. “At more than £2bn a year, we have one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world,” a spokesman said. “The current system encourages lengthy, acrimonious and sometimes unnecessary court proceedings, at tax payers’ expense, which do not always ensure the best result for those involved. “We need to make clear choices to ensure that legal aid will continue to be available in those cases that really require it, the protection of the most vulnerable in society, and the efficient performance of the justice system. “Our proposals aim to radically reform the system and encourage people to take advantage of the most appropriate sources of help, advice or routes to resolution – which will not always involve the expense of lawyers or courts.” Legal aid UK criminal justice Domestic violence Women Public sector cuts Public services policy Public finance Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …