This is absolutely typical of the Tories.
Nigel Evans was recently cleared of several very serious charges
of sexual impropriety.
If you trust the English legal system, then you will believe
that this proves him to be innocent of these crimes.
My sympathies are with anyone who is accused of something they
did not do. When rape, a particularly nasty and universally despised crime, is
among them, it is even more essential that an innocent person has the
opportunity to defend himself.
But Mr Evans has discovered that, after being found not
guilty, he cannot claim back his £130,000 bill for legal representation from
legal aid. And he’s not a happy chappie.
The thing is that, being a relatively law abiding person,
and therefore never thinking that he would be in a position to make a claim, Mr
Evans supported this arrangement when the current government bought in cuts to
the legal aid bill.
Now he thinks it is unjust.
In short, this arrangement is ok for other people, but not
for Mr Evans.
There’s actually a point there for everyone who agrees with cuts
to payments that help people who may need help. You simply never know when it
is going to be you…
...who is unemployed for the first time;
...who has an accident or who contracts a horrible illness and
can no longer work;
...who needs constant care;
...who has to go into a residential home.
Making the mistake of treating these issues like they only affect 'other people' has come back to bite Mr Evans on his bottom.
So maybe he would like to revise his stance on the newly
introduced fees for taking a case to an employment tribunal.
He might, too, wish to reconsider his attitude to the cap on
benefits and welfare, because with a bill for £130,000 to pay, he may be a lot
closer to needing it than he would otherwise ever have thought himself to be.
Additionally, you have to wonder what a non privileged person would do if he or
she were landed with a bill for £130,000 pounds to clear his name of a heinous
crime of which he or she is innocent.
And we are all in this together…? My backside we are!
**********
I just saw this on Facebook... I read the story earlier in the Telegraph. Brogan seems to feel that it is understood in Downing Street that losing Scotland would be too much of a wound for a prime minister to continue with and that Cameron would definitely have to go.
But the referendum will take place in September and the UK election is in May...only 7 months later.
A lot to do, to choose another leader, settle a manifesto, and get elected...
Interesting thought though: If he is right (and I doubt it), a NO vote is a vote to keep David Cameron.
The article (linked above) is worth a read for some of the other comments. He says that Cameron should throw himself into the fight for the union, establish an office in Glasgow (not Edinburgh) and base himself there for 3 months...
Bring it on, I say.
.jpg)
