Gove is new Justice Secretary

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35432581

Gove has decided to get rid of lots of things that Grayling did in the justice department, particularly legal aid changes.
Why is Grayling still on the front bench?

actfortheact.uk/post/132935476699/our-government-wants-to-scrap-the-human-rights

A letter to send to Gove about the human rights act, for anyone who wants to sign and put on facebook.

I wonder if the fifty magistrates who resigned will come back, though, or if they still think they are well out of it.

Gove is the second Tory justice minister who is not legally qualified. The first was the one who made all the mess in the first place.
I wonder why Cameron thinks that is acceptable, when there are so many MPs who are lawyers.

Jen, that is good news, innocent people were pleading guilty because they couldn't afford to plead innocent,

Gove has done a u-turn on it, and and scrapped the charges.

"Gove’s overturning of Grayling’s initiative is the latest in a series of policy reversals. The former justice secretary’s plan for a secure college for young offenders, a ban on books for prisoners, outsourcing the enforcement of court fines and a prisons training contract with Saudi Arabia have all been scrapped.

Ben Summerskill, director of the Criminal Justice Alliance said: “We’re delighted at the government’s decision. Introducing a charge which created an incentive to plead guilty to a crime someone hadn’t committed wasn’t justice, it was nonsense on stilts."

Good news from a Tory at last. Glad he's out of education and in justice.
Now all we want him to do is scrap the changes to the human rights act.

This is a disgrace even for the Tories, even justice is now only for those who can buy it. Can this government sink any lower - I expect so

www.legalcheek.com/2015/11/criminal-courttice-secretary/

The justice committee has blasted Grayling's idea of charging people when they go to court. About time that MPs realised what a ridiculous system it is. Hopefully Gove will put a stop to it.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/06/29/gove-faces-court-chaos-as-wildcat-legal-strike-spreads

If this was a working class action/union the government would be changing the law to stop it.

"Solicitors and barristers in Liverpool are threatening to refuse to handle any new criminal cases from 1 July, as lawyers across the country meet to coordinate protests against cuts in legal aid fees.

About 100 of the city’s leading prosecutors and defen ce lawyers agreed to take direct action against the latest 8.75% reduction, the second such cut in a year.

Meetings to consider similar action involving both criminal barristers and solicitors are planned for Monday evening in London, Manchester, Newcastle, Northampton, Durham, Cardiff, Essex and elsewhere.

Michael Gove, the justice secretary, approved the fee cut for solicitors this month, but suspended those directly affecting barristers, who work mainly in crown courts."

Anyone else foresee a u-turn by Gove?

Isn't David Cameron's brother a lawyer? I wonder if Gove asked him what he thought.

An interesting idea. The government cuts legal aid then asks lawyers to pay for it. How many Tory MPs are lawyers?

www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/23/michael-gove-rich-law-firms-help-secure-justice-for-all

I do that as well, FarNorth. I go into the papershop with my grandson, and he reads all the headlines, then we decide which to buy.
Quite often it's the i, or the large Independent, or the Guardian or even the local paper. He's never wanted the Sun yet, thank heavens.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/06/23/gove-decoded-is-the-new-justice-secretary-serious-about-fixi

Can't get this from the papershop.

I do the same as you sunseeker. I look at different newspapers and other sources, then form my own opinions. That seems to be an unusual thing to do, tho. When I am standing in a paper shop, I see many people rush in and grab a paper, clearly their usual one, without the slightest glance at any others.

A strange thing I have noticed is that an article often contradicts its headline. Usually that's not obvious until you've read a good chunk of the article. Probably many people don't read articles properly and get quite the wrong idea.

I was watching the BBC news channel last night when they discuss the next day's newspapers.
Both the reporters discussing the article, which is also on the front page of the i, were absolutely nonplussed. They could not understand if he was trying to criticise the last government, of which he was a part, and if he was, why.
How can you cut legal aid one week, then a fortnight later complain that the poor cannot get access to justice?

Thank you Lilygran, I have discarded the sackcloth and brushed off the ashes (I hope that is sufficient or should I also consider self flagellation!). Like I said I have no wish to be confrontational but it seems to me that any newspaper not supporting a left wing view is automatically dismissed. Nothing is black and white, there are many shades of grey (and I'm not talking about THAT book!)

It's part of the new doctrine that the Mail is always dreadful and the Guardian a shining star. I expect you are really sorry for your heresy. ( but keep the ash out of it!)

Don't wish to be confrontational but can someone please explain to me why everything written in the Daily Mail is treated as lies and ridiculed and anything written in the Guardian is treated as complete truth. I think the truth will be somewhere in the middle.

Yes, I read the Daily Mail (will now go and put on sackcloth and ashes), I also read The Guardian, The Independent and The Times, watch BBC news plus Sky news, Euronews and other channels. I then try to work out the truth for myself.

Even if it does work you can bet Durhamjan will have a link to say it won't

Sounds like he wants to make access to justice easier and cheaper, rather than give more legal aid.
Good idea if it works.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/22/justice-system-failing-badly-michael-gove

Anybody else confused by this, particularly as this article says there is no u-turn.

www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/10/legal-aid-fees-to-be-cut-by-875-confirms-ministry-of-justice

Sadly, Mishap, I'm not sure that a huge number of people in this country are that bothered about the repeal of the Human Rights Act so I don't think it would have helped the Lib Dems if they had brought the subject up.

It doesn't say much about Cameron's sense, either.

Indeed it is NOT going to happen - but it is a reflection of the regressive views of those who are now governing our country and of their willingness to voice views that have no evidence to support them. That is what is worrying.

TerriBull I wish I though you were right. However, I don't think there is any appetite to put this back on the agenda and certainly not by DC. However I think it's profoundly depressing that two senior Members of the Government support it - it says much about their lack of intelligence and humanity