Why should we, the people, pay Johnson's legal fees?

Thanks for that and, yes it is a good well written article. I suppose my problem with Owen Jones is that I only ever get to see his articles that pop up on Facebook and are always criticising post Corbyn Labour. When I was divorced over twenty years ago I was only able to do so because a friend of mine told me that I qualified for free legal aid up to a certain amount. Strangely enough I got a lot of legal help for that amount but once it went beyond that and I had to start paying I seemed to pay an awful lot more for a lot less ( I did contest it, though, and they reduced the amount. I also learned to take someone with me who took notes of what was said). I don’t know what he situation is now regarding free legal aid. If it’s like everything else I bet it’s difficult to come by.

I totally agree with you Dinahmo; completely wrong, unfair and another example of the rich getting ever richer and feeling entitled to it.

I didn't agree with all that Jeremy Corbyn said, but I sure as hell think we would have been better off now if we had had a PM who lived in an ordinary house and rode a bicycle.

I think it’s tricky. Whilst I totally agree that more legal aid should be available to ordinary people, such as the woman mentioned in the article, I’m uncomfortable about members of the government, of any colour, needing legal fees to be paid as a result of something in their job, and not having those fees paid. If as a teacher I needed help and support from my teaching union, and I ended up in court, my legal fees would have been paid by my union. I’m looking at it that way.

If as a teacher I needed help and support from my teaching union, and I ended up in court, my legal fees would have been paid by my union. I’m looking at it that way.

But you paid membership fees to your union, maddyone. So although they would in no way cover the cost of your legal fees, you would have contributed to them.

What has Johnson contributed to the cost of his legal fees?

Any wrongdoing was carried out during the course of his work as PM, in any other business the company would pay the costs of any representations.

Do you realise that the “client” of government lawyers is the government. The Cabinet Office lawyers have no obligations to Johnson who has now appointed his own lawyers. Matthew Hancock as an ex minister is also having his legal fees paid.
Since Boris Johnson was paid very little in the scheme of things - £85k per annum for taking on the role of prime minister - to be facing fees in excess of £500k wouldn’t be fill in the missing word!
I agree that legal aid is inadequate for the “commoner”.

MaizieD

^If as a teacher I needed help and support from my teaching union, and I ended up in court, my legal fees would have been paid by my union. I’m looking at it that way.^

But you paid membership fees to your union, maddyone. So although they would in no way cover the cost of your legal fees, you would have contributed to them.

What has Johnson contributed to the cost of his legal fees?

Is it just Boris you're having a go at, or is it all MPs that face prosecution. Wonder if O'mara got legal aid or Lord Ahmed, didn't hear any complaints about those .

Also if ministers and ex ministers are to fund legal fees, it means that unless you are independently very wealthy, you might not want to risk taking a government position. So fine for Jeremy Hunt, Rishi Sunak but not for Angela Rayner for example.

Good point ronib.
Government ministers of whatever party must be protected from being bankrupted by legal fees from events happening during their time in office.

Freya5

MaizieD

If as a teacher I needed help and support from my teaching union, and I ended up in court, my legal fees would have been paid by my union. I’m looking at it that way.

But you paid membership fees to your union, maddyone. So although they would in no way cover the cost of your legal fees, you would have contributed to them.

What has Johnson contributed to the cost of his legal fees?

Is it just Boris you're having a go at, or is it all MPs that face prosecution. Wonder if O'mara got legal aid or Lord Ahmed, didn't hear any complaints about those .

Definitely just Johnson, Freya5. The very champion benefit scrounger. They don't come any more costly to the nation's finances than he does...

Freya5

MaizieD

If as a teacher I needed help and support from my teaching union, and I ended up in court, my legal fees would have been paid by my union. I’m looking at it that way.

But you paid membership fees to your union, maddyone. So although they would in no way cover the cost of your legal fees, you would have contributed to them.

What has Johnson contributed to the cost of his legal fees?

Is it just Boris you're having a go at, or is it all MPs that face prosecution. Wonder if O'mara got legal aid or Lord Ahmed, didn't hear any complaints about those .

I don’t think anybody else has sacked the Cabinet Office lawyers have they, so they aren’t in the same position as Boris now is?

I thought that Boris, as PM, was paid about double the salary of a backbench MP.

I think the PM’s salary is about £150.
Whilst a lot of money to me, not that much for that role.

vintage1950 prime minister is paid peanuts… still can’t work out why chairman of National Grid pocketed £7.2 million pay!
Off topic I know.

Ooops, I meant £150,00

No I didn’t, oh Lord, where my brain today?
£150,000

The reduction in legal aid is disgusting and has turned the law into something only available to the rich. I see no reason why anyone charged with misconduct in public office should receive legal aid. Doesn't that encourage bad behaviour? Perhaps there should be something like a union for MPs to which they all contribute whilst serving. The money to be used for legal aid or other support if needed.

That would be one solution Glorianny, but whilst we’re still buying houses in London for MPs (which they can keep even when they lose office) I can’t see that happening any time soon. MPs will only ever vote for their terms and conditions to be beneficial to themselves, and will not disadvantage themselves in any way.

Surely any fees for union membership/legal fees would still be reclaimed from the public purse? A necessary expense along with replacing missing ear phones?

ronib

Surely any fees for union membership/legal fees would still be reclaimed from the public purse? A necessary expense along with replacing missing ear phones?

Well no, for other public sector employees it’s deducted from your salary at source normally, why not the same for MPs?

I don’t know Casdon do other public sector workers get replacement ear phones on a regular basis?

I think it is possible to show that earphones are a necessity these days for any MP-listening to private information when travelling for instance. I don't think it is possible to show that paying into a fund that would provide legal costs is a necessity, and it could (like unions) be voluntary. If you were absolutely certain you would never need the support you wouldn't have to contribute.

My understanding is that Johnson had government lawyers to represent him but preferred others. Therefore it's clear that he should meet the cost.

No Daisymae I think the cabinet office lawyers felt a need to report Boris Johnson to the police when looking at his diaries without asking BJ to explain so in reality BJ was not properly represented and now he is . Couldn’t make it up!!