Talk Hearts Daily News Thread

[Zizou]

They were under the impression all actors were doing it for free as far as I can see from Scott's comments. Wahlberg's representation (the same as Williams) negotiated a massive deal for him in secret. That is wrong.

[Bill Cosby]

Nowhere in the article does it say that Williams was under the impression that the other actors were doing it for free when she offered her time, that's an assumption you have made based on someone else's comments after the fact.

I suggested myself that she should seek new representation. However, it isn't a gender issue as you inferred.

[Zizou]

“The whole reshoot was — in normal terms was expensive but not as expensive as you think. Because all of them, everyone did it for nothing.”

If the director is saying that you can be sure Williams thought that. The issue isn't really with Wahlberg, it is why the same company negotiated the deal for him and allowed Williams to receive nothing. If it was The Rock would that have been the case? The answer is no.

[Mr A]

Nah, this is about Wahlberg wanting to get paid for his time - when the other actors did not. I suspect there's Chinese walls in these companies for this sort of thing anyway. The company did nothing wrong either imo - I suspect each of their 'stars' expect confidentiality in the negotiation of their contracts.

This is a story about Wahlberg not offering to do something for free because the studio created more work by binning rapey Spacey. It isn't a gender pay gap thing at all - despite what that article is trying to make out.

[Bill Cosby]

Making up facts to suit your stance doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

We don't know that she was told Wallberg was doing it for free. We don't even know if she would have cared if he was being paid.

[Chrambo]

Nah, this is about Wahlberg wanting to get paid for his time - when the other actors did not. I suspect there's Chinese walls in these companies for this sort of thing anyway. The company did nothing wrong either imo - I suspect each of their 'stars' expect confidentiality in the negotiation of their contracts.

This is a story about Wahlberg not offering to do something for free because the studio created more work by binning rapey Spacey. It isn't a gender pay gap thing at all - despite what that article is trying to make out.

[King WillDred of Orange]

Why does the article only compare Williams and wahlberg? Surely he's been a dick to all the other male actors who have their time for nothing during the reshoot?

[Mr A]

Why does the article only compare Williams and wahlberg? Surely he's been a dick to all the other male actors who have their time for nothing during the reshoot?

That doesn't make the twitter hoards tweet though.

And we don't know he's even been a dick. He may have made other arrangements that he was due to get paid for that he then had to cancel because of a decision the studio made - and do you think the studio would have binned Spacey if they hadn't thought their bottom line would take a hit

[1500 Dollars a Day]

How has he been a dick?

Like most self employed people they look after themselves first so if they can renegotiate a higher fee for themselves for extra work then what's the problem?

It's not wahlbergs job to negotiate money for his co stars, it's entirely the job of the agents.

[King WillDred of Orange]

I meant the article has made him out to be a dick towards Williams alone.

I don't really see what he's done wrong, he's been paid for some work he did.

[shaun.lawson]

Cretins like Hardman

Neggied.

[Widespread Gang Violence]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15818...uty_scheme

SCOTLAND'S finely balanced criminal legal aid system is on the brink of meltdown after a wave of solicitors pulled out of the police station duty rota that provides advice to suspects.

With over 250 more considering a similar move, the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB), which runs the police station duty scheme, is facing the prospect of having to increase its own team of lawyers to cover the work. This could lead to a significant increase in the overall cost to the public purse via the legal aid fund.

Solicitors say this points to a legal aid system that is in crisis, particularly as initiatives like the police duty scheme are designed to keep costs to a minimum.

“This is a situation that has been coming for a long time but it's finally reached breaking point,” said Robert More, a criminal defence lawyer who also serves as vice-president of Edinburgh Bar Association. “This is the issue that is going to tip it over the edge.”

The issue stems from new rules coming in on January 25 that will give everyone being questioned in a police station the right to legal advice, regardless of the severity of the offence or whether they have even been charged.

Ian Moir, convener of the Law Society of Scotland's criminal legal aid committee, said that while this is “an excellent development” that upholds citizens' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, it would lead to significantly increased workloads for those participating in the duty scheme.

Although the SLAB said it expected the new rules to result in solicitors making eight additional police station visits each week in Edinburgh and 17 or 18 a week in Glasgow, Edinburgh Bar Association president Leanne McQuillan said that on a trial run in Edinburgh last month one solicitor had to deal with 17 calls from police between 9pm and 6am.

Mr Moir said calls of this level would be unmanageable because firms, which have seen some legal aid fees frozen since 1992 at the same time as the overall legal aid budget has fallen by 10 per cent in the past five years, cannot attract enough staff to separately cover their duty shifts. This means solicitors are on call overnight at the same time as working full days for their own clients.

“I can't ask one of my employees to go out at 3am, get back at 7.30am, have a shower then drive to Inverness to do a case then when they get back from that go and do another night,” he said.

“Universities have told people for years not to come into this field so we're struggling to recruit - it's really at crisis point now.

“We've been pressing [SLAB] hard to look at the issue of fees but it's a critical factor now because it's been left for so long.”

Given these concerns, in the run up to Christmas the Edinburgh Bar Association, whose members account for around 100 of the 845 solicitors on the police station duty scheme, voted unanimously to resign from it.

“Our concern was that, come January 25, it would be chaos,” Ms McQuillan said.

“We can't expect members of staff to be in court all day and then be on call. We felt we just didn't want to do it – everybody felt the same.”

Solicitors in Aberdeen, the Borders, Dunbartonshire, Falkirk and Moray have since followed suit, with Glasgow Bar Association, which provides around 200 solicitors to the duty scheme, due to vote on the matter this month.

The 50 solicitors that take part in the scheme in Dundee are also expected to withdraw, with local solicitor George Donnelly saying they “stand totally behind the Edinburgh Bar Association and its decision”.

Lawyers in Dumfriesshire and Livingstone are also considering their positions.

As solicitors groups have indicated that they would not be willing to provide cover in areas where members have resigned from the scheme, it is likely that the SLAB will now have to look at increasing its own lawyer numbers.

“Our normal practice over the last six years has been that, where a local duty solicitor cannot attend, we will either contact other duty solicitors or a solicitor from the Solicitor Contact Line or Public Defence Solicitors' Office will attend,” said the SLAB's head of criminal legal assistance Kingsley Thomas.

“If as a result of local action against the duty plans we have to fall back on such arrangements more regularly, it is likely that we will have to expand our employed solicitor capacity.

“This will help ensure that those in police custody and in need of advice are able to get it quickly.”

Mr Thomas said it is not possible to work out how much this would cost the SLAB in salaries and benefits because at the moment it is not clear how many staff it would require.

On average, both the Solicitor Contact Line and Public Defence Solicitors' Office pay their staff, which includes administrative staff, £35,000 per year and enrols them into a defined benefit pension scheme.

In the last year the SLAB spent £500,000 on external police duty solicitors, with that figure expected to rise to £3.2 million when new fee arrangements come in later this month.

Here's a recent comment on the article from Martin Morrow, a defence lawyer in Falkirk (iirc he's a partner in MTM, which is one of the "bigger" criminal defence practices in the country):

It is necessary to put the current problem with the Duty plan ,into an overall scheme of things ,to understand the crisis.
The providers of legal aid do so under a fiscal scheme operated by the legal aid board. That scheme has paid fees which have ,(subject to being cut in 2010,) remained static since 1998 and almost static since 1992 respectively.
This has meant an almost complete disinterest in taking up criminal court defence work for 2.5 decades. As a result the service has been provided by very experienced practitioners ,covering a great deal of work on a daily basis.
The line has held.
Think of running a hospital staffed entirely with Consultants. These people perform very well and are experienced. But they are teaching junior doctors who progress through to replace them.
We have no such luxury.
Now the government want us to provide a service through the night.
They seem to fail to understand ,that for most of us,it is not about the money.
They want you to go to a police station eg at midnight. There is somebody to be seen. So a lawyer arrives.
Perhaps the client is drunk or unruly or needs an interpreter. There is a delay ,perhaps of hours.
The police may be out seeing witnesses ,particularly if they are going off shift at 6 am.
So maybe this takes until 3-4 am.
Then you need to get home.
Lots of lawyers have children. Need to get them up for school.. Then you need to get back to the office for 9 ,with trials starting at 10.00.
Can hardly tell the jury the lawyer is not fit because he has been up all night on other cases.
There seems to be a wilful blindness about this logistical nightmare.
Very many politicians either just do not know/don't want to know why there is a problem.
Once you understand that there are very few people training you get an understanding of the dynamic here..
To help the politicians /any body interested ,we have a fixed fee for trials in the Sheriff and District Court.
For all work up to and including the first 30 minutes of trial, so all meetings,preliminary court hearings,meeting defence witnesses ,lodging notices etc l-Sheriff Court fee is 485 (1998 rate 510)
If the trial goes off for any reason ,any number of times and perhaps many hours into the day-fee is zero pence.
Which is why ,when you hear people who should know a lot better,saying defence lawyers churn cases ,it would make you weep.
If the trial finally starts the fee for the ,first 31 minutes-zero pence.
If the trial runs ,the rate after 31 minutes ,for the whole day-100.
If somebody is convicted and faces custody reports are called for,for the first 2 of these vital appearances-zero pence.
If there is a third diet of deferred sentence -50.
These are the Rolls Royce rates. In the District court for 485 read 295 and for the trial instead of a daily rate of 100 read 50.
When a trainee after 5 years at University starts in a firm he can earn the firm a fee only in solemn work-the most serious of cases. The rate is 5.25 a quarter hour.(The firm pays tax on that,before paying the trainee salary). Set in 1992 with John Major in power. And you wonder where the graduates are?
Now the system wants these lawyers to work through the night.Doctors were regularly,particular
ly young doctors ,required to work horrendous hours ,often with tragic consequences. They required to be protected .
The Working Time Directive has application. Those responsible for these current proposals should think again

Concerning stuff. It's a shame that so many of the public are woefully misinformed about criminal defence work, and just parrot the "LEGAL AID GRAVY TRAIN" line that the tabloids use every year when SLAB releases its figures showing that Donald Findlay earned £300k that year.

[Mr A]

It is a joke tbf.

They are about to change the rules to allow criminal trainees appear in court after a few months so they can start earning the firm money.

The whole system needs reformed.

[Widespread Gang Violence]

They are about to change the rules to allow criminal trainees appear in court after a few months so they can start earning the firm money.

Is that right? Didn't know that. Sounds good, though - felt completely useless as a first-year trainee (plus ca change amirite); if you can't appear in court as a criminal defence lawyer, you're pretty much worthless to the vast majority of firms. Fortunately my firm did a lot of instructing counsel in the High Court, so always needed "a body" to sit with them, but I can see why most firms wouldn't want to pay a trainee for a year of doing nothing.

[Giza Brek]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15818...uty_scheme


Here's a recent comment on the article from Martin Morrow, a defence lawyer in Falkirk (iirc he's a partner in MTM, which is one of the "bigger" criminal defence practices in the country):


Concerning stuff. It's a shame that so many of the public are woefully misinformed about criminal defence work, and just parrot the "LEGAL AID GRAVY TRAIN" line that the tabloids use every year when SLAB releases its figures showing that Donald Findlay earned £300k that year.

I've neggied this for the sheer amount of text in one post that nobody is going to read.

[shaun.lawson]

I've neggied this for the sheer amount of text in one post that nobody is going to read.

I read it and am appalled, so am neggying Lewis on behalf of ridiculously overworked, poorly paid lawyers and members of the public suffering from cuts to legal aid.

[Bill Cosby]

Neggied you both, just because.

[Bill Cosby]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.c...p/42638420

Is lying a sin?

[Imaq]

https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/statu...0072142848

[Edson Arantes 2Nascimento]

Another victory for the esteemed organ. There's a few extra stories on young in the latest issue, and one makes mention of the fact he hadn't been dumped at time of print but hints that it was very much imminent.