- Facebook censorship.
Wierd stuff going on over at the wastebookk. I posted a link to a few different solicitor blogs as this legal aid competitive tendering thing is threatening to wipe out my mates criminal law practise. For the first time ever FB asked me for a captcha. While I was logged in, on https. I posted three or 4 links to different blogs, all the same thing. They passed the captcha, but every time I or one of my friends clicked on the link, FB said they suspected it was spam…
Now they have all been deleted.
Then I get sent this.conspiracy theory…Posted 4 years ago
Now I wonder if , either FB is in the pockets of our political masters or the politicians are using chineselogin farmers to click on links and label them as spam, or is it just a typical FB coding moronisity…
No reappearance, I do suspect coding gremlins, but it is a tad fishy. I think tis down to an over zealous spam filter, but seeign as I am logged in and on https on my home IP you would think it is all ok.
crankboy, I shudder to think if an innocent poor person is arrested , how they would get treated by soem megacorp of lawyers (whom i suspect might not be the best or dumbed down toa price) who are on a govt contract. I know it is only in the consultation phase but now is the time to stand up tot his.Posted 4 years agocrankboyMember
It is not only in the consultation phase , the government have acknowledged the consultation is a sham, bids in october roll out next year .
Dumbed down to a price is the actual policy:-
“Ministry of Justice Consultation
In the consultation document “Transforming Legal Aid: Delivering a more credible and efficient system” the MoJ proposes removing a citizen’s access to the solicitor of their choice. Understandably, the legal profession is up in arms about these proposals and points to the fact that client choice is the best way of ensuring that standards remain high because the lawyer’s livelihood depends upon their reputation. Yet tucked away in the Impact Assessment of the Consultation (para 23) the MoJ reveal their hand in a manner that Gerald Ratner would have been truly proud.
In paragraph 23, they state that “client choice may in certain circumstances give an incentive to provide a legal aid service of the level of quality that is above the acceptable level… as firms compete on quality rather than price”. The paragraph goes on to state that removing client choice is likely to “reduce the extent of firms offering services above the acceptable level” . I had to re-read this section several times before it became clear to me that the MoJ want defence lawyers to perform at acceptable levels but no higher.
Acceptable Levels of Defence
So, don’t home visit a disabled person, don’t track down alibi witnesses who could prove your client’s innocence, don’t wade through unused material for that silver bullet that will secure your innocent client’s acquittal.
In its proposals, the MoJ is displaying a callous disregard for the rights of its citizens, as client choice and quality of legal service have been sacrificed on the altar of price competition.”Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Facebook censorship.’ is closed to new replies.