EDM 191: REFUGEE AND MIGRANT JUSTICE CHARITY

Further to my previous post, here is the Early Day Motion [1] tabled by Caroline Lucas:

That this House notes that the legal advice charity Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ) is in danger of closing because it is facing a cash crisis because a large proportion of legal aid work is now paid upon completion, meaning payment can take anything up to two years; further notes that as a result the charity has a £1.8 million backlog of payments; further notes that senior legal and human rights experts, faith leaders including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Citizens Advice, Liberty and Mind all back the campaign to rescue the legal advice charity from the cash crisis that is not of their own making; is aware that RMJ is not asking for new money but simply prompt payment of legal aid by the Legal Services Commission, or failing that, interest-free loans by the Government to cover the gap; and calls for the legal aid payment system to be changed to ensure charities are paid promptly for their work.

[1] Paul Sagar is right about EDM’s in general, but I want to keep this on the radar.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “EDM 191: REFUGEE AND MIGRANT JUSTICE CHARITY

    1. Yes a woman I’m liaising with from RMJ has directed me towards your blog already. You’re on their radar, they are unsure whether to be worried or happy that they’re making progress.

      You don’t address the main point in your piece, you just slander them, does the rule of law matter or not?

      If yes, then RMJ are providing a service which is vital. If no, that way tyranny lies. Your choice.

  1. As RMJ is indeed a real charity, why don’t they get out on the streets with their begging bowl and hustle for donations from the GBP rather than sucking on the public teat? If their cause is so worthy then they should have little difficulty in generating the funds to keep their small army of legal eagles in gainful employment and servicing their clientele.

    As for the law, well in this as in so many other related areas, it is a complete ass.

    1. Yes, but if the state is going to put these people through the courts then it needs to ensure they are represented. Rule of law. This is one of the costs of living in a society with checks and balances which prevent it descending into tyranny.

      1. These people elect to go to court themselves, with no doubt more than a little encouragement from RMJ and their fellow parasites in the Industry.

        There is already a hugely expensive bureaucracy in place to consider their asylum claims and it is only when an unwelcome decision is made that the incentive to go to court arises.

        I have no particular issue if they elect to initiate legal proceedings, but see no reason why the cost of their doing so should be a charge on the public purse. If they cannot support their own action then it is up to their friends and supporters to assist them, not the general public.

        Legal Aid was not intended to be used for such purposes, and the fact that it is is a perversion of its original intent.

        1. Yes, but if the state is going to put these people through the courts then it needs to ensure they are represented. Rule of law. This is one of the costs of living in a society with checks and balances which prevent it descending into tyranny.

          The same answer applies. If these people are to be declares illegal immigrants and subject to legal sanction then they need to go through the courts. If they go through the courts then they need representation.

          1. They don’t need to go through the courts at all; that is a personal choice aided and abetted by you know who. They have the option of returning where they came from or moving on somewhere else.

            You’re surely not suggesting that anyone who is deemed to be an illegal entrant is entitled to challenge that decision through the courts at public expense, are you?

Comments are closed.