We have some support from the legal aid authority. However, it just so happens that the way Lambeth implemented these and the legal process they used ensured that legal aid was not available to us for the majority of the LTNs implemented.
Let’s be clear here Lambeth can create LTNs perfectly lawfully, what the court case is doing is alleging that they didn’t tick a box in the correct way - therefore the whole thing should be thrown out.
? I haven’t said I’m in favour of tighter restrictions on these cases anywhere and I’m not. If anything I think they should be open to legal aid.
I am questioning the motives of the donors.Have you read the comments on the fundraiser?
Ok. So my equivalent of “didn’t tick a box in the correct way” is that they failed to comply with legislation designed specifically to protect vulnerable people. I always find it interesting when people use the “didn’t tick a box correctly” argument as it shows they know almost nothing about the law, legal process and the obligations on governmental institutions to obey the law. They also tend to be the same people that shout the loudest when that “box they didn’t tick” happens to have an adverse impact on their lives. Do try to remember that, whilst this is a forum, it is the lives of people we are talking about and, due to a disability, their lives are hard enough already without the state acting unlawfully
Questioning their motives doesn’t mean I think it should be made illegal.
What a load of bullshit. Are you saying that making sure systems that are implemented meet the needs of a vulnerable society is a tick box exercise?
Whilst I understand Ed is going on about motives, I think that they should be separated from whether there is a legal case to answer on behalf of the claimant
No - they’re separate things. Whether there’s a case & how it’s funded. I don’t think there should be restrictions on whether people what to help fund such cases.
Whilst I understand Ed is going on about motives, I think that they should be separated from whether there is a legal case to answer on behalf of the claimant
Ed, is your concern solely about the motives of the people donating? If so, can I ask why it matters. Once this goes to court it becomes a matter of law as to whether he council behaved lawfully or not. At that point motives no longer matter and we get the legal outcome that the court decides. In the end, it’s the legal
I’m really not.
But isn't the legal action only asking for the LTNRs to be assessed according to accessiblity and equality for all. Therefore why would you want it to lose. It's about implementing them fairly and not necessarily about taking them away.
This is being looked at. Completely understand your position but I’d say that no of us should hope that one side loses or wins. All we should want (and this goes to you last point) is that the legal process is fair and that the judge make a decision based on the law. The outcome is then the right legal decision
Sometimes opposition comes from distasteful sides. In this case it's hard to reconcile the fairness of what is being asked with some of the group that are asking it. So policies shouldn't be brought in with the proper care and considerations for all because you don't like the person that said so?
As I mentioned before I think many could be left very disappointed even if you win. I know of people that have donated hundreds who I suspect would struggle to afford this.
Have you read the comments on the fundraising page?
Ok. We'll see what the judge says. I did think Lambeth had already done an assessment, if you want them to do a better one then fine but I don't think that's clear from your funding page.
How are we actually supposed to form an opinion as to whether it's legitimate? We don't know the full details of the case that's being brought against Lambeth and we don't know what Lambeth's defence is. At least speaking for myself, I don't know all the technicalities of what the process Lambeth was or is supposed to follow is nor do I know what standards their actions are assessed against.
