which links into everything else I've said- if you live on a "sink" estate and come from a low income family you don't have to think consciously about failing at school or getting involved in crime, it's the norm. The people who make decisions are the ones who work hard at school etc and try to improve their situation, some of them (a very few) will get out- effectively changing "class"- the others will stay put desperately trying to stay honest while those around them thrive through laziness and dishonesty.

The majority don't decide anything strategically, they just react to situations as they arise and usually don't see how their own decisions have affected the outcome.

As for overpaid professions how can anyone compare a solicitor with a doctor or public sector worker. They only exist becuse they've fooled us into believing that we can't resolve disputes without them- they regulate themselves, create the laws which they interpret and the legal formalities which they manouver through. They are in fact unnecessary.

As to the why shouldn't I earn more for less effort I worked hard to get the job argument, yes you did and no one is suggesting that you are in the wrong, however as far as I'm concerned no one will suffer if we never created another computer programme again, no one needs car adverts or new types of bank account (unless it's one that isn't designed to screw us over- that'd be a novelty).

If I fuck up at work, someone's life can get seriously worse- if my colleague on Child protection misses something a tragedy can happen, if the bins don't get emptied we start getting health problems, if a packer at kellogs picks their nose on the job- you get bogies in your cornflakes- in other words these jobs matter.

Who's in their right mind would take one of these jobs, knowing they pay crap and carry serios consequences for making a mistake- much easier to stay on the dole, flog some gear down the pub and be comfortable.

Well thats just a load of rubbish.

1) We (solicitors) don't regulate ourselves anymore hence why we have the Solicitors Regulation Authority taking power away from the Law Society.

2) Judges (at certain levels) set precedent by interpreting the law.....lawyers don't.

3) Getting rid of lawyers would mean simplifying the law to a rediculous degree.  We would end up with an undesireable form of arbitrary justice which would benefit no-one.

Plus, if people could resolve disputes on their own they wouldn't end up going to lawyers in the first place.

I really don't know why you seem to champion public sector workers over lawyers.  Some of them are so incompetant and seem to be hell bent on spreading misery because they can't be bothered to do their jobs properly.  I can't bear the fact that from time to time I have to get an injunction against the council forcing them to house someone because of the complete and total incompetance of some public sector workers.  They really make me angry....wasting the taxpayers money grrrrr.

Matt J

If I wanted to listen to an arsehole, I'd fart!

A profession who almost as standard, employ a barrister for any case recieving legal aid and then drag out proceedings for as long as possible ( but not to line their pockets), who defend people they know to be professional criminals (often again using public money) and strive to get cases dismissed on technicalities or by browbeating traumatised witnesses if they can't do it any other way (ie through use of evidence).

It's a wonder they can sleep.

I don't deny there are some right lazy/disagreeable sods working in local gov't (especially at high level) and they need sacking, I also know some great lawyers who always go the extra distance for people's rights, and I realise that I'm generalising- but then this is an online debate not a research paper, Lawyers are unfortunately probably the best example of a profession where pay far outstrips social usefulness.

However you made the system, you complicated the system and societally you're getting paid far too much for what you do- you are not (socially)as valuable as a nurse, a doctor or a bin collector (and maybe I'm not either) but as this debate is (in part) about what motivates crime and how we deal with it, then putting appropriate monetary value on a job based on it's importance (rather than it's ability to generate income for the rich) is key.

I challenge criminals on a daily basis in an attempt to change their behaviour- and I get good results, solicitors teach criminals that it's not a crime unless they prove you did it, and even if they can prove it we can always try to find a mistake that police or CPS officer made, or of course publicly humiliate the victim until they give in.

Unfortunately I've seen all of these things 1st hand- hence my low opinion of most of your colleagues- if they ever were interested in advocating for all of us they've forgotten it.

Well...I'm not overly impressed at your willingness to judge the majority of my colleagues as being morally bankrupt.  I don't think you should be so quick to pass judgement on others.  I agree, as with any profession, there are those that are incompetant and selfish.  A solicitor has to act in their client's best interests.  If those interests involve getting someone off on a technicality so be it...you should be complaining at the CPS and Police forces for screwing up their job in the first place.  Alternatively you should complain at the politicians for allowing people to get off on a "technicality" as they are the ones who propose and agree the laws.

The Human Rights Act preserves people's right to a fair trial.  Solicitors and barristers are there to facilitate that.  If a judge doesn't like the way that a barrister is cross-examining a witness they can intervene (as I have seen often in Domestic Violence cases).

Solicitors take a very long time to train as do barristers.  You get mentally reprogrammed in the process and taught to think in a very particular kind of way.  Our profession is incredibly important for the smooth running of society.

People (generally speaking) don't know what the law is.  People often profess to, but they don't.  The most important thing I've learnt throughout all my legal training is that I know very little about specific laws.  The difference between myself and a leyperson is that I understand the legal processes and I know how to look it up (in a nutshell anyway).

Matt J

If I wanted to listen to an arsehole, I'd fart!