This story caught my eye today –

Lawyers In Hacking Scandal To Earn Up To £200 Per Hour

It’s one of those stories in the newspaper that wasn’t placed on the home page of the website in a manner which would draw attention to it. In fact, since I opened that story about an hour ago, it’s now disappeared off the front page altogether.

I wonder why that happens, eh?  Is it so that the newspaper can appear to uphold it’s impartiality by appearing to ‘report the news’, without mentioning the fact that editorial control means that this interesting story can easily be buried very quickly beneath much more important stories like –

EweTube shows ram’s mating acts

Jacko:top-earning dead celebrity

Amanda Knox and I ‘need each other’ says Sollecito

 

It’s also interesting to note that the headline and sub-heading is actually out-done in terms of shockingness by the final sentence, which many people won’t even see.

This last sentence is the defence offered by a lawyer against the accusation that paying lawyers £200 an hour from taxpayers’ money over a long period of time to work on an inquiry into the hacking scandal is too much money and not value for money.

Here is the ‘attack’ –

Robert Oxley, campaigns manager at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said of the Leveson inquiry: “With an issue that affects the foundation of democracy, there has to be a proper investigation in to the allegations.

“But it is important the investigation represents value for taxpayers’ money and that the result is to restore faith in the organisations and not to bolster the pockets of well-paid lawyers.”

And here is the defence –

Mark Stephens, of Finers Stephens Innocent, who has worked on previous inquiries, including Bloody Sunday, said the hourly rates were a fraction of usual fees. He said a barrister in an inquiry could command £1,000 an hour, while a solicitor could earn £300 an hour. He said Lord Justice Leveson had to be commended for preventing lawyers treating the inquiry as a “money cow”.

 

£1000 an hour? That’s some income. £200 an hour isn’t to be sniffed at – I’d take it. Take a moment to consider the state of the economy around the world and also to consider exactly what it is that these people do – how much value do they provide society for that money?

I guess that they would take the position that they are essential in ‘upholding law and order.’ Others would suggest that it’s people and earnings like this that will ultimately be responsible for the total breakdown in law and order.

I think it’s safe to say that there’s a lesson here.