Gather round, children.

The Mail on Sunday is pushing some vintage #FakeLaw today, with a classic reheating of some #LegalAidLies in the ongoing war on asylum seekers.

Let’s take a brief look. [THREAD]

The “scoop” is that a law firm, Duncan Lewis Solicitors, has been paid £55million in legal aid over the past three years.

Part of their work involves representing asylum seekers.

Hence the headline of “£55m for lawyer blocking deportation flights”.

But look closer.

Firstly, despite the focus in the article on the founder, this is a huge solicitors’ firm with over 800 staff and offices across the country. The headline “£55million for lawyer” implies that this sum went to one individual. It of course did not.

Lie number one.

Context is shorn. This “staggering bonanza” represents three years of turnover for a large company. It is not profit.

You are not told how many cases it reflects, what work was involved, what staff are paid, what the profit margins are. The gross figure alone is meaningless.

Despite the association between the shiny £55m figure and “Channel migrants”, buried in the article is the admission that DL’s legal aid work covers “many areas of law”.

The journalist, who claims to have figures, oddly fails to reveal how much actually went on asylum claims.

“No suggestion of any wrongdoing”, the Mail is forced to admit, yet here’s an irrelevant detail about an unpopular person the firm has represented, just to make the Mail’s readers confident that there *has* been wrongdoing really.

After all, legal aid is only for people we like.

On this “LEGAL AID SPLURGED ON BAD PEOPLE” so beloved by journalists too lazy to report on the real stories in the justice system, I refer you to my endless previous threads on this theme. Snore, I know, but as long as they print this guff, I’m going to keep reposting. https://twitter.com/barristersecret/status/1299108590100373506

Aside from the #LegalAidLies, the Mail of course relies on the classic #FakeLaw trope that any claims against the government must, by definition, be frivolous/wasteful/an outrage, and that the Home Office would never deport people unlawfully.

*COUGH* *WINDRUSH* *COUGH*

Worth adding that 3/4 of asylum claims are granted - so the majority of people who come here are genuine refugees. And the number of claims fell last year. See the brilliant book Welcome To Britain by @ColinYeo1 for other facts the Home Office would rather you didn’t know. https://twitter.com/colinyeo1/status/1312687457037619200

Finally, the journalist leaves to the very end the rather boring fact (given in rebuttal by the solicitors rather than presented honestly by the Mail) that legal aid rates are fixed by government. The government severely restricts who qualifies and how much is paid.

So, to sum up:

£55million was *not* paid to one single lawyer

That figure has no relation to asylum claims

A large law firm with hundreds of staff and many offices has a large turnover.

Legal aid rates are set by govt below market rates

No suggestion of wrongdoing

All of which makes one wonder why on earth the journalist thought this was a story worth writing. Where is the public interest? What serious point is being made here?

Heaven forfend it is #FakeLaw misdirection to whip up hatred towards asylum seekers and their lawyers.

And the inevitable plug. Buy it, borrow it, lend it, force everyone you know to read it. It’s only because of our unfamiliarity with the legal system that the government and its cheerleaders can lie to us with impunity.

Don’t let them lie to you.

#FakeLaw https://twitter.com/barristersecret/status/1303994924787027973