The luxurious life of judges (as paid for by the taxpayer)

 The palatial lodgings of the high-ranking judiciary are costing the taxpayer £5m a year
 despite a hard-hitting economy drive that recommended judges give up their butlers and
 luxury cars, according to reports released by the government.

 But the figures for last year show that the cost per night for a judge to stay in the
 luxury lodgings in Chelmsford is £2,316, an increase of nearly £800 since Lord Irvine
 of Lairg ordered a clampdown on judges' accommodation expenses in 2001. Similarly, a
 night at the 18th-century town house next to Winchester Cathedral now costs £1,591 -
 £600 more than it did in 2001.

 The figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, are bound to anger MPs who
 have campaigned for better value for money for the 32 judges' lodgings that are dotted
 over England and Wales.

 Recommendations in Lord Irvine's report, which was not published at the time, called
 for the abolition of judges' butlers and the end of the use of chauffeur-driven
 Rolls-Royces. Under the proposals judges' clerks were to replace chauffeurs and the
 judges' Rolls-Royces and Bentleys were to be exchanged for people carriers and saloon
 cars.

 The review said the abolition of butlers would save the taxpayer £45,000 a year. The
 report said: "Many of the duties that were once the province of the butler, such as
 laying out clothes, robing and unpacking for judges, are no longer required. The few
 duties which remain, such as waiting at table ... could be carried out by other
 members of staff."

 A comparison with alternative accommodation reveals that most of the lodgings were
 much more expensive than a night in a luxury hotel, although the authors acknowledge
 this does not include paying for additional security.

 This prompted recommendations for radical cost-savings including closing more
 expensive lodgings and making the judges commute to work from London.

 A spokeswoman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs said the reason the report
 had not been published before was that it was decided that it would be better to be
 incorporated into Lord Justice Auld's wide-ranging criminal justice review.

By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Published: 02 March 2007

----------------------------------------------

 `Perceptions' note:
 
 Judges are tax-parasites (as are all national politicians, senior bureaucrats,
 senior police-chiefs, senior media (esp. BBC), big land-owners etc).

 And these tax-avoiding judges seem fond of City fraudsters - who are stealing
 from us net-taxpayers - and they seem exceptionally fond of pedophiles.  Why?

 Friends and Family - all of them.

 We are ruled - and our courts are ruled - by parasitic, criminal scum.

 Check

 www.perceptions.couk.com/devices.html - for the reason for perverts

 and www.perceptions.couk.com/nitwigs.txt - for the results.

----------------------------------------------


              FURTHER REFERENCES

  GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE


file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/fatfilth.txt