Off to see these guys tonight - bluegrass on a Friday night cannot beat it.

The chorus of complaints about delays in the processing of LF1 claims was amplified at yesterdays CDS course in Leeds/Bradford. More disturbingly some delegates were suggesting that there was a 6 month backlog for reviews to be processed.

The main concern relates to disagreement over the number of pages of prosecution evidence. It also appears that this is, yet again, an unforeseen difficulty though hardly surprising given that the Crown Court will not give you a clue as to the "agreed" PPE at the point of billing.

I do not have the time today to do undertake the proper Fisking that this LSC response to the Bar Council deserves. So you will have to do your own.

For the Commission to reject BC proposals because they have been considered previously when their very own current strategy is one which has seen so much historic piloting and changes of course, beggars belief.

When you read their first "important principle" you are also faced with a "where the *$%£ do you start moment", of some considerable magnitude.

The delivery of legal aid must be structured around our clients and potential clients, readily available and focussed firmly on their needs, lifestyles, known preferences and location – not those of providers.

I also have this new report to read now as well.

You know you are getting old when Police Officers/Doctors/Teachers etc start looking young, so they say. (You can substitute just about any vocation in to that equation except Criminal Defence lawyers by the way).

You also know that the years are passing when you experience your first 3-years on second round Peer Review sample request.

Cocker sings the title.

There is some clarification here regarding the "logging" arrangements for Police Station matters where instructions were, legitimately, NOT received from the DSCC e.g. family, Police or for interview by arrangement.

You have 48 hours only to log these and this guidance states that they will not be claimable if this is not complied with.

It also makes clear that you do not need to log at all on, legitimately, transferred instructions.

For the second time this year we get to see Mr Weller tomorrow night, this time in the Geordie Ice RInk.

This is the title track from the last album which we will here a lot of tomorrow I suspect.

No matter what the issue the Gazette has it covered this week.

First up is coverage of job losses at the LSC and its likely impact upon practitioners - sorry suppliers.

Then there is the issue of charging rates for Defence Cost Orders to reimburse innocent private paying clients caught by the proposed Crown Court means test.

Finally, and most poignantly with the case of Baby P in the news, is the issue of the cost of child care applications.

So much for "joined-up thinking".

In the light of recent posts Andy and I are meeting to day to discuss "strategic issues". So far all we have done is deal with detailed technical queries regarding civil standard and graduated fee billing. So, as ever, we have been distracted by the immediate demands of the day rather than working through our pre-planned agenda.

Nothing changes.

(We are really sharp on Mental Health new matter starts and Family Public Law Graduated Fees this morning mind you).

This has proved the most read post of this blogs 3 and a bit year history. As I have been saying to those who made phone contact, we will have to see if this is as significant as we think but most, nay all, of you seem to be in agreement.

I am still available for a chat on the subject for those with 5 minutes to kill.

You have probably noticed that we no longer offer training events on all but massive consultation exercises. I have a further confession to make; I now rarely read them in any detail, the executive summary and a scan of rest is sufficient, and I then await the final outcome. Is this remiss of me?

Here is one of interest to firms doing Crown Court Criminal Defence work.