Proud to be a lawyer ???
Discussion
Responding to the OP (although this has the look of the usual knock down ginger type of thread - mouth off, then run away):-
(1) Please do some basic research, the costs awarded were 5K, as noted above.
(2) Ambulance chasing is deplorable. If I was Head of Stuff, I would not allow lawyers to advertise and would ban CFAs. I would also bring back old style means and merits tested legal aid.
(3) I don't go in for pride about anything, as pride is not a virtue, but I am not ashamed of what I do for a living. I do my job to get paid and claim no lofty vocation, but in my career I have worked on law-changing cases that have improved fairness in employment and public administration, helped to defend free speech against Government and corporate control, represented poor and inarticulate people against bullying companies and public sector bodies, defended the Government/taxpayer against chancer claims by scuzzbags domestic and foreign, help to save a few businesses that employ people from insolvency, helped to track down and recover money defrauded from businesses that employ people and need that money to stay in business, taught some young people how to do similar stuff, and paid enough tax to pay many nurses and teachers over several years.
For most of my work I have (gasp!) been paid, either very well, or reasonably well. I have done a small portion of it for free, because I wanted to. Tell us about what you have done, OP.
(1) Please do some basic research, the costs awarded were 5K, as noted above.
(2) Ambulance chasing is deplorable. If I was Head of Stuff, I would not allow lawyers to advertise and would ban CFAs. I would also bring back old style means and merits tested legal aid.
(3) I don't go in for pride about anything, as pride is not a virtue, but I am not ashamed of what I do for a living. I do my job to get paid and claim no lofty vocation, but in my career I have worked on law-changing cases that have improved fairness in employment and public administration, helped to defend free speech against Government and corporate control, represented poor and inarticulate people against bullying companies and public sector bodies, defended the Government/taxpayer against chancer claims by scuzzbags domestic and foreign, help to save a few businesses that employ people from insolvency, helped to track down and recover money defrauded from businesses that employ people and need that money to stay in business, taught some young people how to do similar stuff, and paid enough tax to pay many nurses and teachers over several years.
For most of my work I have (gasp!) been paid, either very well, or reasonably well. I have done a small portion of it for free, because I wanted to. Tell us about what you have done, OP.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 7th April 10:54
I do have to say that the title of the thread is needlessly offensive, and simply shows the attitude of the OP.
The driving force behind ambulance chasers are not lawyers, in fact I'd say that they probably make up a few percent of the staff of those organisations - it at all.
It's pure business and poker-style negotiation and bluffing.
The title is akin to watching 'Rogue Traders' and asking on the Business forum if those hard working chaps are ashamed to be in business.
The driving force behind ambulance chasers are not lawyers, in fact I'd say that they probably make up a few percent of the staff of those organisations - it at all.
It's pure business and poker-style negotiation and bluffing.
The title is akin to watching 'Rogue Traders' and asking on the Business forum if those hard working chaps are ashamed to be in business.
In the interests of balance, it's probable some legal types had some involvement in sorting out this stuff:
http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Torbay-Hospi...
I spent almost 40 minutes on a phone to a solicitor last week. They declined payment. I'd have to give it some serious thought to see whether they'd given me as much help as Breadvan72 has here for free. Derek Smith has helped too.
Police in real life can hurl excrement in the hope that it sticks just like posters on Internet forums.
http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/Torbay-Hospi...
I spent almost 40 minutes on a phone to a solicitor last week. They declined payment. I'd have to give it some serious thought to see whether they'd given me as much help as Breadvan72 has here for free. Derek Smith has helped too.
JustinP1 said:
It's pure business and poker-style negotiation and bluffing.
But that's the way of more than a few in the police and the public sector. That reminds me of the last conversation I had with an Inspector that once they'd realised I'd figured out their agenda suddenly lost the ability to respond to my Emails. Strange that when they seemed awfully keen to discuss some allegations against me the last time we spoke too. I didn't contribute to, and only glanced at EClassy's thread on his mate being detained, but I found it disconcerting that Inspectors have so much power when it comes to detaining people given the last Inspector I encountered. JustinP1 said:
It's pure business and poker-style negotiation and bluffing.
They said something, I figured out their agenda, once they'd got my written response that was already penned they seem to have runaway and hidden under a rock. The letter from the Chief Constable to my MP is a bit 'The dog ate my homework' that doesn't mention two allegations alluded to by the Inspector so it could seem they're still bluffing and/or playing for time.Police in real life can hurl excrement in the hope that it sticks just like posters on Internet forums.
Edited by carinaman on Monday 7th April 11:20
I didn't read the article.
The adverts on those newspaper sites just cause long load times, and the sidebars are normally nsfw.
I'm pleased the costs were reduced to a sensible amount.
But, I still think there's something wrong with the system that allows such over the top attempts in the first place.
The adverts on those newspaper sites just cause long load times, and the sidebars are normally nsfw.
I'm pleased the costs were reduced to a sensible amount.
But, I still think there's something wrong with the system that allows such over the top attempts in the first place.
julian64 said:
Bluebarge said:
If the NHS had a decent system of quality control over its practitioners, and regularly monitored its mistakes in the same way pilots are required to do, then you might have a point, but what we have is a system of very variable quality which is not free (we all pay for it through taxation) and which commits far too many basic errors. Denying people the right to redress in those circumstances would be a scandalous injustice.
Idiot.Sorry just couldn't muster further comment.
He has a perfectly reasonable and valid argument, which is more than can be said of you.
The NHS make some truly terrible mistakes, just like most people do in everyday life.
I suppose in your world, the infant born with severe birth defects, brain damage etc etc due to medical error deserves all he/she gets and doesn't deserve compensation to help them live a relatively normal life? What a truly narrow minded way you have of looking at things.
Bluebarge said:
Snowboy said:
Personally, I'd like the NHS to be legally protected from lawsuits.
To be given 'free' medical care for life and then to sue if something goes wrong is just wrong.
Then where's the justice if an incompetent surgeon paralyses the family breadwinner? Does the fact that he received the injury for free make it ok? After all, not many people who commit GBH or worse actually charge for it.To be given 'free' medical care for life and then to sue if something goes wrong is just wrong.
If the NHS had a decent system of quality control over its practitioners, and regularly monitored its mistakes in the same way pilots are required to do, then you might have a point, but what we have is a system of very variable quality which is not free (we all pay for it through taxation) and which commits far too many basic errors. Denying people the right to redress in those circumstances would be a scandalous injustice.
The NHS is also very far from free. It costs billions, just not at the point of use.
As for legal aid - do you really want to live in a country where only wealthy people are defended?
You've taken things to the extreme.
Of course there needs to be a system of sensible compensation in place.
But, a lot of that's already in place with NHS, welfare state, benefits etc.
The UK doesn't throw injured people on the street to fend for themselves.
There's a huge nationally funded framework in place to cover things.
There is also a big difference between negligence and accidents, or between negligence and failure.
Of course there needs to be a system of sensible compensation in place.
But, a lot of that's already in place with NHS, welfare state, benefits etc.
The UK doesn't throw injured people on the street to fend for themselves.
There's a huge nationally funded framework in place to cover things.
There is also a big difference between negligence and accidents, or between negligence and failure.
Snowboy said:
There is also a big difference between negligence and accidents, or between negligence and failure.
Trouble is some try to excuse negligence and criminality with excuses don't they? 'It could've been X, it could've been Y...' implausible excuses don't only exist on the Internet do they? Edited by carinaman on Monday 7th April 12:15
julian64 said:
Bluebarge said:
If the NHS had a decent system of quality control over its practitioners, and regularly monitored its mistakes in the same way pilots are required to do, then you might have a point, but what we have is a system of very variable quality which is not free (we all pay for it through taxation) and which commits far too many basic errors. Denying people the right to redress in those circumstances would be a scandalous injustice.
Idiot.Sorry just couldn't muster further comment.
But let's take it at face value. The NHS has a wonderful ability to bring out the worst and best in people and the general public tends to get very protective and almost dewy eyed over the altruistic and ideological standpoint that it appears to represent but things are never quite what they seem. UK citizens pay for the healthcare they receive, just like any other health system in the world. What differs is the mechanism but that's largely irrelevant in this case but it's still an important point. Suppose we introduced larger and more immediate forms of payment (as they do in some health systems) rather than simple taxation or social insurance? I'll wager that those who believe that the NHS should be protected from legal action might change their mind given that payment for healthcare suddenly becomes more immediate and literally is out of pocket. In the same way that we hand over money for a car (or any good). we expect a reasonable amount of service, we expect the product to do what it should and not harm us, we expect value for money. Read SP&L for some truly hilarious stories about warranties on sub£1k cars to get a feel for expectations of consumerism and how far it can go.
But for some reason, this logical thinking is removed when it comes to the NHS and anyone who seeks 'compensation' - it can take any form - is suddenly a parasite and should be hung from the gallows. Why? As receivers of a service we have every right to believe that the providers have our best interests at heart, Talcott Parsons goes into quite some depth in his theories of social systems, and that as our agents, Health Care Professionals will be technically competent and safe. However, like any organisation that has people delivering a service, it's not infallible and mistakes occur. Mid Staffs and Shipman spring to mind, these things happen and will continue to happen (although hopefully not Shipman) and those that provide a shoddy service, particularly in healthcare where we surrender ourselves to our agents because we simply don't know enough about the care we receive, should be prepared to be held to account if it goes wrong. And if that requires financial compensation for lost salary, quality of life or otherwise then so be it, that's why Foundation Trusts have insurance policies in place.
No society wants their health system to fail, witness the protests in the US against Universal Health Coverage (a principal that everyone, no matter what should have healthcare equity) because it was socialised medicine but because the phrase had 'social' in it, it was deemed communist and wrong. Think I'm kidding? Ask any US citizen. The same goes for the NHS, we don't want to see it fail and we certainly don't use it with an itchy legal trigger finger but we have absolutely every right to seek redress if it goes wrong and we are harmed as a result. There are incompetent people out there and the are also those that may want to actually cause harm but to suggest that we, as payers for the service, should surrender that right 'because it's the NHS' is incomprehensible.
As an aside, my two very closest friends are a GP and a solicitor advocate, both of whom earn good salaries. My own salary is healthy enough but they earn more than me but then they've worked extremely hard to get to the point in life where they can command a decent salary. It does make me laugh when I read, or hear, disgruntled comments about lawyers and doctors earning six figure salaries and how it's obscene, disgusting and so on. My solicitor friend trained as a doctor first then trained as a lawyer and is now a respected figure in the med neg world but in total, and I'm guessing a bit here, it's probably taken him about 15 years worth of training to get to this point in life. 15 years. That's how much it's taken to be a lawyer specialising in med neg. A GP might take a little less but not by much. Worth considering when the next time someone starts banging on about how much doctors and lawyers earn to consider just how much work actually goes into achieving either of those professions.
Edited by Osinjak on Monday 7th April 12:50
10 Pence Short said:
Before jumping to conclusions over the need to overhaul our entire civil justice system or shield the NHS from negligence claims, perhaps some should read the article in more detail.
The costs claimed by Rapid were challenged by the NHS and much, much lower ones imposed by the courts. In the hot drink case, for example, the costs were slashed by the court from £58,000 to £5000.
To me this tends to suggest the NHS is no shrinking violet, unable to defend itself, the courts are doing their job by scrutinising costs and the story is being presented in a somewhat one dimensional way by the Daily Mail.
Surely not! The DM presenting a story in a way that suits their political agenda!?The costs claimed by Rapid were challenged by the NHS and much, much lower ones imposed by the courts. In the hot drink case, for example, the costs were slashed by the court from £58,000 to £5000.
To me this tends to suggest the NHS is no shrinking violet, unable to defend itself, the courts are doing their job by scrutinising costs and the story is being presented in a somewhat one dimensional way by the Daily Mail.
I don't believe it!!
Edited by Devil2575 on Monday 7th April 13:03
Devil2575 said:
Derek Smith said:
You can't judge a profession or job by individuals.
This. Devil2575 said:
Surely not! The DM presenting a story in a way that suits their political agenda!?
I don't believe it!!
Can we give the Daily Mail bashing a bit of a break? If it gets anymore enthusiastic it risks falling off of the bed and hitting the bedside cabinet en route to the shagpile.I don't believe it!!
carinaman said:
Can we give the Daily Mail bashing a bit of a break? If it gets anymore enthusiastic it risks falling off of the bed and hitting the bedside cabinet en route to the shagpile.
We shouldn't. They are responsible for promoting ignorance and hate.
I am all for freedom of speech however I do question the motives and morals of people who so brazenly misrepresent or sensationalise everyday events to the extent they do.
10 Pence Short said:
I am all for freedom of speech however I do question the motives and morals of people who so brazenly misrepresent or sensationalise everyday events to the extent they do.
A bit like those allegations the police came at me with, two of which have oddly disappeared. I don't think they vanished as I stood my ground. I think they vanished as they were false. The Daily Mail and the police are both guilty of over embellishing the facts when it suits them. It's like the previous comment about bluster and poker hands.Or perhaps having been on the receiving end of such treatment I should align myself with those that the Mail seeks to taint and scandalise?
I watched a programme on fraud and corruption in the NHS by staff that is costing it millions a year so this case will have no effect on the NHS! Drop in an ocean. I feel sorry for NHS staff I know many work really hard and every story that comes out that's negative must be a bit de-moralising.
However what I don't understand is that we have a tax funded welfare system that supports those temporarily or permanently unable to work so why are lawyers needed in order to get compensation for victims of accidents?
It seems like an un-intended consequence of making it easier and cheaper to sue people generally?
However what I don't understand is that we have a tax funded welfare system that supports those temporarily or permanently unable to work so why are lawyers needed in order to get compensation for victims of accidents?
It seems like an un-intended consequence of making it easier and cheaper to sue people generally?
carinaman said:
[
But I like DM bashing.Devil2575 said:
Surely not! The DM presenting a story in a way that suits their political agenda!?
I don't believe it!!
Can we give the Daily Mail bashing a bit of a break? If it gets anymore enthusiastic it risks falling off of the bed and hitting the bedside cabinet en route to the shagpile.I don't believe it!!
I seldom use the word hate because there isn't generally much in life that evokes such a strong emotion in me, but I use it in connection with the Mail.
Written by lying b
ds.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff