Proud to be a lawyer ???
Discussion
speedyguy said:
The lawyers will be on shortly to defend this and legal aid 
I have no knowledge of this claim and what efforts were put in to win.However it may well be that some p**s taking on fees occurred, it is not unknown.
Am I proud? I am proud of what I do, I do it well and I protect many who have been s**t on by others, and who otherwise might well be unable to obtain any justice at all. So I sleep soundly at night knowing that I help others.
As for legal aid, of course I will defend this to the death. Justice should not be only for the rich.
This morning, I blame my tardiness, I watched the arguing between Jon Steafel, Dep. Ed. and Alastair (God that war criminal boils my piss) Campbell on Newsnight about the DM articles on Miliband's father. I laughed at the mention of the 'Grave socialist' caption used with pictures of his gravestone.
In their defence at least they're not those News International ghouls that the two major parties like to have bed swapping parties with.
In their defence at least they're not those News International ghouls that the two major parties like to have bed swapping parties with.
Jasandjules said:
As for legal aid, of course I will defend this to the death. Justice should not be only for the rich.
Indeed.I'd still be considering a Judicial Review if I wasn't out of time. I'd like to think a challenge against procedural impropriety wouldn't have cost the £15K Breadvan72 mentioned.
carinaman said:
I'd still be considering a Judicial Review if I wasn't out of time. I'd like to think a challenge against procedural impropriety wouldn't have cost the £15K Breadvan72 mentioned.
1. Your case would need to have merit (I don't know whether it does or does not)2. £15k sounds about right. These things have a habit of becoming complex and expert legal advice is required which is not cheap. If you want a principal lawyer (for example) to help you, bank on hundreds of £ per hour. If that lawyer requires counsel's advice/ assistance it will be much more.
carinaman said:
Red 4, I'd be doing good apples like you a disservice if I left rotten apples on the tree due to some technicality like a time limit.
Anyway, rules are there to be broken.
The thing is c'man, even though you may have been wronged - sometimes it is better to just let it goAnyway, rules are there to be broken.
I'm not defending wrong-doing, I'm saying that for the sake of your sanity
I've seen lots of wrong-doing and I've been subject to it. I know what a bitter pill to swallow it can be
However, legally, from what you have said, you may need to take it on the chin and move on.
Red 4, I read what you said. Perhaps it's a bit like those two Irish police officers that spoke out about the well connected having their Speeding Points forgotten about or PC James Patrick, whatever route you take they're all bad. Whichever path is taken it's just varying degrees of crapiness.
£15K? What price do I put on my sanity? And my pride? And my self respect?
And anyway, they handed me the ammunition. It would be rude not to.
Not real ammunition, but a letter from a Chief Constable with nonsense in it. And they sent it to my MP too, so they insulted their intelligence as well as mine.
I can't live a lie because they're allergic to the truth. That would make me like someone that was sexually molested as a minor and trying to pretend it never happened. I'm not going to live a lie to spare the blushes of a few bad apples. I can't do it.
If plod can't walk the talk that's their lookout.
£15K? What price do I put on my sanity? And my pride? And my self respect?
And anyway, they handed me the ammunition. It would be rude not to.
Not real ammunition, but a letter from a Chief Constable with nonsense in it. And they sent it to my MP too, so they insulted their intelligence as well as mine.
I can't live a lie because they're allergic to the truth. That would make me like someone that was sexually molested as a minor and trying to pretend it never happened. I'm not going to live a lie to spare the blushes of a few bad apples. I can't do it.
If plod can't walk the talk that's their lookout.
Edited by carinaman on Monday 7th April 14:35
Perhaps - but the question is what CAN you do about it ?.
It comes down to being practical; you may have been dealt an injustice, the police may have closed ranks ... whatever
But - if there is nothing that can be done - forget it.
Time limits for legal proceedings cannot be ignored. The law is what it is and you can't change that.
If you dwell on it they've won again.
It comes down to being practical; you may have been dealt an injustice, the police may have closed ranks ... whatever
But - if there is nothing that can be done - forget it.
Time limits for legal proceedings cannot be ignored. The law is what it is and you can't change that.
If you dwell on it they've won again.
Red 4 said:
Perhaps - but the question is what CAN you do about it ?
Nothing, I would imagine. I don't see how he would overcome the hurdle of being more than 3 months after the decision he wishes to challenge?Ignorance of the rules is not a valid reason.
Lord Justice Maurice Kay in the Court of Appeal had this to say in a case involving a different part of the Procedure Rules, one involving 'promptness', about a litigant in person;
Tinkler v Elliot 2012 said:
I accept that there may be facts and circumstances in relation to a litigant in person which may go to an assessment of promptness but, in my judgment, they will only operate close to the margins. An opponent of a litigant in person is entitled to assume finality without expecting excessive indulgence to be extended to the litigant in person. It seems to me that, on any view, the fact that a litigant in person "did not really understand" or "did not appreciate" the procedural courses open to him for months does not entitle him to extra indulgence...
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1289....10 Pence Short said:
The only occasion when a time limit may be relaxed is when a litigant is incapacitated - as far as I know, I'm not a lawyer.Mental/ physical inability to act might sway it but other than that I suspect he's stuffed (to put it bluntly) .
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 7th April 15:02
10 Pence Short said:
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.
iloveboost said:
....
It seems like an un-intended consequence of making it easier and cheaper to sue people generally?
It is in fact harder and more expensive to sue people than it used to be. One distorting factor, however, is the reckless decision by this Government to allow contingency fees (like CFAs, only worse). For a Conservative government, this one seems very keen on changing things which traditionally worked OK (ish), and replacing them with new, un-needed things which, er, sort of damage the fabric of Britishness (now I sound like that git Farage and need to go and lie down).It seems like an un-intended consequence of making it easier and cheaper to sue people generally?
Osinjak said:
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
It had nothing to do with children born with birth defects or other mindless frothing at the mouth spouted on this thread. Children who deserve to be supported through their illnesses.
I really shouldn't be arguing the case for the NHS, I should just agree with you lot. The upshot will be the percentage of money spent on needless compo claims will rocket further, service will deteriorate because money destined for services is being spent on lawyers (this is already happening, hence my comment about my medical insurance payments), and eventually the system will be unfit for purpose and we will all go private.
Dcotors and Lawyers will become similar to the USA. Job jobbed.
In fact the only people who will be likely to suffer are the self same children with lifelong illness whos parents will quickly discover just how fast private medicne and Lawyers can swollow their compo claim money.
julian64 said:
Well I guess for sheer number of words typed that deserves a reply. I called him an idiot because he suggested doctors could be monitored in the same way pilots are. The stupidity of the remark was that doctors are far more closely monitered than pilots and have been for the longest period of time. In fact to say it means you understand nothing of the system you are commenting on. That makes him an idiot.
Bit harsh, I know sod all about pilots but that doesn't make me an idiot.Osinjak said:
julian64 said:
Well I guess for sheer number of words typed that deserves a reply. I called him an idiot because he suggested doctors could be monitored in the same way pilots are. The stupidity of the remark was that doctors are far more closely monitered than pilots and have been for the longest period of time. In fact to say it means you understand nothing of the system you are commenting on. That makes him an idiot.
Bit harsh, I know sod all about pilots but that doesn't make me an idiot.Dbest92 said:
I might be wrong but there's probably more to the story than that DM has stated.
Often find the DM miss out key parts of stories just to get an effective title
Ya reckon? Often find the DM miss out key parts of stories just to get an effective title
As awful as the Daily Mail is and its endlessly lurid tales about 'celebrities' and mean stories about immigrants, it has a remarkable reach and is quite influential. People fashionably underestimate its power to influence and knock it for its generally pointless existence but you cannot deny its popularity. I regularly use three forum-based websites and without fail the DM is quoted, discussed, loathed and criticised in equal measures. Remarkable for something that's so bad, unreliable, equivocal, sensationalist and occasionally downright nasty.
It's not the Economist or the FT, it never will be and it's not what it's trying to be and yet people still quote it and get all frothy about it. I'm not innocent, I have a morbid curiosity with its website, it's truly s
te and yet..Edited by Osinjak on Monday 7th April 17:12
julian64 said:
Osinjak said:
Bit harsh, I know sod all about pilots but that doesn't make me an idiot.
True but then you don't talk about pilots as if you know all about them.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff