The Times is reporting that Nigel Evans faces financial ruin because of the £100,000 he spent paying for his defence on serious sexual assault and rape charges.
Surely, as the Court found him not guilty, his costs should be met from public funds.
I know it was a civil case, but I was once sued by a veracious litigant and defending the action cost me ten grand. I could afford the legal costs at the time, but how many other people are found innocent or win their case and are seriously out of pocket?
It is an unfairness that should be removed from our legal system.
In a front page story today, the Sunday Times says that a leading lawyer is going to mount a challenge under EU law, that expatriate Scots should be allowed a vote in the upcoming Scottish Referendum.
You can rest assured, that at the bottom of every big argument, there is a lawyer stirring the pot and trousering a few large fees.
It doesn’t affect me, as the only thing Scottish in my veins is the odd glass of Bells!
I get masses of spam e-mails from these jerks called the IT Brief in the United States.
Is there a yard dog American lawyer out there who’d like a bit of fun, by suing them for wasting my time?
He can have half he gets out of the idiots, provided they don’t send me any more spam!
This case, reported in the Daily Mail is well summed up by the headline.
The £40,000 battle of the wheelie bins: Homeowner slapped with massive legal bill after row with neighbour ends up in court
When will people ever learn, that a quick way to lose lots of money, is to send a trivial dispute that could be settled over a cup or glass of something to the lawyers.
The only winners here are the lawyers, who walked away with bulging trousers.
The BBC has just started broadcasting proceedings in the Court of Appeal.
Judging by the excepts I’ve seen, I shall not be watching. It must surely rank for exciting content with BBC Parliament.
Why is the BBC wasting our licence fees on this dross?
I did here a rumour that the Security Services wanted this coverage, as it is ideal to show to reluctant suspects. After a few hours of programmes such as this, they usually decide to tell everything.
You can’t get more up front than this display.
Did they really have a television programme? I wouldn’t have seen it, as I don’t watch television with adverts unless it’s must-see sport.
So did they trouser a few bob out of it all?
This story, entitled US shops and restaurants fight patent trolls, caught my eye. Here’s an extract.
Patent trolls take out generalised patents, often on widely available technology, and then demand money from companies who use or offer it.
Shops and restaurants have been targeted for displaying QR codes and online store-locators, say the groups.
The real trouble is that the US has too many lawyers, who think that everybody else owes them a living. I’ll update an old joke.
What do you call a million American lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
A good start!
Despite the new Defamation Act on which I talked in this post, individuals and companies, who are not ostensibly UK-based, continue to fight libel actions in the UK. Here’s a case reported on the BBC web site.
I can’t say I object to this, as I suspect a few nice fees are trousered by a few lawyers and hopefully, they’ll spend it in the UK to give employment to tailors, builders and a few other trades.
The problem comes, when these sort of cases are pursued against a small individual, like an impoverished blogger, who perhaps has said something like Liberace couldn’t play the piano.
Ostensibly it was to celebrate the passing into law of the Defamation Act of 2013.
But there is still work to do. They gave out a flyer last night, which stated these loose ends to be tied.
- We need clarity that the new statutory public interest defence will not lead to the importation of the problems of the Reynolds defence.
- We are still awaiting new court procedures which must provide for early strike out of trivial claims along with the Government’s plans for costs protection.
- We need the regulations and procedures to accompany section 5 on internet publication to deliver an effective defence.
- The Northern Ireland Assembly has failed to adopt the Defamation Act.
My support has only been moral and financial in a small way. But if you read this blog you will find many stories where libel has been inappropriately used to suppress views or information.
As the post yesterday about Nespresso showed, big companies and powerful individuals, are not slow to use the law to protect their interests.
Hopefully though, the Defamation Act 2013 will have removed one of their most effective weapons, the inappropriate and threatening use of the law of libel.
We are in for some interesting times, as the lawyers of the powerful, search for new ways to suppress the truth.
But perhaps the biggest lesson of last night, was that a well-organised campaign, with the support of decent and right-thinking individuals, acting in the public interest, can successfully drive from conception to execution, by using the Internet and the media, and motivating the general public to push their legislators hard.
Similar tactics were used by the Lighter Later campaign, but sadly that well-run campaign I supported, was killed by the dinosaurs in Parliament. The difference was probably that, the Libel Reform Campaign had the backing of all three political parties.
The trouble is that some groups may use similar tactics and methods to stop projects and ideas, that most believe should be implemented. Two that come to mind are the cancer database announced yesterday and HS2.
If I was to propose a campaign, it would be one to make the UK fully metric. That will never happen.
C did many divorces and in quite a few, she was acting for a wife, whose husband had hidden most of their joint assets in companies, overseas or other inaccessible places. After those cases, she generally came home angry.
But now after the case in this BBC story, things should be different.
And rightly so!