Barristers aren’t supposed to have favourite judges, but if C had one, it would have probably been Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. C first met her at a dinner around the time the judge was chairing the Cleveland Child Abuse Enquiry and I can remember her coming home and saying she had rarely met such an impressive person. I think later C went on to appear before her several times. I can remember C saying in 2006, that it was the right appointment for Dame Elizabeth to be appointed to do the inquest into the death of Diana, the Princess of Wales.
So now at the age of nearly 81, she has been appointed chairman of the forthcoming large-scale inquiry into cases of child sex abuse in previous decades.
C would have approved!
That is all you can say about this story in the Standard. Here’s the first couple of paragraphs.
The lawyers must be laughing at her like crazy, as they trouser expensive fees for a case that she will probably lose.
I can certainly hear C laughing and hinting that a fool and their money are soon parted.
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.