Legal Monkeys: The Partner

A tourist walked into a pet shop and was looking at the animals on display. While he was there, another customer walked in and said to the shopkeeper, "I'll have a trainee solicitor monkey please." The shopkeeper nodded, went over to a cage full of monkeys and took out a monkey. He fit a collar and leash, handed it to the customer, saying, "That'll be £10,000." The customer paid and walked out with his monkey.

Startled, the tourist went over to the shopkeeper and said, "That was a very expensive monkey. Most of them are only a few hundred pounds. Why did it cost so much?" The shopkeeper answered, "Ah, that monkey can do legal research and draft documents very fast, no mistakes, well worth the money."

The tourist looked at the monkeys in another cage. "they're even more expensive! £30,000! What do they do?" "Oh, they're fee earner monkeys; they can answer all legal questions, draft complicated documents from scratch, mark-up agreements, write letters and bill clients. All the difficult, really useful stuff," said the shopkeeper.

The tourist looked around for a little longer and saw a third monkey all by itself in a cage of its own, eating a banana. The price tag around its neck read £200,000. He gasped to the shopkeeper, "That one costs more than all the others put together! What on earth does it do?"

The shopkeeper replied, "Well, I haven't actually seen it do anything yet, but it says it's a partner."

There is only one joke on this site at the moment but it's a good one. Pay a visit!

Life On Mars, Sodium And Gods

There was once life on Mars and still may be. This seems a reasonable opinion to me. It is not an article of faith; Christians, please note. It is an opinion based on credible evidence. That is, it is totally different from faith.

Perhaps, we all need to learn some science:

Is This Puzzle Wrong?

"8, ?, 4, ? 1, ?, 6, ?, 2

Add some odd numbers to make the odd sequence logical (pun intended)."

This an apparently simple number sequence puzzle familiar to you from IQ tests.

I, so far, find it difficult. It may be that there is an ambiguity that needs to be resolved (see my posts on the the title link) or it may be that I am simply stupid.

You decide.

The UK's Disgraceful Treatment Of Its Iraqi Interpreters

Emulating their exemplary record (ha! ha!) in relation to the Gurkhas, the UK Government has treated its Iraqi interpreters with similar disdain. Or, as a friend commented to me 5 minutes ago, "like shit."

Her ex-husband was in the army for 22 years and was treated abysmally by the Ministry of Defence. She says that the treatment of the Gurkhas and the Iraqi interpreters is simply par for the course so far as the MOD is concerned. They use you and throw you away.

My friend has particular experience relating to the Gurkhas, who she describes as wonderful, friendly people who were prepared to lay their lives down for this country. They are also an elite force and the treatment of them by this country is therefore doubly disgraceful.

This post is simply to pay tribute to Deborah Haynes of The Times who has won an Amnesty award in relation to her reporting of the Iraqi interpreters case. Well done and well deserved. See the title link.

Bob Marley - No Reason

Well, there is no particular reason why I should upload this today. But no reason is ever needed to upload anything by Bob Marley.

MOD Settles At £3M For Iraqi Torture Victims

Well, one of the comments on this Time's story is:

"How much did the lawyers get?"

Another is:

"This beggars belief when you see the paltry sums offered to our servicemen blown to bits by "innocent Iraqis".

The law firm involved found greater rewards looking for Iraqi claimants rather than taking up the labour party & MOD injustices to our own troops.

No wonder half of them want to quit."

These comments seem a bit unfair and I pose the following questions:

1) How much compensation would these claimant's have got without the assistance of Leigh Day & Co?

2) Why should these claimants have been prevented from pursuing lawful claims because others (i.e. soldiers) may not have lawful claims because of their contractual relationship with the MOD?

3) Are there any racist connotations to these and similar comments?

The Rabbit Killers From The Planet Zog

The title link goes to a Times report. This, possibly, indicates that this is not a hoax. It has all the hallmarks of one, however.

Alright, I am an insensitive aninmal hating bastard but what on earth, in the scale of things, does it matter that there is a serial rabbit killer on the loose? There are only so many rabbits one person can kill and there are a lot too many rabbits out there.

Ok, if you kill my cat I will find you and exact serious vengeance upon you but rabbits? Cats have intelligence and individual personalities. Not like, say, dogs.

Dogs are obedient to humans. That shows serious intellectual deficiency. Most humans who own dogs are a bit intellectually challenged themselves. They crave unconditional love. They seek it from someone stupider and more needy than themselves i.e. a dog. Actualy, the dogs are a bit cleverer than their owners.

The solution is obvious: the key suspect should be the masked rabbit and I have placed his image above.

His motive is also obvious: the rabbit community needs to raise its profile and gain sympathy ahead of cats and dogs.

The Low Down On Sexy Libel Lawyers

Whether you need a libel lawyer or not, you will find the title link amusing. This is worth a visit. I cannot say any more because one of them might sue me!

The Easy Solution To The Banking Crisis

It's obvious! Suck the bankers' brains out and recondition them so that when we re-insert them bankers behave like normal human beings with human emotions and a sense of morality.

Hey! I Know You Are Visting: Leave A Comment!

Zimbio and Stat Counter indicate I have visitors. Please comment on something even if you just want to say this all a load of rubbish and I am wasting my time.

Victim Of Rapist Lottery Winner Allowed To Sue After 20 Years!

LOTTO RAPIST:

IORWORTH HOARE

This case has been to the House of Lords already and changed the law in the sense that they decided that the shorter 3 year limitation period for bringing claims for personal injury applied to intentional assaults rather than the longer 6 year period generally applicable for other torts.

That was a victory for the rape victim. Why? Because the 3 year period can be extended in exceptional circumstances but the 6 year period cannot.

Whether the period should be extended was referred back to the High Court and its decision was released on the internet today. See the title link.

Mr Justice Coulson has given the Claimant the extension and allowed her action to proceed against her rapist. Instinctively, we probably all feel that he has made the right decision. Why should the undeserving £7 million pound lottery winning rapist not compensate his victim?

Legally, I am less sure. Mr Justice Coulson has done his very best to render his decision appeal proof. I am not sure that it, in fact, is.

Here are his reasons for exercising his discretion in the Claimant's favour:

"... When considering all the circumstances of this case, I have identified a number of factors in the defendant's favour. These include, in particular, the length of the delay, the possible difficulties for the defendant on some aspects of the evidence on causation caused by that delay, and the payment of the £5,000 by the CICB. However, I have concluded that the factors in the claimant's favour are more numerous and of significantly greater weight. They lead me unhesitatingly to conclude that equity requires that the discretion under section 33 be exercised in her favour.

Those factors include in particular:

(a) The nature and seriousness of the underlying tortious wrong;
(b) The fact that one of the consequences of that wrong was the defendant's impecuniosity (because he was unable to earn money by which he could otherwise have met a judgment for damages);
(c) The fact that, prior to his lottery win, the defendant's impecuniosity meant that he was simply not worth pursuing in an action for damages. This was the principal reason for the claimant's delay and one that I consider to be reasonable on the particular facts of this case;
(d) The fact that the claimant acted promptly following the defendant's release from prison and his lottery win:
(e)The fact that the 'clinically significant' second bout of PTSD in 2004 will be capable of being fully addressed by both parties at any trial."

Do these factors fully and necessarily trump the purpose of our limitation legislation; which is to enable potential defendants to know when the risk of a claim against them has expired and they can rest easy?

Well, Mr Hoare certainly has the resources to explore this question on further appeal.

No-one, I think, is going to wish him luck. It emerged after the verdict that this little bastard had "six previous convictions for rape, attempted rape and indecent assault." A less attractive client would be difficult to envisage.

I would not touch him with a barge pole and it can hardly be defamation to describe him, quite simply, as a piece of low life scum. Hopefully, he will spend any part of his fortune that does not go in damages to the Claimant on legal fees!

And, what about his other six proved victims? They should be consulting lawyers now.

Here he is at the time:

And here he is now:

A small picture of a small man. You will need the picture as he lives under aliases.

QUIZ QUESTION: What were they thinking of when they let this man out?

Disaster For Freedom? Google Ordered To Reveal Subscriber Details

The title link reveals a disgusting invasion of privacy. I have nothing to hide and so can post this.

It is, however, simply wrong.

I am an old school long time internet user. Alright, I'm just old. I still think of the internet as properly still "the wild west" without sheriffs. I also think that that is the way it should be.

I will post further on this.

British MPs Are World's Champion Pigs: It's Official

Today, British MPs have taken a narrow lead over Members of the European Parliament to take the title of the most mendacious and greedy so-called public servants in a supposedly democratic society. See the title post.

They simply will not give up their perks no matter what public opprobrium this entails. No matter the stench; they want their money.

Mind you, it is nice to see such cross-party cooperation on an issue of public interest!

The leaders consult:

Henman Er, Sorry, Murray Loses

I just wish I had not been so sentimental as not to put a bet on three straight sets.

All Over For The Lloyds Names

They entered a market they said they did not understand. Indeed, they did have an understanding. It was, however, their own understanding and not one based on misrepresentation by Lloyds. See the title link.

Their understanding was:

If I become a Lloyds name I shall get richer than I am aleady, quicker than I have so far and at no risk to me!

That is, they believed in fools' gold.

Not many will sympathise with their plight. The decade of litigation they have engaged in has secured them nothing. It has simply been a matter of postponing the evil day.

I thought the whole concept of being a Lloyds name was based on "honour" (ie. you pay up when you lose). It was not. It was simple greed and, if you got caught, you simply wriggled and squealed like a stuck pig.