Why God invented lawyers and other tales

Greetings!

Please accept without obligation, express or implied, these best wishes for an environmentally safe, socially responsible, low stress, non addictive, and gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday as practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice (but with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or for their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all) and further for a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated onset of the generally accepted calendar year (including, but not limited to, the Christian calendar, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures). The preceding wishes are extended without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee(s).

Sandwiches

Two lawyers went into a cafe and ordered two drinks. Then they produced sandwiches from their briefcases and started to eat. The owner became quite concerned and marched over and told them, “You can’t eat your own sandwiches in here!” The attorneys looked at each other, shrugged their shoulders and then exchanged sandwiches.

Coca Cola

Click the title to read and watch and hear the coke joke.

Ultimate Proof that Religion is Nonsense

The Moon wedding ceremony? Give me a break. If this does not prove that religion is simply a collection of absurd cults what does? People can be persuaded to believe anything. Search google.

PMOS on Road Pricing

You need to know that a PMOS is a Prime Minister's Official Spokesman - something like, but not much like, Tony Blair's representative in this dimension. Why the PMOS was allocated this humiliating acronym (pronounce it) is anybody's idea but looks and sounds very much like a Civil Service internal joke against the PM. Of course, it could just be incompetence.

Asked if he still thought that e-petitions were a good idea, and what numbers would have to be reached before Government put its hand up and retreated, the PMOS replied that it was always a good idea when there was a lively political debate. We had always recognised that there was a lively debate around transport as it was an issue that directly affected people's lives. Therefore, the livelier the debate, the better. But the debate in itself would not produce a solution. The crucial point about this issue was that doing nothing was not an option.

What he missed:

A petition is not a "lively political debate". In fact, it resembles a lively political debate about as much as a bendy bus resembles a red squirrel. The bendy bus and the squirrel are both red (but not quite the same shade). So, signing a petition and expressing an opinion are both indicators of viewpoint (but not quite in the same way).

Pressing some keys to register on a petition probably (but does not necessarily) require you to be alive (you could have set your computer to autofill before you died) but it certainly does not require you to be "lively" or to engage in any kind of "debate".

What he meant:

"We have to pretend that you are a nice bunch of sentients, and flatter you a bit, but we don't mean it and we are going to ignore your trivial attempts to resemble us."

The reality:

There is, however, a resemblance between a PMOS and a PM and one which they share with both the bus and the squirrel. They are all "bendy".

He is also reported as follows:

Put to him that we could not just ignore this petition if it got to 2 or 3 million names, the PMOS replied that it was not a matter of numbers.

What he missed:

When it comes election time, it most certainly is "a matter of numbers".

What he meant:

"This petition thingy was thought up by a pratt who has now been reassigned to dustbins and I do not mean that he is engaged on high policy issues concerning refuse collection and recycling. He is emptying them."

The reality:

This policy represents a nasty piece of paper that the government intends to place in the nearest dustbin as soon as everyone's back is turned.

One last report of what the PMOS said:

Asked if the Prime Minister thought that cannabis use was a bar to becoming Prime Minister, the PMOS replied that the journalist was trying to invite him, not very subtly, into political debate. He may have lost his voice at Croke Park yesterday, but he had not entirely lost his mind.

What he missed:

The use of "not entirely" suggests that the PMOS is only a bit mindless. Surely a fit for purpose PMOS should have an entire mind? Did the Civil Service Board miss something or is it just what happens when you become a PMOS? Do you have to volunteer or are PMOS's appointed? Do all the eligible civil servant's quickly find cupboards to hide in and the idiot who can't find a cupboard gets appointed? We need to know. Without this information it is completely impossible to judge the culpability of this particular PMOS or just how egregious the PMOS is. A public inquiry seems to be an immediate necessity.

What he meant:

"I'm out of mind on drugs. Why else would I be standing here in front of you?"

The reality:

The PMOS has a partner, four children, a cat and a huge mortgage. Bearing in mind that civil servants are unemployable in the private sector unless they are perceived to retain departmental influence, the PMOS needs to keep the job at any cost. The PMOS also does not relish emptying dustbins.

Conclusion:

Peeing on moss is what the dear old CS does best! They identify a futile activity, form a committee to decide whether to do it, decide after long and costly deliberation to do it, expend minimal effort, fail utterly and charge us on the basis that, well, it might have been a good idea.

Law: The Rules of the Game, the House Rules and the Big Casino

Daniel Finkelstein of The Times has posted a new competition that lets you get to play at being a rule-maker. Just click the title to play and you are an instant Parliamentary Draftsman.

Lawyers love rules. Not only do we have thousands of statutes; we then have procedural rules, with lots of commentary and case law on those.

No litigator leaves the office to go to court without volume 1 of the White Book (this not only contains the Civil Procedure Rules but lots and lots of commentary and case references).

The bare bones of the CPR can be found here but you will not really be equipped to engage in the fine art of legal combat unless you acquire a copy of the White Book.

Volume 2 is taken out for a walk less often because:

1. the lawyer does not wish to risk a finding of contributory negligence for carrying too much weight should he trip over or fall down any stairs and want to sue someone; and,



2. his opponent is less likely to refer to something in volume 2 that he or she is not already aware of (it is largely a collection statutes etc. already available elsewhere); and,



3. hernias are bad for one's practice. NB: women can get hernias as well as men.

Each volume is bigger than the average house brick, and weighs as much or more, so they are a clear and present danger to anyone who carries them around. I suppose they could also be useful as a weapon of defence. Also, they do not carry the same risk of being had up for going equipped as you might if you were carrying an actual house brick.

But lawyers love the White Book. Assiduous study of its many thousands of pages of procedural law (printed on thin paper and with the notes printed in tiny type) have won many a case. The main use is therefore as a weapon of offence. Not by throwing it but by being aware of its contents.

The notes in the White Book keep lawyers employed. Years of training are necessary to understand these procedural rules (!) and the arcane and delphic utterances of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords upon what they might or might not mean lead to the conclusion that, since they (the Lords and the Lords Justices of Appeal) cannot agree, I might have been right so you cannot get me for negligence if I advise you the wrong way.

Well, you might pot me - given what I have said above - but every other lawyer is safe.

"Put your money on red," I might have said. I might have explained to you that there was a limited chance of the ball hitting black (given the current state of the case law) and virtually no chance of a green (zero or double zero). In a casino I would have given you different advice. I would have told you that it was entirely random. I would have told you that there was no such thing as the law of averages.

Casino type advice is now required by our pro-active judges who demand that we practice clairvoyance rather than law and nowhere more so than in the family courts. I will post further about these anathema on another occasion.