Ruthie notes with interest of late how many cases seem to be settling, the parties shaking hands and shuffling off to a happy compromise. It’s all very Carter/New Labour/ADR warm and cuddly. It’s also in terms of court proceedings quick and and cheap. Lawyers like it too, since they often rack up more fees and less stress by reading the papers and giving advice, than appearing in lengthy hearings.
It’s all well and good providing a happy compromise is there to be reached. Sometimes one party is in the right. Sometimes evidence that looks strong on paper isn’t quite so compelling under cross examination leading to a reasonable doubt. Sometimes witnesses just don’t turn up. And even if you do go down, sometimes the airing of the issues leads to facts coming out that suggest a lighter sentence/more favourable payment terms are appropriate.
This isn’t encouragement for vexatious litigants: make sure you have a point worth fighting for. But if you do, find a lawyer with the stomach to fight.
And I think Geeklawyer has something to tell us..
As usual P is confused about the cobblers written in this blog – for example – what is that comment all about just up there?
If you’re confused and its all cobblers why do you keep reading?
Perhaps I can, ironically, assist The Lauded Mr Pineapples on this point. That ‘cobblers up there’, which I take to be a reference to the pingback post, is a pingback. Unfortunately not being a geek Dear Ruthie is not aware that it is SPAM and believes it to be a genuine comment, which is why it remains live and unassaulted.
As for the blog post I find it to be questionable in its contention but entirely comprehensible. Unlike Tucker, I will not be so churlish as to suggest you stuff yourself up your own fundament. Mostly I say this since I find your crassness an amusing rival to my own; though I am disposed to believe you may actually be VM’s alter ego posting in an alternate alter ego.
Dear Geeklawyer, I would be churlish enough to suggest that you stuff yourself up your own fundament as punishment for your smugness were it not for the timely box of chocolates you sent that arrived this morning.
Dear Mistress,
I assume that Mr Greeklawyer’s chocolates had a hard shell but a soft centre, oozing cream.
As for Tucker, he would wish to remind Mr Greeklawyer that his (Tucker’s) staff has a knob on the end. Having once heard Ms Jo Brand remark that the useless bit of flesh on the end of a penis is called a man, he presumes that for Mr Greeklawyer it is the other way around.
What? the useless bit of Geeklawyer on the end of a penis is called a flesh. I’m sure that’s a very clever put down that only you and Oscar Wilde would understand. I guess your monthly curse has arrived?
I was going to suggest a dual for my honour, but I suspect its a bit late for that
Perhaps a “blog-off” is in order. Readers can select a winner based on the quality of the insults…
No, Mr Greeklawyer is correct and I expressed myself badly. I apologise. I meant that in Mr Greeklawyer’s case, the staff was on the end of the knob. I trust this is now clear.
VM: it clearly as clear as you as you are capable of making it; a creditable effort one since one would expect no more for £300/hr.
Ruthie: How sweetly modest you are but a duel would be forbidden on health & safety grounds by VM. I will, however, arm wrestle Tucker for your honour. The loser gets to bed you.
Ruthie – that crawling gett sent me (MR P) a box of chockies this morning too.