" Blame the systemn that GOT us to here, the almost complete anihilation of 'legal aid', and NOT (necessarily) the solicitors who work IN this HOPELESS situation!"
Unfortunately the system that got us here is the one the lawyers made, whereby they look for a loophole in the wording rather than the intent of the law.
The best example I have been told about is the driver who got off a drink driving case because the car was described as "blue". The solicitor apparently won on the basis that the manufacturer doesn't have a 'blue' car, the colour in their catalogue is "Azure". The fact that the celebrity driving was well over the limit, speeding and seriously injured his victim was of no import.
In America the 'Responsibility Act' ended up with carving knives being sold with 'sharp - may cause cutting injury' labels to avoid possible litigation or in the UK bags of roasted nuts with a label "product may contain nuts".
One can also blame those certain lawfirms that became very rich on the back of legal aid by supporting claims that verged on the frivolous, to the extent that, like public sector pensions, the costs soared way beyond affordability.
In our own sport we have certain drivers who will contest a decision not because it is wrong but because they can win a race or championship if they get it overturned. I suppose this might be important if it was F1 and revenue of �millions a year rested on the outcome but to win a clubby?
|
|