The other day it was announced that the government was making vast changes to the system of Legal Aid in England and Wales. For anyone not familiar with the concept, legal aid is the system whereby people can have their legal costs covered by the state in certain types of case. The reforms, aimed at saving considerable amounts of taxpayer's money, affect many areas of law including; personal injury, immigration, divorce and certain contractual disputes.
Broadly speaking I think this is a good thing. At the end of the day, legal fees are usually high. It is a lot to ask of the over-burdened British taxpayer to fork out for someone else's legal costs when they could well ill-afford their own should they need legal advice.
Already in the legal world, there is a big drive towards alternative means of dispute resolution such as mediation and arbitration. This move could well provide a bit of a catalyst to to develop this further and save expensive court proceedings for the most complex of cases. One idea I had was to create as special court exclusively for those prepared to represent themselves for matters such as personal injury or contractual disputes. The idea would be that both parties would be self-represented (currently the system can provide for one party to be represented by a lawyer while the other isn't. This, in my opinion, is a recipe for injustice). The case would be presented directly to a judge who would listen to the facts, consider the legal the legal issues and then offer judgement. In cases of exceptional complexity, they could have authority to authorise legal aid in order that the case be heard in a higher court with legal representation.
Of course these cases would have to be carefully screened to avoid cranks, time-wasters and ensure 'the floodgates of litigation' remain closed. To me, this would ensure cases are judged on their facts and merit rather than some spurious technicality dreamed up by a smart-arsed lawyer. It would also, hopefully, speed up straight forward cases which, none the less, require judicial resolution.
Another option I did think about suggesting was legal aid offering a fixed fee rather than paying hourly rates for lawyers. My initial thoughts were that this would discourage lawyers from prevaricating and complicating the issue thus making the process quicker and cheaper. This is a valid argument however, if all cases of the same type attracted the same fees, I can foresee some less scrupulous and more business minded lawyers avoiding the complex cases in favour of taking on more simple cases which can be processed in higher volume but for the same money thus making a greater profit. A graduated fee scheme (as is the case in some aspects of criminal law) but this is potentially complex and administratively difficult.
Before what I'm saying gets completely misinterpreted, I'm not advocating everyone self-represents. Quite the opposite in fact. In my opinion, the creation of a court geared towards litigants in person would create a system that would provide greater services for those in greater need while keeping simple cases simple.
It is also worth noting that there are already several options available to control and mitigate the cost of legal representation. Aside from costs insurance, some law firms will consider taking the case for a fixed fee. This can be agreed at the start of proceedings. Another alternative is the conditional fee arrangement where no fee is charged if the case is lost but an additional 'success fee' is charged if the case is won. This usually comes out of any damages awarded. An obvious problem with this is that not all cases can be defined as won or lost. Divorce cases are an obvious example (and potentially, if both sides are going for a set outcome defined as success, fees could escalate as neither party would be willing to settle). Less obvious is what happens if the case settles (although in practice, an agreement as to costs is usually reached regarding costs as part of any settlement).
Rather sportingly, the bar council, who regulate barristers in England and Wales, has provided some fairly detailed guidance on self-representation and the intricacies of various bits of the law. The overall message is "Don't but if you have to here's how to do it" in relation to self-representation. Then again, given the complexity that court proceedings usually involve, that's fair enough. Higher court proceedings require legal representation and guidance in order to navigate the process successfully. However the guide also offers advice on how to obtain free legal advice an make the most of any legal advice paid for.
There are a couple of areas where the reforms don't go quite far enough. The first is criminal law. Legal aid is generally available to many who find themselves in trouble with the police. This is exactly as it should be. But what about repeat offenders? Those that continually commit the same offence or the same type of offence? I'm not talking about one or two examples but those with tens of convictions after their name, all for the same offence or the same type of offence. Similarly those that continually get arrested for breaching explicit conditions of their sentence or bail. In both cases (for various reasons I won't go into unless you want me to) this isn't really the best use of public money.
My second reform is one I have suggested previously; the multi-skilling of lawyers. Currently, if you were to be involved in legal proceedings which end up in court, you are likely to be paying for at elase two lawyers. One is a solicitor who will take your initial instructions and manage the procedural elements of your case. The second is a barrister who will present your case in court. Depending on the complexity, you may well need advice from senior solicitors or a team of barristers representing you in court. The costs will spiral ever higher as all will be charging an hourly rate. My description of each is a bit vague and there are subtleties to both. There is also some cross over happening already. Some solicitors can appear in court and some barristers take direct instruction. Why not bit the bullet and train future lawyers to do both thus vastly reducing fees. Inevitably some will prefer certain aspects to others which would in turn lead to some specialists however their skills could be reserved for the most complex of cases.
So those are my thoughts on legal aid reform. I would be interested to hear anybody else's whether they live in Britain or they have some experience of the legal systems of other countries.
JR
Sunday 14 April 2013
Friday 12 April 2013
Zippos Circus
Last week I went to the circus for the first time in nearly 20 years. The first time I went was for a school friend's birthday and I must confess, I've almost entirely forgotten the experience. It's not that I didn't enjoy it, it just didn't make a huge impression on me. As you can imagine, this trip was therefore inspired by my girlfriend suggesting we go. All I can say is... WHAT. A. SHOW!
Despite my initial ambivalence, I loved it.
The atmosphere was set perfectly by a suitably ostentatious big top surrounded by various caravans and containers. Inside was dimly lit with the smell of sawdust and popcorn (an oddly pleasant combination) pervading everywhere. Despite the size of the tent, the inside was surprisingly small thus giving the whole place an intimate atmosphere.
As I said, the whole show was fantastic. The performers engaged in suitably impressive feats of strength, gymnastic ability, horsemanship and daring. This was topped off by a ringmaster who was the perfect, slightly camp, exuberant showman.
Rather than spoiling the element of surprise, I will only mention acts that were particularly notable. The first that deserve a mention are the clowns. In my opinion, they really stole the show. Their act started with a perfectly choreographed parody of Gangnam style complete with aviator sunglasses and red noses. Throughout the show they carried on with their hi jinks, antics, horseplay and practical jokes (often involving audience participation). What impressed me was their ability to use almost exclusively physical comedy to get belly laughs.
Also worthy of note were the motorcyclists who, after pulling some impressive stunts in the ring, proceeded to cram into as a small spherical cage and round various parts of the circumference at high speed with only inches between them. Heart-stopping stuff!
The other acts were brilliant too however, as I said, I don't want to spoil the surprise if you go. Worth a special mention however are the Corps de Ballet, a group of stunningly beautiful young ladies who were employed to assist with the acts while gyrating hypnotically and generally looking beautiful and glamorous. One especially was a spiritual (or anatomical) relation to Pippa Middleton! I thought my admiration was discreet but apparently not!
Moving on swiftly, if you find Zippos Circus in a town near you, go. It was brilliant fun and left me with a smile on my face for days.
JR
As I said, the whole show was fantastic. The performers engaged in suitably impressive feats of strength, gymnastic ability, horsemanship and daring. This was topped off by a ringmaster who was the perfect, slightly camp, exuberant showman.
Rather than spoiling the element of surprise, I will only mention acts that were particularly notable. The first that deserve a mention are the clowns. In my opinion, they really stole the show. Their act started with a perfectly choreographed parody of Gangnam style complete with aviator sunglasses and red noses. Throughout the show they carried on with their hi jinks, antics, horseplay and practical jokes (often involving audience participation). What impressed me was their ability to use almost exclusively physical comedy to get belly laughs.
Also worthy of note were the motorcyclists who, after pulling some impressive stunts in the ring, proceeded to cram into as a small spherical cage and round various parts of the circumference at high speed with only inches between them. Heart-stopping stuff!
The other acts were brilliant too however, as I said, I don't want to spoil the surprise if you go. Worth a special mention however are the Corps de Ballet, a group of stunningly beautiful young ladies who were employed to assist with the acts while gyrating hypnotically and generally looking beautiful and glamorous. One especially was a spiritual (or anatomical) relation to Pippa Middleton! I thought my admiration was discreet but apparently not!
Moving on swiftly, if you find Zippos Circus in a town near you, go. It was brilliant fun and left me with a smile on my face for days.
JR
Monday 8 April 2013
Margaret Thatcher; Rest in Peace
Baroness Thatcher, the first (and only) woman to be prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the Iron Lady of British politics, reformer, leader, warrior or (as she was Christened in Scotland) Maggie has died The greatest, and longest serving, post-war British Prime Minister died of a stroke having suffered years of failing health.
She will be greatly missed.
Margaret Thatcher rose to power in 1979 when Britain was in dire straits. During her time in office she bravely fought Britain's enemies both overseas and within the borders. She restored Britain's place on the world stage while implementing changes at home that restored the self-respect of a nation and lifted it from it's crippled position. However, in my opinion, one of her greatest achievements was to be a politician who worked on belief and conviction. Throughout her time in office Thatcher was not afraid to make difficult choices. Often she went for the option she believed to be right rather than that which was thought to be popular. History shows she was regularly correct to have done so although there was no way of knowing so at the time.
This achievement should be particularly admired these days where many MPs on both sides of the floor seem to be scrambling and scrabbling for the centre ground not because it reflects their beliefs but because they think it's what the public wants to hear. This lack of courage in their convictions only serves to stifle growth and prosperity in Great Britain. Yet they need only look to recent history for guidance.
This aspect of her leadership has been almost universally acclaimed in the tributes that have thus far been paid to her and rightly so. Colleagues and critics alike agree that she did not take big decisions lightly nor did she have casual disregard for those affected by them. This humanity is often missed in coverage of her. When this is done consciously it only serves to show how infantile individuals are in relation to her.
Lady Thatcher, rest in peace.
JR
She will be greatly missed.
Margaret Thatcher rose to power in 1979 when Britain was in dire straits. During her time in office she bravely fought Britain's enemies both overseas and within the borders. She restored Britain's place on the world stage while implementing changes at home that restored the self-respect of a nation and lifted it from it's crippled position. However, in my opinion, one of her greatest achievements was to be a politician who worked on belief and conviction. Throughout her time in office Thatcher was not afraid to make difficult choices. Often she went for the option she believed to be right rather than that which was thought to be popular. History shows she was regularly correct to have done so although there was no way of knowing so at the time.
This achievement should be particularly admired these days where many MPs on both sides of the floor seem to be scrambling and scrabbling for the centre ground not because it reflects their beliefs but because they think it's what the public wants to hear. This lack of courage in their convictions only serves to stifle growth and prosperity in Great Britain. Yet they need only look to recent history for guidance.
This aspect of her leadership has been almost universally acclaimed in the tributes that have thus far been paid to her and rightly so. Colleagues and critics alike agree that she did not take big decisions lightly nor did she have casual disregard for those affected by them. This humanity is often missed in coverage of her. When this is done consciously it only serves to show how infantile individuals are in relation to her.
Lady Thatcher, rest in peace.
JR
Thursday 4 April 2013
Getting Old
It's official, I'm getting old. This phrase is used a lot as a joke. Talk of 'senior moments' abounds when someone forgets something obvious. But is it a joke? I frequently quip that I'm a grumpy old man in training. My mum calls me her young fogey.
How does this manifest itself? Why have I started noticing it?
Two things combine as an initial indicator. Firstly was in my time as a medic at "party" events. Seeing girls dolled up no longer provokes a feeling of joy at seeing female flesh exposed and instead makes me think that they look cold or contemplate the danger they are potentially putting themselves in (this is a different post so let the comment lie). I have now stated genuinely believing that less is more in times of displaying skin. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing girls naked but there's a time and a place and in the middle of a club is not either.
The second factor is my "primary survey" (to use a first aid term) when meeting a girl. Like almost everybody else, when I meet a new member of the opposite sex, I do tend to size them up for attractiveness. When I was younger, this tended to extend as far as boobs and pulses and not a lot else. Over the months and years that have followed, I have come to appreciate other features such as bum, hair, cheek bones, smile, eyes and many other features. As well as this, the notional attractive age of girls has increased. I've never had a problem going out with girls that are older than me but the answer to the question 'how old is too old?' is getting progressively higher. Most tellingly, as well as surveying for attractive qualities, my primary survey now includes a quick glance at the left hand to check for rings on awkward fingers. This is a bit of a weird one even for me. Of course I have friends that are married or engaged but certainly not an abnormally high number. However somehow this check seems right (possibly because many girls I know who are married/engaged are terribly attractive).
Less flippantly is the fact that I've started taking the world of work far more seriously. There are no heavy nights the day before a working day and I do try and get reasonable amounts of sleep. Previously these things were jokes or, at the very worst, inconveniences that shouldn't be taken seriously. Now I take pride in a job well done.
My final point has consequences beyond the obvious. A few months ago, I noted I had developed a bit of a paunch. I joke that my trousers and suits have shrunk somewhat but I have unequivocally put on weight. Part of this I'm sure is just my figure maturing a bit to become less of a lanky young boy. Quite a bit of it is fat. There are consequences to this beyond the mrs calling me "Pie". It has genuinely shattered my sense of youthful invincibility. All young people think the world won't touch them. For me, part of this was being able to eat and drink what I want without a second thought. This has apparently ceased to be. As a result I have done things I never thought I would see myself doing like cutting out fizzy drinks and switching from crisps to soup with my sandwiches. So far this has had little effect but I live in hope.
I have called this growing old. Perhaps it is in fact simply growing up. It's not the worst thing that has ever happened to me but it needs to be carefully managed. I could become even more of an insufferable fuddy-duddy than I am at the moment.
JR
How does this manifest itself? Why have I started noticing it?
Two things combine as an initial indicator. Firstly was in my time as a medic at "party" events. Seeing girls dolled up no longer provokes a feeling of joy at seeing female flesh exposed and instead makes me think that they look cold or contemplate the danger they are potentially putting themselves in (this is a different post so let the comment lie). I have now stated genuinely believing that less is more in times of displaying skin. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing girls naked but there's a time and a place and in the middle of a club is not either.
The second factor is my "primary survey" (to use a first aid term) when meeting a girl. Like almost everybody else, when I meet a new member of the opposite sex, I do tend to size them up for attractiveness. When I was younger, this tended to extend as far as boobs and pulses and not a lot else. Over the months and years that have followed, I have come to appreciate other features such as bum, hair, cheek bones, smile, eyes and many other features. As well as this, the notional attractive age of girls has increased. I've never had a problem going out with girls that are older than me but the answer to the question 'how old is too old?' is getting progressively higher. Most tellingly, as well as surveying for attractive qualities, my primary survey now includes a quick glance at the left hand to check for rings on awkward fingers. This is a bit of a weird one even for me. Of course I have friends that are married or engaged but certainly not an abnormally high number. However somehow this check seems right (possibly because many girls I know who are married/engaged are terribly attractive).
Less flippantly is the fact that I've started taking the world of work far more seriously. There are no heavy nights the day before a working day and I do try and get reasonable amounts of sleep. Previously these things were jokes or, at the very worst, inconveniences that shouldn't be taken seriously. Now I take pride in a job well done.
My final point has consequences beyond the obvious. A few months ago, I noted I had developed a bit of a paunch. I joke that my trousers and suits have shrunk somewhat but I have unequivocally put on weight. Part of this I'm sure is just my figure maturing a bit to become less of a lanky young boy. Quite a bit of it is fat. There are consequences to this beyond the mrs calling me "Pie". It has genuinely shattered my sense of youthful invincibility. All young people think the world won't touch them. For me, part of this was being able to eat and drink what I want without a second thought. This has apparently ceased to be. As a result I have done things I never thought I would see myself doing like cutting out fizzy drinks and switching from crisps to soup with my sandwiches. So far this has had little effect but I live in hope.
I have called this growing old. Perhaps it is in fact simply growing up. It's not the worst thing that has ever happened to me but it needs to be carefully managed. I could become even more of an insufferable fuddy-duddy than I am at the moment.
JR
Monday 1 April 2013
Wind Turbines
The British countryside is infected with an horrendous disease. A scourge that is gradually destroying it. It's not ash dieback disease nor is it foot and mouth or any other livestock plague. Worse than that, the problem in question is entirely of our own doing. What I am referring to is the recent rash of wind turbines.
I noticed on a recent trip to Scotland that these monstrosities are cropping up everywhere are blighting the landscape with their presence. What upsets me that, in addition to being horrendously ugly (not to mention utterly ineffectual), they are symptomatic of the aggressive environmentalism that started on the left and seems to have metastasised into trendy thinking. Toyota Prius thinking would be a good name for it. The kind of people that are so determined to be seen as "green" that they spend vast amounts of money on useless baubles that do more damage to the environment during manufacture than their use prevents (the Prius is flown fast distances during it's construction and uses many materials that are extremely difficult and energy intensive to procure). This doesn't matter though as they believe they are saving the planet. They are the kind of people that condemned Prof. David Bellamy as a heretic for daring to criticise the "evidence" of climate change using robust scientific thinking rather than blind faith.
A real irony to all of this (beyond the fact that they don't work in high winds) is that, by recklessly erecting wind turbines everywhere, the greenies are destroying the beauty of the world that they are seeking to protect. Can anybody honestly say that the sight of wind turbines on an otherwise scenic landscape is anything other than an utter eyesore. Worse is the fact that they seem to be built only on the skyline where they are most visible.
Some would argue that they are no worse than electricity pylons but I would disagree. Pylons are at least hidden in the valleys and low ground rather than occupying the most prominent positions on the hillside.
I found this heartbreaking when going through Scotland because our landscape is one of our best features. Not everybody likes haggis, whisky and shortbread nor are ruined castles everybody's cup of tea. I've even heard rumour that not all girls are impressed by men in kilts but I think that must be a lie. Our landscape however can and is enjoyed by all. Sporting types can run, climb canoe and cycle on it while artistic sorts can paint it, photograph it or wax lyrical about it. You can go for a stroll or a hard core climb. However you intend to enjoy it, you will be hard-pushed not to have your breath taken away by it's spectacular beauty. So why spoil it with turbines?
The answer I'm sure is because it makes us look like we're doing something. If I was being paranoid I would suggest that it was a ploy by the leftist fun police to be used as yet another means of controlling our lives. A means of enhancing their narcissistic joy by ruining ours. The sad irony is, if they wanted to make wind power a viable source of energy for the UK, they would be far better placing the turbines offshore with the dual benefit of more, constant wind and the space to place many, many more turbines. This does mean that the turbines would be out of sight and, sadly for these people, out of sight is very much out of mind. Not something that they can easily cope with.
I will end this with a plea: if anyone of influence is reading this please, PLEASE stop destroying our beautiful countryside.
JR
I noticed on a recent trip to Scotland that these monstrosities are cropping up everywhere are blighting the landscape with their presence. What upsets me that, in addition to being horrendously ugly (not to mention utterly ineffectual), they are symptomatic of the aggressive environmentalism that started on the left and seems to have metastasised into trendy thinking. Toyota Prius thinking would be a good name for it. The kind of people that are so determined to be seen as "green" that they spend vast amounts of money on useless baubles that do more damage to the environment during manufacture than their use prevents (the Prius is flown fast distances during it's construction and uses many materials that are extremely difficult and energy intensive to procure). This doesn't matter though as they believe they are saving the planet. They are the kind of people that condemned Prof. David Bellamy as a heretic for daring to criticise the "evidence" of climate change using robust scientific thinking rather than blind faith.
A real irony to all of this (beyond the fact that they don't work in high winds) is that, by recklessly erecting wind turbines everywhere, the greenies are destroying the beauty of the world that they are seeking to protect. Can anybody honestly say that the sight of wind turbines on an otherwise scenic landscape is anything other than an utter eyesore. Worse is the fact that they seem to be built only on the skyline where they are most visible.
Some would argue that they are no worse than electricity pylons but I would disagree. Pylons are at least hidden in the valleys and low ground rather than occupying the most prominent positions on the hillside.
I found this heartbreaking when going through Scotland because our landscape is one of our best features. Not everybody likes haggis, whisky and shortbread nor are ruined castles everybody's cup of tea. I've even heard rumour that not all girls are impressed by men in kilts but I think that must be a lie. Our landscape however can and is enjoyed by all. Sporting types can run, climb canoe and cycle on it while artistic sorts can paint it, photograph it or wax lyrical about it. You can go for a stroll or a hard core climb. However you intend to enjoy it, you will be hard-pushed not to have your breath taken away by it's spectacular beauty. So why spoil it with turbines?
The answer I'm sure is because it makes us look like we're doing something. If I was being paranoid I would suggest that it was a ploy by the leftist fun police to be used as yet another means of controlling our lives. A means of enhancing their narcissistic joy by ruining ours. The sad irony is, if they wanted to make wind power a viable source of energy for the UK, they would be far better placing the turbines offshore with the dual benefit of more, constant wind and the space to place many, many more turbines. This does mean that the turbines would be out of sight and, sadly for these people, out of sight is very much out of mind. Not something that they can easily cope with.
I will end this with a plea: if anyone of influence is reading this please, PLEASE stop destroying our beautiful countryside.
JR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)