Prev: Specific clock type required
Next: So, what would make a bike turn easily one way but not quite so easily the other?
From: The Older Gentleman on 21 Oct 2009 16:43
Pip Luscher <pluscher(a)live.invalid.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:29:26 -0700 (PDT), Leslie
> <leszek.karlik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I do hope the current batch of thieves residing in Westminster will be
> >replaced by a marginally more competent bunch of thieves, because the
> >UK seems to be leading the way in plunging the EU into
> >totalitarianism. I'm not holding my breath, though.
>
> Do we want more competent thieves leading the way into
> Totalitarianarism? Surely we need *less* competent thieves?

I've always taken the view that all governments are bent. Now, if
they're *competent* and bent, I don't have too much of a problem - as
long as they don't get too greedy.

But *incompetent* and bent, like this lot: well, that's a horse of a
different colour.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER (currently Beaving) Damn, back to five bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: Leslie on 21 Oct 2009 21:06
On Oct 21, 10:01 pm, Pip Luscher <plusc...(a)live.invalid.co.uk> wrote:

[...]
> >I do hope the current batch of thieves residing in Westminster will be
> >replaced by a marginally more competent bunch of thieves, because the
> >UK seems to be leading the way in plunging the EU into
> >totalitarianism. I'm not holding my breath, though.
>
> Do we want more competent thieves leading the way into
> Totalitarianarism? Surely we need *less* competent thieves?

Naaah. Competent thieves should realise that omnipresent surveillance
and data collection by law enforcement agencies can and will be used
against them. They, too, need their privacy, just like we do. :-)

It's incompetent thieves I worry about, since they will be lured by
short-term profits (lobbying by military and security industrial
complex) and will ignore the long-term problems of creating a
surveillance society. The silly buggers.

There's a big scandal right now in Poland, featuring "leaks" of
recordings from telephone taps (I can't help but recall Sir Humphrey
when I read about any information leaks from government institutions),
and people are clamoring for more control over surveillance used by
cops and internal intelligence agencies. Maybe this will make some
people think. Then again, probably not. After all, just change the top
people in the agencies and the leaks can be directed against the
opposition.

--
Leslie
NTV 650
From: ogden on 22 Oct 2009 08:28
GungaDan wrote:
> So if you don't fancy going to prison for, say, speeding you better be
> loaded. Oh, well that's fair enough then.

If your liberty is at stake, you're entitled to representation under
legal aid. It might not be very good representation, but that's a
separate issue.

--
ogden
From: JackH on 22 Oct 2009 09:12
On 22 Oct, 12:27, boots <bo...(a)despammed.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:44:29 -0700 (PDT) in uk.rec.motorcycles, JackH
> says:
>
> >On 21 Oct, 09:15, Jeweller <dghow...(a)GEEmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Might that cap equate to the prosecutions costs?
>
> >Prosecution costs don't come into it, surely?
>
> >Unless I'm mistaken, the issue with the current system appears to be
> >that you can hire who you like to defend you, and they can charge what
> >they like for their services.
>
> >And in the event you are proven not guilty, you can then claim back
> >all the costs for said legal services provided by your legal team.
>
> I fail to see what's wrong with that TBH.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the legal profession unregulated
in terms of what they can charge bar what anyone looking to employ
their services is willing to pay?

I don't know the full background to the case for the current
regulation being put into place, but you can bet at some point,
someone has pointed to some of the more 'HFM???' costs that have been
claimed for, and used those as the sledgehammer to crack the nut.

So in short, what I am saying is, is that whilst I detest the phrase
'self regulation', maybe if the legal profession had done more of it
in the past with regards to how much they charge, they'd not have
given those who have recently changed the rules the ammo to bring
about the recent changes in relation to defendants not being entitled
to claim back costs.

And that I fully agree you should be able to claim all your costs back
should you win your case, but that the costs need to be 'reasonable'
and not 'overinflated', something which I suspect most will agree
legal costs generally are?

And with that in mind, maybe it's time the whole legal profession and
how much they charge perhaps needs to be looked at? If bankers and
the like can be put in the vice for earning rather a lot of money, why
not the legal profession... which is kind of ironic given I suspect
they're doing rather nicely of late thanks to all the extra business
generated for them by way of the financial crisis in this country.

--
JackH
From: Pip Luscher on 23 Oct 2009 15:07
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:06:45 -0700 (PDT), Leslie
<leszek.karlik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>There's a big scandal right now in Poland, featuring "leaks" of
>recordings from telephone taps (I can't help but recall Sir Humphrey
>when I read about any information leaks from government institutions),

Heh. "this isn't a government, it's a colander!" or words to that
effect.

--
-Pip
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Specific clock type required
Next: So, what would make a bike turn easily one way but not quite so easily the other?