Are we mad?

[anotheoldgit]

Will a change of Goverment stop cases such as these happening, or is it a British disease that has infected all our politicians?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/arti cle2217165.ece

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/arti cle2078806.ece

[fredpuli47]

Second one is just a blunder. Change of government won't change that.

First one is puzzling.How did this person get legal aid? It's only meant to be available in civil cases where there's an arguable case which has some realistic chance of succeeding. If the client was paying privately you'd expect the lawyers to give firm, negative, advice ( perhaps softening the advice by using the old saying about 'pouring money down the drain, but I don't mind because I'm the drain' Hint, hint!) Can't see how this is runnable. You'd expect any judge to sling it at the first opportunity. Not sure that a change of government would change that. Seems to me that 'tightening' legal aid from now won't change this. However, I've a feeling that judges are entitled to order solicitors to pay costs personally in cases where the judge thinks that costs have been incurred needlessly and/or through bad advice or conduct. Perhaps some of the litigation people on here can cite the rule, if any. That might save the legal aid fund some money.

[VHG]

If you think those stories are mad, how about this one.

A man was given FOUR parking fines at �50 each, but he took the council to court for the distress they caused HIM, and he won �20,000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7877 596.stm

No wonder people say the law is an ass.

[fredpuli47]

VHG the man with the parking tickets only got a judgment because the Council didn't put in an appearance or any defence,so the judge entered judgment by default. Once the Council woke up, the judgment was set aside and the man was ordered to pay the money.Sorry to spoil a good story. No doubt the man was being a bit mischievous, but he was not called upon, obviously, to produce any evidence the first time.

[Gromit]

VHG

The law is not an ass in the case you mentioned. It is the Council Official who could not be bothered to turn up which cost the Council (tax Payer) �20,000, who is an ass.

[rov1200]

I can never understand why these illegal immigrants when caught in transit are not deported immediately to their entry point into the UK.

I'm seriously worried come the olympics and the expected deluge of immigrants how we'll ever be able to get rid of them.

[fredpuli47]

It always strikes me as a little odd that some immigrants come all the way across Europe, passing through several well governed and free countries en route, to get to Britain and claim they are fleeing oppression in their homeland. If they are that desperate, why don't they stop in the very first, or any of the other, countries they visit? I really can't guess why, say France, isn't suitable to their needs ! (Don't all rush with an answer! )

[Oneeyedvic]

Remember that if you do want to work in a country, are you going to pick a country where:

A) They speak English which is your second language
B) A European country where you don't speak the language

Which country do you think offers the better job advancement?

[fredpuli47]

Yes, one-eyed-vic, there must be thousands of Turks who had German as their second language when they arrived in Germany as workers.There's some bloke here who has had a job when he barely speaks English ( he was manager of Chelsea) !
Seriously and obviously 1) people will migrate to a place where their fellow countrymen already are and if that's Britain or Germany they'll opt for those. 2) France has much tougher regulations about qualifying for benefits and assistance than we appear to have. Otherwise, nobody would be minded to camp near Calais, hoping to get across the Channel.It would help us if the rules were believed to be, or were, otherwise