I Hate Lawyers

[Andy #24]

There you go mate!

[TroyGFC]

[Psyber]

OK Andy, I'll take the bait here, briefly, just long enough to say I don't actually hate lawyers in toto, in fact I have a few good friends who are lawyers and good blokes. However, there are a percentage who are simply sharks out to get what they can in terms of cash and publicity out of populist causes.
[I also have friends who are in other professions, some of whom are Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, etc.]

R & B, I'd already undertaken not to string the other thread on, so I didn't reply there.
At least I present arguments for my position and am prepared to respond positively to new information, as I did after reading Wedgie's posted link to the "Bringing them Home" report. I don't just keep posting, "It is/was Racist, it is, it is, it is... " ad infinitum, without adding supporting information for my position or addressing to points others made.

As Wedgie pointed out, the thread about "sorry" is a strongly emotional one for those directly affected, so it is not surprising that it becomes emotive when views differ - you just need to know when to stop.

End of comments from me on the lawyer issue too...

[topsywaldron]

However, there are a percentage who are simply sharks out to get what they can in terms of cash and publicity out of populist causes

Unlike ANY other industry of course.

[redandblack]

Psyber, your continuing statement about a percentage of lawyers who are sharks getting money from populist causes seems to be a populist statement you repeat ad infinitum

[Andy #24]

I also have friends who are in other professions, some of whom are Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, etc.

I just want to know where that came from?

[Dogwatcher]

Yes, that is curious.

[Andy #24]

I am slightly acquainted with some of the Angels in SA. I must admit I find them more straight forward and reliable to deal with than the few pollies I know personally, and certainly more so than most lawyers.

[Psyber]

I am slightly acquainted with some of the Angels in SA. I must admit I find them more straight forward and reliable to deal with than the few pollies I know personally, and certainly more so than most lawyers.

OK, Yes I had some reason a while back to be pretty angry with some lawyers who were mucking me about, and the "most lawyers" comment was a bit over the top looking back now - I can be emotional too. My recent statement was my current position as recent events have changed my views somewhat. I am not totally rigid, just stubborn. However, the friends among lawyers date back much further.

I also have friends who are in other professions, some of whom are Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, etc.

I just want to know where that came from?

I have recently been called, or presented as, racist a few times, so I thought it was worth pointing out that is not correct either. Couldn't you make the connection or are you just playing dumb?

[Psyber]

However, there are a percentage who are simply sharks out to get what they can in terms of cash and publicity out of populist causes

Unlike ANY other industry of course.

Of course, that is obvious! Did I say that didn't apply???

[Psyber]

Fair enough. I support an apology for the past errors of judgement too, just carefully worded to avoid implying criminal responsibilty, and massive liability for claims beyond the claims of those actually directly harmed.

I don't think those other issues are obfuscation - they are part of the issue because they are they reason there has been hesitation about saying "Sorry", and why it wasn't done long ago.

I think I've told you a couple of times already, The apology will not give rise to any liability! If this is your only concern, don't worry about it.

Here's a suggestion Psyber, start a "Why Lawyers are Wankers" thread as this is obviously what you want to talk about. Here's some ideas to kick it off. The bloke in the 'tiser today complaining about the proposed anti-bikie laws, the QC who died in a hotel room full of drugs and hookers (I actually thought that wasn't a bad way to go), and anyone who dares suggest that Big Bad Mike Rann keep his nose where it belongs. Have fun.

While we are quoting past posts!
http://au.news.yahoo.com/080210/21/15shp.html

[Psyber]

And again!
http://au.news.yahoo.com/080214/2/15uas.html

[Andy #24]

Ha ha. I heard that on the radio and was just waiting for you to mention it. However, it doesn't change anything I've said. The apology won't affect the outcome of any litigation. If your argument had been that the apology would bring publicity to the issue of compensation and lead to more people having a go at trying their luck in court I'd agree with you.

As for lawyers driving the process, the client had to go to them, they didn't hunt down the bloke and make him do this.

[Psyber]

Ha ha. I heard that on the radio and was just waiting for you to mention it. However, it doesn't change anything I've said. The apology won't affect the outcome of any litigation. If your argument had been that the apology would bring publicity to the issue of compensation and lead to more people having a go at trying their luck in court I'd agree with you.

As for lawyers driving the process, the client had to go to them, they didn't hunt down the bloke and make him do this.

Yes, in this case it appears the specifically involved lawyers did not hunt out the client, other than indirectly via the last several years of huge publicity generated by some members of the profession.

Of course I was going to mention it here in view of the quote from you below. You weren't exactly demonstrating your genius by saying you had predicted that!

It does appear the apology has been well worded to try to avoid the implication of liability, but as you know, only testing it in court will demostrate how successfully - which is why some didn't want to take the first step in that process. That was a concern I shared, even though I agreed wrong had been done in many [but not all] cases. I believed an expression of "profound regret' for the past actions of past government and non-government agents was sufficient. Whether it does legally or not, emotionally "sorry" implies greater personal involvement/responsibility, and I think that is what was being demanded to establish stage 1.

What I have posted since is two examples of what was a concern about stage 2 - "OK now we have the apology let's get the money!"

My concern was that we may have opened the valve to a present trickle that may become a major flow soaking up money, in awards to some few successful litigants and legal costs to all litigants stimulated to try their luck, that could otherwise have been applied to more general health and welfare programmes, no matter how directly or indirectly the plaintiffs are persuaded to sue..

I think I've told you a couple of times already, The apology will not give rise to any liability! If this is your only concern, don't worry about it.

[Andy #24]

Not sure why you put my quote in, it is exactly correct. People can sue whether there is an apology or not, e.g Trevorrow. Please show me the clever wording. I can't believe you still haven't grasped the concept of admissions and why the apology is irrelevant to any litigation. Send me your postal address and I'll send you an evidence text book.

[Dirko]

I also have friends who are in other professions, some of whom are Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, etc.

I have recently been called, or presented as, racist a few times, so I thought it was worth pointing out that is not correct either. Couldn't you make the connection or are you just playing dumb?

Just because someone (not saying yourself) has friends from a different background, does not mean someone cannot be racist. What a pointless thing to point out.

[Punk Rooster]

because SJABC, people are very quick to label someone "racist" these days, under the smallest pretext.
I would suggest someone who had friends of multi-national origin is not 100% racist.
We're all racist at some point or another- whether that's 5% or 95%, is up to the individual.

Personally, I'll tell a racist joke, enjoy a racist joke, but would not verbally/physically abuse someone because of their race- where does that put me?
Not only do I have many friends of various ethnicities, but I've given promotion to people on the basis of "best man for the job", overlooking race/religion/creed etc, hence why I would take offense to being labelled racist, all because I enjoy a few jokes.

[Psyber]

Not sure why you put my quote in, it is exactly correct. People can sue whether there is an apology or not, e.g Trevorrow. Please show me the clever wording. I can't believe you still haven't grasped the concept of admissions and why the apology is irrelevant to any litigation. Send me your postal address and I'll send you an evidence text book.

You are thinking legally when you post the words here, and naturally so, because it's your training, but despite the way you are thinking, you, like all others, potential litigants, juries, magistrates, judges, react emotionally, which is why you sometimes adopt an abusive tone or call people things like racist over any divergence from your politically correct conceptions, and comment on one aspect out of context at times.

You are not alone - we all do it - but insight helps you try to hold it down.

It is the emotional response to the second "sorry" apology I am concerned about, the first "regret" one did not invite this as much. But many people, not only aboriginal people, clearly wanted the emotion and hystrionics, just as they did over Princess Diana's death. I am concerned that giving them that will breed more.

That's why I liked Andrew McLeod's measured response that was not excessively emotive and posted it.

[Psyber]

I also have friends who are in other professions, some of whom are Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, etc.

I have recently been called, or presented as, racist a few times, so I thought it was worth pointing out that is not correct either. Couldn't you make the connection or are you just playing dumb?

Just because someone (not saying yourself) has friends from a different background, does not mean someone cannot be racist. What a pointless thing to point out.

because SJABC, people are very quick to label someone "racist" these days, under the smallest pretext.

Thank you Punky, I could not have said it better - perhaps not as well, certainly not as concisely!

[Andy #24]

Not sure why you put my quote in, it is exactly correct. People can sue whether there is an apology or not, e.g Trevorrow. Please show me the clever wording. I can't believe you still haven't grasped the concept of admissions and why the apology is irrelevant to any litigation. Send me your postal address and I'll send you an evidence text book.

You are thinking legally when you post the words here, and naturally so, because it's your training, but despite the way you are thinking, you, like all others, potential litigants, juries, magistrates, judges, react emotionally, which is why you sometimes adopt an abusive tone or call people things like racist over any divergence from your politically correct conceptions, and comment on one aspect out of context at times.

You are not alone - we all do it - but insight helps you try to hold it down.

It is the emotional response to the second "sorry" apology I am concerned about, the first "regret" one did not invite this as much. But many people, not only aboriginal people, clearly wanted the emotion and hystrionics, just as they did over Princess Diana's death. I am concerned that giving them that will breed more.

That's why I liked Andrew McLeod's measured response that was not excessively emotive and posted it.

I think I've figured you out now. At first you were saying that it might be an admission of liability as per the car crash example, and now you are saying that it may simply affect the decision of the trier of fact because of the emotion of the whole thing. Is this correct, and do you mean the emotion of it if it were presented in court, or just that they will now be prejudiced before any litigation?


As soon as you use the word admission I think of the legal phrase, but this is necessary as otherwise the apology is hearsay and not admissable. Even then if it is more prejudicial than probative it may be excluded.

One of the most fundamental rules in our system of justice is that judges decide cases on the facts presented by the parties. They can't be influenced by things extraneous to the litigation. I'm assuming we'll have to agree to disagree here because I know what you are going to say.

But I am right ha ha.