Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

dogs? sorry thought you were talking about some of my old girlfriends. I didnt blow thrm they blew me. You can see how I got confused.

"Quote of the week".
I sometimes think I have a different script to the rest of the world. I have now had it confirmed that if I am insane then the guy quoted below has gone way past insanity into the dreamy hills and fluffy clouded skies at the other side.
Below is from the court case of a blind and deaf man being prosecuted for driving a car while being guided by his friend who was banned from driving. The defence lawyer simply couldn't recognise sanity if it had big flashing lights on it!

Defence solicitor Timothy Gascoyne invited the bench to acquit his client of dangerous driving.

In his closing submissions, the lawyer told the court: "The question is not whether his driving was dangerous, but whether being blind makes it dangerous.''

From the same case;

Prosecutor Peter Love asked Pc Austin if he had noticed anything about Aziz. Pc Austin replied: "I did - he didn't have any eyes, Your Worships.''

You really couldn't make this up!! Even in their pomp, Monty Python would never have come up with a sketch as ridiculous and off the wall as this, and this remember, is real life. A real and educated human being is trying to argue that a deaf man with no eyes, leg tremors and bouts of serious depression, driving a car in a built up area, while being guided by a banned driver, is not dangerous!! And you thought your job was difficult!!!

alan, 'kin brilliant!! :))

Talking of lawyers, allegedly from a real case:
(Q, for the defence, cross examining the pathologist, A)

Q:Before you started the autopsy did you check his pulse?
A: No
Q: Breathing?
A: No
Q: So was it possible that he was still alive?
A:No, his brain was in a jar on my desk.
Q:But was it still possible that he was alive
A:I suppose that he could possibly have still been alive and practising law somewhere.


In one version I read, the judge apparently fined the pathologist for contempt.

no, not too soon at all, alan. :)) i wondered how long it would take .

Feel free to pass it around.
I've sent it to that solicitor in the earlier article. He will believe it is real and be phoning the BBC threatening to sue.

Having read the bit about "In his closing submissions, the lawyer told the court: "The question is not whether his driving was dangerous, but whether being blind makes it dangerous,'' " again, I can see why this would keep lawyers in fees.

At law school we read cases involving issues that were structurally similar to the one above the whole time, but not usually quite as stupid.

What bothers me about the issue is not that these words could emerge from a lawyer's mouth, but that 12 members of the public were then asked to deliberate thereon and decide upon somebody's guilt or innocence.

What bothers me is that anyone, ever, in the whole of creation, could possibly, in any way shape or form believe that this guys driving was anything other than dangerous!!!
what really bothers me is that court time is being used this way while theiving little scrotes who go around nicking cars and breaking into houses, wait months for a court case.
If this is the state of play in the british legal system, then we should rename the UK Wonderland and make Alice Master of the Rolls.
Alan

Al, the Master of the Rolls only lets people call him Alice at weekends.

BTW ST,
Are you referring to Donaghue v Stevenson, Rylands v Fletcher or the Chelsea Hospital one with the nightwatchman with the stomach upset who died swiftly????
(Just to prove I was educated once upon a time - but it has been dulled by reading serious articles about whether blind drivers are dangerous)
;-)
Alan

Your assignment, ST, is to argue on behalf of the blind driver when he sues the estates of the Wright brothers for negligence. If they had not invented the plane, 9/11 would never have happened and Iraq would not be invaded. The terrorist bomb that blew his eyes from his head would not have gone off and he would be fully sighted, thus it was Orville and Wilburs fault the offence took place.
Hint; The Wright brothers estate has decided to argue remoteness of cause.
It all makes about as much sense as the current case, and "Injurylawyers4u" will take it on a no win no feee basis.
i think i need a lie down.
Alan

LOL, Alan, great idea for a tort problem (Soul Traders LJ with the leading opinion, Mr. Justice Hewitt dissenting :o). Takes me back . . . In fact, your memory is better than mine; it would appear I have blanked most of my four years' law study. Imagine: I spent all that time studying Law and French and wind up working in banking in Germany!

There was also something about Veitchi v Junior books and a badly-laid carpet, but that may have been after your time.

Wasn't Rylands something about not allowing a dangerous object on your land to cause damage to the property of another?

PS, Al, does that mean you read law? I always had you down as a physicist after those eloquent descriptions of quantum thingummy.

Rylands v fletcher was a class of Tort exactly as you describe. the lovely thing is that gypsies were held to be objects.
Never read law beyond "A" level, ST, but loved the arguing it involved, so it is carved dearly on my heart. I too am in finance and banking, for my sins, and Physics is just a hobby of mine, ever since I first read Stephen hawkings brief history of time.
For anyone whos never had any interest at all in science though, I would recommend Bill Brysons "Short history of nearly everything". Fantastic read and very humorous.
Alan

Rylands was about gypsies? I give up - now it's me who needs a lie-down!

I knew you were in finance cos I've had a peek at your website - thought maybe you'd had a big dose of law as part of some accountancy thing.

Clearly you are a multi-faceted intellect, and therefore to be esteemed. :o)

geez, you two don't half talk some shite !! ;)

And we're never happier than when doing just that, Bos :o)

Manure, faeces, crap, poo, number 2, dirt, muck, stinky, dog log, effluent, sewerage.............................

hey, you certainly know your shit ;)