![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
The idea that solicitors are turning down good money is hilarious!
Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
I was going to argue that a lawyer reverting to Footle nonsense would be as unlikely as a modern physician prescribing a leach for cancer.SteveUK wrote:If a true solicitor argued fmotl crap they’d be out of a job. I can’t imagine the SRA having a sense of humour on that. They’d come down like a ton of bricks...
Back when I was still practing domestic relations law, I had a client who kept on raising her child support checks, because she "needed oil" or "needed to feed the kids". The second time it happened, I told her that, if it happened again, I would no longer represent her, if I could get out of doing so (the court rules said that a client had to have successor counsel before the first one quit); and the client, rivers of mascara running down her cheeks, promised up and down, back to front, and side to side, that she would NEVER do it again.longdog wrote:I assume there is some sort of rule which at the very least strongly discourages if not outright forbids lawyers taking claims which are as hopeless as trying to get a court to recognise pseudo-legal gibberish.
Even if there isn't such a rule any lawyer who's not completely insane would insist on money up-front to represent one of these cretins. The words 'bad credit risk' and 'non-payer' spring readily to mind.
It does happen from time to time. For a while we had Glenn Bogue basing his whole legal career on Freeman rubbish although he had actually earned a law degree so had at least a theoretical idea what real law was. He was great entertainment but the Upper Canada Law Society took a different view of his activities and he's now prohibited from practicing and is on his way to being be disbarred.SteveUK wrote:
If a true solicitor argued fmotl crap they’d be out of a job. I can’t imagine the SRA having a sense of humour on that. They’d come down like a ton of bricks...
There are a few medical situations in which the recommended treatment is still a leech. They come up about as often in a doctor's career as proper references to common law come up in a judge's.exiledscouser wrote:
I was going to argue that a lawyer reverting to Footle nonsense would be as unlikely as a modern physician prescribing a leach for cancer.
notorial dissent wrote:The run of the mill GP should most likely NEVERB run in to a situation requiring leeches. Certain surgical and wound care specialists possibly.
SteveUK wrote:notorial dissent wrote:The run of the mill GP should most likely NEVERB run in to a situation requiring leeches. Certain surgical and wound care specialists possibly.
Strangely , there’s still a couple of NHS trusts left doling out homeopathic garbage on the NHS. Hopefully it’ll end soon.
Did you hear about the homeopath who overdosed? He forgot to take his medication. (thank you James Randi).exiledscouser wrote:The problem Jim is that your parner’s concerns and those of others raising the same issues were not sufficiently diluted to have any effect.
May I suggest a much more effective approach, one small lone voice mumbling these concerns on an uninhabited rock in the middle of the Atlantic during a raging storm. There, according to homeopathic theory that’d be job done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10:23_CampaignThe 10:23 Campaign is an awareness and protest campaign against homoeopathy organised by the Merseyside Skeptics Society, a non-profit organisation, to oppose the sale of homoeopathic products in the United Kingdom. The campaign has staged public "overdoses" of homoeopathic preparations
The NHS is spending less than GBP100,000 annually on, presumably, existing patients. IMHO, this is GBP100,000 that could be used on medication that works.Homeopathy seeks to treat patients with highly diluted substances that are administered orally.
During the consultation we [the NHS Clinical Commissioners] received a range of submissions pertaining to homeopathy and it was deemed necessary to have a further, up to date review of the evidence which was conducted by the Specialist Pharmacy Service. The review found that there was no clear or robust evidence to support the use of homeopathy on the NHS.
Yes, but cancer isn't one of them. So exiledscouser's statement is still valid.grixit wrote:There are a few medical situations in which the recommended treatment is still a leech. They come up about as often in a doctor's career as proper references to common law come up in a judge's.exiledscouser wrote:
I was going to argue that a lawyer reverting to Footle nonsense would be as unlikely as a modern physician prescribing a leach for cancer.
Ha ha yeah, this was a while back, over 8 years ago at John Moores.exiledscouser wrote:The problem Jim is that your parner’s concerns and those of others raising the same issues were not sufficiently diluted to have any effect.
May I suggest a much more effective approach, one small lone voice mumbling these concerns on an uninhabited rock in the middle of the Atlantic during a raging storm. There, according to homeopathic theory that’d be job done.
In the 60s and 70s, there was a talk show host, in Boston, named Paul Benzaquin. In the course of a column calling out one of the local School Committee members, some time around 1975, he told of a time when he was guarding some Japanese prisoners during World War II. At least one had maggots in an open wound; but the medica told Benzaquin to leave the maggots where they were, because they were eating the necrotic flesh and helping to keep the would clean and uninfected.noblepa wrote:
Doctors also occasionally use maggots to devour necrotic flesh. They won't eat living tissue, so they remove less than a surgeon would.
I know that it is medically sound, but the thought of either leeches or maggots on my body makes my skin crawl.Pottapaug1938 wrote:In the 60s and 70s, there was a talk show host, in Boston, named Paul Benzaquin. In the course of a column calling out one of the local School Committee members, some time around 1975, he told of a time when he was guarding some Japanese prisoners during World War II. At least one had maggots in an open wound; but the medica told Benzaquin to leave the maggots where they were, because they were eating the necrotic flesh and helping to keep the would clean and uninfected.noblepa wrote:
Doctors also occasionally use maggots to devour necrotic flesh. They won't eat living tissue, so they remove less than a surgeon would.
Pottapaug1938 wrote:In the 60s and 70s, there was a talk show host, in Boston, named Paul Benzaquin. In the course of a column calling out one of the local School Committee members, some time around 1975, he told of a time when he was guarding some Japanese prisoners during World War II. At least one had maggots in an open wound; but the medica told Benzaquin to leave the maggots where they were, because they were eating the necrotic flesh and helping to keep the would clean and uninfected.noblepa wrote:
Doctors also occasionally use maggots to devour necrotic flesh. They won't eat living tissue, so they remove less than a surgeon would.