Medical Negligence causes the loss of Human Rights and Legal Aid in the UK

The law will soon be accessible only to those who have plenty of spare cash (the upper class, doctors and dentists etc) lawyers, and those who feel confident representing themselves. The Law Society and The Bar Council complain that all of the new legislation that introduces new rights is worthless without representation. The government, via the Telegraph, are letting it be known that it is their opinion that the public oppose human rights. Now this just looks to me like phorm, cctv, identity cards and complete loss of privacy and rights is the real agenda. Of course socialism, or any other social scientism masquerading as political theory, relies fundamentally upon enforcement. Now the British Police are a right wing bunch of racists generally, so the left wing cannot rely on them for support in the same way that the Conservatives did. So, what to do? Oh I know, introduce rights, ridicule the idea of it from the side lines for years, then threaten to introduce more rights. That way we can parade the usual patsies, like Simon Heffer, the Murdochites, and tame High Court Judges (retired) to knock it all. Then we can say that the public agree with all this and withdraw them. But we cannot withdraw from the European Human Rights Convention, and European law is now supreme, subsequent to the European Constitution. So what to do? Oh I know! Stop people going to court.

How?

Well the first obvious thing to do is blame the greedy lawyers and shut down legal aid. Then, just in case there are a few hardy souls who are prepared to challenge the law in front of class prejudiced judges, we will make the costs of losing so high that they will (when they inevitably lose) be made bankrupt. That’ll put everyone off using their courts or their rights at all. So there won’t be any more litigants in person.

But how do you make it so expensive to lose?

The costs rule dummy.

What’s that?

The old common law fix that says costs follow the event. That is, the loser pays.

But that’s fair isn’t it?

Not really, the government set the rates of pay for lawyers. They could easily cap it at say, £35.00 per hour, but it’s more like ten or twenty or even fifty times that for a QC. And the government use lots of them. So what you have is an unholy alliance between the government and the upper class right wing greedy lawyers.

How?

Well the government need the fees to be sky high so that they can say legal aid is too expensive.

Yes but why do that, what’s in it for the government then?

Well, the government are, even now, the main defendants (the ones who get sued) and the Medical profession in the UK is so bad, especially NHS quacks, that they need to stop them all getting sued or they’ll go bust completely. So they fix the pay rates, fix the court rules (with High Court and Court of Appeal and Law Lords’ connivance) and make sure the costs rule stays in place. In the States there is no costs rule so if you lose you just lose your time.

Of course the costs rule itself probably contravenes the right to a fair trial, or indeed the right to rights, but you won’t get a UK lawyer challenging that one. So all anyone will be left with is a small claim, but the limit is set at £5000, and the County Court District Judge can still allocate it to a medium track, which means you pay costs if you lose. The court fees, just to issue anything are hundreds of pounds. And if you do win you’ll be lucky to get more than fifty quid, and even then you won’t get costs for winning.

But costs follow the event don’t they?

Not for you and me mate.

But I would have to spend hours checking the law and researching it all.

Tough luck you’ll get nowt.

But if it goes to a different track, and I lose, I’ll have to pay thousands in costs?

Yes. Not fair is it. And even if you can get a maverick District Judge to award costs you’re capped at £9.00 per hour. Again probably contravenes the Human Rights Act but the judges are as bent as the greedy lawyers.

How?

Well they set the hourly rate.

So it’s because the medical profession is so negligent that we are losing legal aid, will lose our rights and live in a surveillance society?

Yes.

But why protect negligent doctors?

Well, they’re upper class, lots of them marry lawyers, lots of them are related to MPs, indeed many MPs are doctors. That’s why. And that’s why people die of MRSA, get crap medical care and can’t sue doctors who cock it all up. That’s why we’re losing our rights to a fair trial, can’t even get a fair trial and if we get a trial at all we’ll lose and get made bankrupt.

Great.

TWATS?

I cant help it - LOOK AT ME!!!!

Now some would say that Jonathan Ross and Russel Brand are just lads having a laugh, just like lads do, and how cool are they for doing that: wish I was like them, wish I had their confidence, and big gobs, and blah, blah, blah. Wish I could jump up and down, in front of random strangers, shouting me mouth off to attract attention. Nah, I don’t think they’re irritating arsehole attention seekers with half inch dicks. Not likely - they’re dead cool they are. Victims is what. Just cos they rang up some old fart and slagged off his grand daughter - so? It’s a free country innit? And it were dead funny it were - cutting edge comedy no less.

No they’re not an embarrassment and, contrary to what some might say, they aren’t wankers either, and not just cos they can’t find it, but cos they’re sex gods, yeah they are. I really dig Johhny Ross’s film reviews he’s dead clever he is. Now some would say that the show is a travesty of what Barry Norman created, and Johnny must be related to some people (probably his whole family) who work at the BBC, either that or he married someone who knows someone or is related to someone, and that’s how he got the job. Anyway you know how it is in good old blighty. Not so much a meritocracy as a kiss-ass-who’s-your-dad-then-cracy, summic like that anyways.

Yep, I'm an Ace Turd

Let’s face it they’re both crap, boring and crap, loud-mouthed bumholes with connections and nothing more. It’s everywhere in the BBC: who your dad is, who your friends are, who’s your wife/husband related to, what school you go to? You from London then? etc, etc, etc.

“You a pseudo socialist millionaire’s boy who went to Oxford? Yeah? You want to work on the news then?”

I mean lets face it there must be someone out there who’ll be better than Johnny Toss and do it for a tenth of the money - and be grateful for that - and good at it. Same with that tit Brand, yeah sure he says the odd funny thing but someone else would do it for a lot less money and get more laughs. Course the someone elses aren’t related by blood, marriage, public school, mutual whatevering, like those pair of retards are. No wonder the programmes are crap, boring, and not funny at all.

Giving all without talent hope

As for radio one, Sarah Cox? Coxy (pseudo Mancer accent): Zoe Ball’s best friend, who happens to be Johnny Ball’s daughter, who happened to work on the BBC for decades. See they keep it all in house, and end up with a programme as entertaining as a root filling but not as funny, playing shite music, and talking about bollocks with other people - a crew - who aren’t funny either. They should have an X-Factor for BBC employees, at least we’d get people who aren’t totally privileged pea brains who couldn’t get into Medical School, didn’t fancy the Law or Civil Service, and couldn’t do anything else.

As for Chris Moyles - come on - he’s bloody hopeless, and he’s a fatso.