We can't have it both ways.
It seems the story at the moment is Patricia Hewitt sticking the knife into Remedy UK. Read here.Katy Newton at DKs is incensed. Read here. This has since been picked up by a few others.
Now the problem I have if this was not that bunch of useless politicians sticking the knife in a bunch of Doctors would we be bothered that costs are allocated. We continually moan about having the pick up the costs of people fighting officialdom on our money. People that we don't like such as the Muslim woman fighting her school about the headscarf.
We can't have it both ways. There are many people in jail because they were right but the law is not interested in justice only the law. In this instance and the case they chose to bring forward Remedy UK were wrong. Morally No, legally Yes. So the 'injured party' in law gets their costs paid. Not out of the public purse. Just as we wanted.
The best we can do is send them some money as suggested here at Aphra Behn. (Visit, even though they do have that annoying Snap pop up turned on) When you send the funds in you might consider a suggestion that they sack their legal team and get one that pick their fights with more care.
posted by Bag @ 4:27 pm
7 Comments:
Bit over my head, this one.
Basically Remedy took the Government to court over the doctors interviews and lost because they claimed the process was wrong. But Hewitt had improved it with the changes and this was proven. Still crap but an improvement. Case lost. Hewitt asked for the costs and got them.
Sorry you find the snap pop up annoying; I find it useful myself. Thanks for the link though.
Aphra.
Just the one of me, and definitely female.
Aphra, Thanks for the comment. I wasn't sure so stuck with the generic. Those Snap links annoy me due to the way I browse.
Yeah, it is one of those things which is cute rather than cool. I like it for the instant preview it provides, but I can see it'd be annoying.
Cheers
AB
...Case lost. Hewitt asked for the costs and got them...
But that's appalling!
Appalling work by the lawyers.
We don't want to pick up the costs where the government is right. So what is the issue with Remedy paying costs? None. They lost.
A, very bad, analogy is that you set fire to a house. You then try and put it out with water. The homeowner takes you to court for the water damage. You explain it was to put out the fire and it was worse before. Damage explained and you are found not guilty. You were not charged with the original fire, on a technicality, so you get away with it. Now because you are innocent of the charges you get your costs paid by the loser.
I believe there was a reason they couldn't do the other charges but they were hoping that justice would prevail. They must have forgotten they were in the UK. Lawyers should have been aware of this. How many times have you heard of the law being an ass?
Post a Comment
<< Home