The Tiger at the bar

[tony from suffolk]

Precisely Roger.

 

[ianball11]

From reading the article I've started following Dinah Rose on Twitter and I'm glad I did, Dinah retweeted by far the best April Fool joke, well at least I hope it's a joke ;-)

http://barristerblogger.com/2015/03/31/mr-graylings-court-catering-charge-will-prove-hard-to-swallow/

 

[graham]

If I'm paying a lawyer to represent me in a case, I would expect him or her to "represent the interests of her client" as somebody said, and pull out all the stops to get a verdict in my favour.

But if I'm paying a lawyer to give me legal advice on a particular issue, I expect him or her to give me good impartial advice, not just tell me what I want to hear because I'm paying the bill.

That depends on whether the question was " What  are the best arguments to deploy in order to convince others I am right?" Or "Am I right? "

 

[paul]

[gmod]Despite previous requests to keep on topic, this was ignored. The off topic posts have been split to another topic. Anyone posting off topic posts will receive a Warning, and if any previous Warnings warrant it, they will receive a ban.[/gmod]

 

[David Rose]

I am once again staggered at how things can degenerate here. Badlad posted an interesting and informative article about my sister, who, as people may recall, very kindly agreed to write an opinion about caving and Crow pro bono, as a favour to me and all cavers. She did this as a Queen's Counsel, with all the heavy responsibility to be accurate and fair and a servant of the court which that status implies. Never in a million years would the NCA or any other caving body have been able to afford such advice had it only been available at commercial rates. And yet people sniped then, and they continue to now. Of course she has lost cases. But the more important point is tat in a case as high profile as Assange's, she was instructed, just as she was on the Prince Charles letters, which of course she won. This is because she is highly rated and taken very seriously, as her formal Opinion about Crow and caving ought to be now.

She went caving a few times as a student and I went down Notts 2 with her family and mine on New year's Day 2015. She really enjoyed it, and emerged more convinced than ever that caving ought to be regarded as an outdoor recreation - as I posted here at the time.

 

[droid]

*Deep breath*

If you were interpreting MY 'contribution' as a snipe at your sister, David, let me assure you it wasn't. It was a snipe at the level of debate. And I will apologise for it being in the wrong thread.

I fully realise the significance of Dinah's contribution.

 

[Robert Scott]

From reading the article I've started following Dinah Rose on Twitter and I'm glad I did, Dinah retweeted by far the best April Fool joke, well at least I hope it's a joke ;-)

http://barristerblogger.com/2015/03/31/mr-graylings-court-catering-charge-will-prove-hard-to-swallow/

In the article there is the phrase "nitpicking left wing malcontents.? may I point out that nit-picking is hyphenated?

 

[menacer]

 

[richardg]

I am once again staggered at how things can degenerate here. Badlad posted an interesting and informative article about my sister, who, as people may recall, very kindly agreed to write an opinion about caving and Crow pro bono, as a favour to me and all cavers. She did this as a Queen's Counsel, with all the heavy responsibility to be accurate and fair and a servant of the court which that status implies. Never in a million years would the NCA or any other caving body have been able to afford such advice had it only been available at commercial rates. And yet people sniped then, and they continue to now. Of course she has lost cases. But the more important point is tat in a case as high profile as Assange's, she was instructed, just as she was on the Prince Charles letters, which of course she won. This is because she is highly rated and taken very seriously, as her formal Opinion about Crow and caving ought to be now.

She went caving a few times as a student and I went down Notts 2 with her family and mine on New year's Day 2015. She really enjoyed it, and emerged more convinced than ever that caving ought to be regarded as an outdoor recreation - as I posted here at the time

Excellent..thank you for this post Dave.... As already has been said many who go exploring caves seriously are  honoured by Diana's considered  contribution..... Your journey down Notts and her thoughts speaks volumes.

 

[ALEXW]

I was heartened by the phrase  "The man on the Clapham omnibus"  a hypothetical reasonable person, used by the courts in English law where it is necessary to decide whether a party has acted as a reasonable person would. I was a little concerned when I realised that it is Clapham in London rather than the Clapham in Yorkshire. This could produce a different outcome.

 

[Slug]

I call it either the No. 51, or the No. 52, and it stops right outside my house, in Clapham Road..........Bedford.......there's more than just the "Big Two" you know  :spank:

This I suppose makes me said "reasonable person"  . and, having read her professional opinion  through twice now, I would like to thank her for the effort put into the obtaining of this opinion.  I honestly struggled to even coordinate conflicting arguments, let alone decide which viewpoint to support. I did try to see it from both sides, and in the end I agreed with her.

Dinah Rose is a Q.C., that means that is is her area of expertise, and a very well paid area it is too. It's damned decent of her to do this as a favour for her brother and all the other oddballs like him, and not as a paid job.

If you want an annual cavers seminar organizing, ask Les & Wendy Williams and Crew, that's what they do.

If you want to feed 200+ cavers over a weekend, ask me, that's what I do.

If you want to hire an outdoor centre in Yorkshire, ask J.J . He's got one of them.

But if you need a Legal Opinion on a very difficult subject, that may, one day soon, have a potentially massive effect (one way or another) on caving in this country.....DON'T ask Me I haven't got a clue where to even start.....I don't suppose the others would be too keen on taking it on either, it's not what we do..

 

[graham]

Slug

Perfectly reasonable post, but it does beg two comments.

Firstly, Ms Rose's area of expertise is not land law or even agricultural law, it is administrative law, which is why she gets briefed on cases about the application of law on such matters as extradition and the nature of Swedish criminal procedures (Assange) and the nature of the relationship between the judiciary and the executive (The 'black spider' memos).

Secondly, it also calls into question why a caving trip a couple of months ago might strengthen (or not) her opinion. As you rightly imply, this issue was sorted out by parliamentary draughtsman, civil servants and lawyers. It was not sorted out by going caving.

 

[Slug]

Fair point Graham....I meant that in a matter of Law, and how to get the best outcome for us all, it is best to ask a lawyer, not a Sparky, and his Missus with a sideline in conventions, or a Cook etc.,  Rather a person who has more than a basic understanding of a very complex subject, with a wide range of conflicting interpretations (well to this cook anyway), especially when its pro bono.

There may yet come a time that this position may have to withstand further scrutiny, which could well cost British caving a bloody fortune. I'm just happy that we've got this far at such a low cost.

and thanks for staying civilized Graham.

 

[graham]

Slug

I believe that this process has also cost BCA several grand, for a result which was fairly equivocal, or so it seems, given that the constitutional change that was declared as being the next move after a 'win' has been shelved sine die.

It may be that the BCA could have better spent that money giving its own brief, not one coming just from one side of the argument, to counsel who was familiar with the relevant part of the law and how it has been applied. I do not know how much such an opinion might have cost, but I do know that opinions can, sometimes, cost less than you think, especially if the brief is written clearly and concisely.

I hope to always be civilised ( I am only human so I know I am not) but I do know that my personal (now retired) lawyer will not go near this issue as she is quite upset at the denigration that her prior involvement has brought down. This despite a long and succesful career in land law. If only everyone else involved could also remain so, here and elsewhere.