Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Let’s Hear It For The ‘No Responsibility’ Generation!

A judge has spared a mum from prison, despite her stealing more than £30,000 from her employers, because he did not want to send her children into care.
Why can’t the father and/or relatives look after them, then?
Judge Gary Burrell QC took pity on office administrator Louise Humby, who fleeced the company by falsely claiming expenses on a company credit card, telling her: “Your children have saved you.”
OK, so, well, at least she’ll have to pay back the…

Oh, FFS!
Humby, 31, helped herself to the money and had an element of “thrill and excitement” but is now filing for bankruptcy and will not be able to repay any of the money she stole, a court heard.

Meanwhile, if you are hopelessly inadequate and your baby ends up with dozens of fractures, don't worry! It's not your fault, it's the fault of the social workers:
Judge Ticehurst told the father: 'You clearly were far too young and not able to look after your child.

'That child suffered considerable neglect due to your inability to care for her. But in my view you and your partner were let down by the social services, who have a duty to provide for you.

'In my judgement it would be quite wrong to impose anything other than a community order, for you to get the help and support you need.'
And hey, if you will insist on pouring vodka down your throat all night, it's not your fault when you wind up dead, it's the poor bloody paramedics!
His father, Michael, 44, is taking legal action and said his son would still be alive today if the emergency workers had taken his son to hospital the first time around.
He's also 'still be alive today' if he'd moderated his drinking, but hey, there's compo to be had!

Speaking of which...
...last week he received a letter from personal injury lawyers Almy & Thomas saying that under a no-win, no-fee agreement they had been instructed by Mr McCarthy to sue for damages and costs. The letter said he had injured his left elbow, which needed treatment at the police station.
You couldn't make it up. And in the UK in 2012, you don't have to.


Captain Haddock said...

Please, please come back Albert Pierrepoint .. we need you more than ever before ..

Anonymous said...

I am astonished we continue to be astonished by all this.

I am not one of the people who routinely denigrates Thatcher. I leave that to the inadequate lefties who round on the woman (yes, still after twenty years) rather than look at their own arrogant party and their burbling idiocies. However she screwed up when under her administration the Tories decided to let lawyers tout for business.

A good slab of what we see here is down to compo and greedy lawyers making their plush ends meet over spurious claims. Maybe Maggie couldn't see it coming, but we can see it all now.

Mind you it would help if we had a few judges who would be honest and say: "What is this shit? Get out of my court now while I am still in a good mood." Sadly, we have beaks who possibly envy the wealthy lawyers and various other state-funded hangers-on they see before them.

Woodsy42 said...

I don't really see a problem about solicitors advertising. They exist anyhow on the high street so why not?
The problem is surely a mix of dodgy court judgements and the one-sided way the courts deal with costs, awarding ridiculous costs to the 'no risk' lawyers - which makes it a no risk bet for them.
No win no fee should simply avoid up front costs for a genuine claimant, otherwise it should operate the same as any other case. Win and you get costs so your lawyer gets paid, lose and they get nothing while you and they also pay all the defendant's costs.
If losing meant a real cost then these lawyers would not take on such undeserving cases.

Mrs Erdleigh said...

Can I add this guy in here?


James said...

I'd like to add this story from the Daily Mail.

This woman perverted the course of justice, got an innocent man arrested, and stirred up racial hatred because her imaginary attacker was Asian. She got a fine and a community order, during which she must "seek help".

Male sociopaths are sent to prison (unless they have kids, apparently); female sociopaths get counselling.

JuliaM said...

"Please, please come back Albert Pierrepoint .. we need you more than ever before .."

He'd be busier than a one-armed paper hanger though!

" However she screwed up when under her administration the Tories decided to let lawyers tout for business."

As Woodsy42 points out, with a far more robust justice system, this wouldn't need to have been such a problem.

"Can I add this guy in here?"

Blogger ate the link :(

"Male sociopaths are sent to prison (unless they have kids, apparently); female sociopaths get counselling."

So much for equality!

Tattyfalarr said...


Julia, *this* ^^^ should always be the correct way to type out this word. Used abundantly during last summer in the context of "robust policing" it has gained status as one of the most nondescript descriptors of all (Politically Correct) time.

It must always be italicised and placed firmly between inverted commas and/or emboldened for extra sarkyness.

Play the game, woman ;)