I’m OK, Ohariu, how are you?
Hmmm – which thread – lawyers / drugs / science?
– hard to know
Most surprised to see on the telly tonight* that a lawyer / spokesman for the legal highs industry, is Peter Dunne’s son, (who works for Chen Palmer) – of course they are all independent adults, but I’d have thought he’d have front footed that earlier, to avoid the muttering that will now ensue – an uncharitable view might be that it looks like Dunne is just making work for his son – (if you are a cynical curmudgeon like me)…
*I forced myself to watch seven sharp, gawd Hoskings is a plonker, what a role model – as he dismisses science and learning as some kind of chore or aberration –
someone slap him!
...your father was a Headmaster?
Gold miner, tank driver,
and gentle man....
Yet people feel quite entitled to talk down their noses about a profession that has both a statutory obligation to the law and to their clients, as well as a professional obligation to same.
I ,for one, was just talking out of my arse…
- y’know making stuff up.
testing meanings and
playing to the jury
of public opinion…
What a sad world it would be
without lawyer jokes…
At a convention of biological scientists, one researcher remarks to another, "Did you know that in our lab we have switched from mice to lawyers for our experiments?" "Really?" the other replied, "Why did you switch?" "Well, for three reasons. First we found that lawyers are far more plentiful, second, the lab assistants don't get so attached to them, and thirdly there are some things even a rat won't do."
The end of the letter is just out-and-out bullying
...perhaps the legal equivalent of the journalistic 'egregious blindside question' - with no grounding in truth - but the interviewee then has to give it credence, by denying it - and voila there's your 'killer' soundbite!
Bad day for the soul trader I say.
fixed that for ya...*
**(Contains intended humour,
reactions may vary)
why a duck
say you want to build a bridge...
...now you've gone and thrown a spanner in the works!
lawyers are officers of the court and that is their principle duty, but within the bounds imposed by that duty their highest obligation is to do all within their competence to represent their client’s interests.
I think I get it:
In principle (as a general idea) they have a duty to the principles (foundations of a system of belief, basis for conduct) of the law, but their principal (first) duty is to their principal (most important) client, for whom they act as principals (agents), irrespective of whether said client is the principal offender (directly responsible for a crime) – and as in any duel both combatants are principals (historic).
For which, ultimately, a principal (sum of money ) will be paid to the principals (heads) of the firm….
…of course were they architects and the principal (a main rafter supporting purlins) was removed, it might bring the house down!
The Chinese Envoy was there...
but (a bit to the) left...
...your error does serve to bring back fond memories of a big old Thorndon villa / crash pad in Patanga Cres, Wellington, mid-'70s (opposite the gardens and next to the Chinese Embassy)...
</irrelevant personal aside>
I thought safety was the issue
and then there is this...
The law is a tool box
Point taken, it's just at times it seems more of a toy box
(I see one of my local legal clients has just been struck off for creative interpretations of process...)
...my mistake for confusing and conflating the concepts
of Jurisprudence and Justice...
...and Jesters for all
... then you’re as much a fool...
Oh well, I always liked colourful clothes with bells on...
PS: I am always available for casual proofreading services...