Ambulance Chasers - Leigh Day karma

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Glad_its_all_over, Jan 15, 2017.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. ...a fine example of the British tradition of freedom, fairness and justice.

  2. ...a gang of worthless, amoral, ambulance-chasing parasites bent on getting rich at public expense.

  1. To try to be fair, anyone who thought it was and that under the present system he should may be a little naive.

    It not only wasn't his job, but I think more importantly he had no obligation to and was if anything obliged not to - just as, say, a defence lawyer defending a rapist or a paedophile used not to have any obligation to worry about the impact his defence would have on their victims but was obliged to do anything they could to defend their client regardless of any impact. It wasn't only what they were paid to do but what the system required them to do. Legislation changed that back in the 90's and its in the process of changing it even more now, both in what's permitted to be investigated, and how, and what's permitted in court and court procedure to protect "vulnerable witnesses".

    I'd suggest that rather than relying on lawyers respecting all involved and considering the 'impact' of their actions on anyone from rape victims to police to Iraq veterans, while at the same time requiring them to do all they can in their clients' interests, that the legislated protections for "vulnerable witnesses" need to be extended.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Agreed 100% - but at the same time I think it's important that he's held to account for what he's guilty of, and that that's not confused with him doing his job and what he was allowed / obliged to do as part of that..

    I think it's very easy but also very dangerous to trot that out, particularly where the military are involved in any way.

    "following orders" isn't a defence if they're illegal, and there's a very clear obligation and requirement not to do so under those circumstances.

    That applies equally to L-D et al, to their concealing evidence and anything else that was illegal, but it doesn't apply to their ignoring the impact of their actions on Iraq veterans, etc - that wasn't just legal, it was also rightly or wrongly part of their job. If that's wrong then the system needs to be changed, but L-D can't be held responsible for that or the problem will just continue unaddressed.

    edit: that's not defending L-D in any way, just identifying the underlying problem.
    • Like Like x 3
  3. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    I'd be interested to know his political leanings. That smacks very much of Socialist 'the ends justifies the means'- type thinking.
  4. What difference does his politics make?
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Cold_Collation

    Cold_Collation LE Book Reviewer

    Idle interest in terms of my understanding of what drives him.

    Shiner was supposedly and avowed Socialist, and (perhaps it was cognitive dissonance) dressed his greed in the robes of a social crusade.

    I wonder what this other charlatan's politics are, and whether there are parallels, or whether pure greed is the motivation. It's just that the 'getting to the truth at all costs' line is very reminiscent of the 'any means possible' line taken by many Socialists. ("There was serial child abuse"... "Yes, but he/they hated the Tories"...)

    It also (as @ViroBono notes) fails to tally with their own economy with the truth.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Caecilius

    Caecilius LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    The problem is, he's right. If his defence is that he didn't falsify evidence, or wasn't aware of the falsified evidence, then he's correct to say this his job is to uncover evidence within the law. That is how the legal system works.

    If it's proven that he did falsify evidence or was aware that some evidence was falsified then that puts a different perspective on it.
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Just so, and the SRA's case is that they knew that some of their clients were lying, concealed the evidence, made improper allegations against soldiers, and paid prohibited fees.
  8. As were Stalin, and Putin, back in the day . . .
  9. ...and let's hope it stays that way and that, other than protecting "vulnerable witnesses", there's no opportunistic move to change that and to protect the government and the MoD instead.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Clients obtained, allegedly, by the same agent as Shiner with the fees also paid through the same agent - no real surprise there, but it beggars belief that this was the same agent that the MoD were using
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Nothing surprises me about the MoD any more........
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Often seen (the photo). Shiner's 'cause' was fashionable among some on the Left and in the Human Rights world. His claims were accepted without much, or any, fact-checking and an online search can still find copies of admiring articles by the Guardian, Liberty (Shiner was their 'Human Rights Lawyer of the Year'), etc. There was an accepting attitude from much of the media, and some politicians. The subjects of Leigh Day's false claims had a great weight of (incorrect) consensus against them. 006133E6000004B0-0-image-a-4_1452729591886.jpg
    • Like Like x 3
  13. Judgement is due this week after a marathon hearing at the SDT.

    Let this not lose sight while the political future of the country is at stake tomorrow.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
  14. Blimey John, one of your shortest posts.
    • Funny Funny x 2
  15. Just to interest you - while the Shiner thread is locked pending news in the future, I wrote to Brian Wood, ex-Colour Sergeant PWRR, expressing support and gratitude following the outcome of the SDT inquiry into Shiner.

    He is writing his memoirs and his book will be released next year.
    • Informative Informative x 3