Legally mandated lies.

Both Frank and Junican have picked up on Rose’s findings of the new legal ruling in that rebel colony called America. If only George III had been as sane as other monarchs…. oh wait, we have another King Charles coming up and then… well, it doesn’t look good, does it?

Cigarette companies are to be forced to print ‘warnings’ of things that are not real and things that have been proven to be not real. They have been forced to do this by the legal system.

Okay, I accept that smoking is not good for me but like Frank, I am increasingly of the opinion that it is not bad for me either. Certainly nowhere near as bad as it was painted twenty years ago, and the modern hysteria has passed the credibility horizon forever. Smoking causes cervical cancer? You are doing it wrong. Very wrong. I hereby offer to observe and eventually correct your smoking habits. Proceedings may be recorded on videotape for your protection and for YouTube.

Cervical cancer is caused by a virus, that’s why girls get immunisations. Quite why Big Pharmers are not in uproar over this threat to their money-game is not clear. The amount of profit on an Elastoplast with a bit of leaf inside might be a clue.

As for smoking causing rectal cancer, I have no wish to observe but would merely suggest you try it at the other end. If you can really smoke at that end I am impressed but require no further information. I would recommend against it – if you fart you might explode.

The legal system in America would be a joke if it was at all funny. It’s not. Never, ever go there. Their judges just make stuff up and rule on whatever takes their fancy. If they decide your hat is homophobic because it doesn’t have ‘I like arse-sex, bend me over’ written on it, they will find you guilty of some law they just invented and send you to prison and make you wear the appropriate hat while in there.

Real evidence is no longer admissible in court. Only made-up crap that fits the judges’ preference is The Truth. “I swear to tell the lies the judge wants to hear, the whole lies and nothing but the lies, so help me Gawd”  is the new oath.

Wouldn’t it be nice to pretend that the UK legal system is less corrupt? It would be a nice thought, wouldn’t it? It’s always a bit comforting to use the old phrase ‘only in America’.

That’s not true any more and hasn’t been for quite some time.

You’ll get a fairer trial in China now.

And the booze is cheaper too.


12 thoughts on “Legally mandated lies.

  1. I’ve thought for a long time that, at least in the US, the judicial system could receive a very helpful makeover by a simple restructuring of the process of appointment/selection and compensation of lawyers.

    Equal justice under the law simply does not work without equal access to lawyers at a level commanded by the opposing side. It simply is not right that because someone is rich that they can “buy” the law … which is pretty much the reality if you’re sitting there with a public defender or Benny Da Liar from the office in the basement around the corner and the other side has a battery of a dozen suited-up thousand-dollar-an-hour attorneys.

    Attorneys have a right to be paid what they’re worth, but I shouldn’t be able to hire a better attorney than my opposition just because I have more money. I would suggest that clients be assigned attorneys, on both sides, through a lottery system, with those attorneys paid at rates reflecting their past wins and losses. There could be five or ten classes, and clients could, and usually would, have attorneys selected from the same class as their opposition. E.G. “A” level attorneys could get $250 an hour while F level attorneys could get $25 an hour. They’d move up and down the pay scale depending on their wins/losses and they’d never be assigned blame or public disapproval simply because they were chosen to defend the local serial killer or prosecute the local Mother Theresa.

    As for judges, they would be chosen as follows:

    Any lawyer who retained an A-level rating for five years would be entered into a pool of potential draftees for judge. If their name gets picked, they are yanked out of lawyering and get stuck with being a judge for at least three years at a compensation rate about 20% higher than being an “A” level lawyer. If they make it through those three years with a certain minimum approval rating as “competent” from the lawyers who’ve been through their courtroom, they have the option of serving another three with another 20% boost. After 20 years they’d be making a helluva lot of money, so there’s a STRONG motivation for them to try to reach decisions that will get approval votes from a decent number of lawyers they decide against as well as those they decide in favor of.

    Civil and criminal and corporate cases might all need somewhat different structures, but the general principle could be the same. And poor people, people who could truly afford only F level lawyers, could rest assured that their opposing lawyers won’t be any better on average. Other options could be built in, possibly allowing agreeing opposition clients to raise/lower the levels of the pools of lawyers they’d mutually choose, and stipulating that an attorney cannot turn down a case they’ve been assigned simply because it looks like a sure loser.

    Heh, of course to GET such a change we’d have to have Congress approve it — and since about 80% of the people in Congress are lawyers I have my doubts such a thing would go through, but it’s an idea.



  2. Tommy-rot, MJM! What is needed is judges like Nimmo Smith – Judges who wait and see what evidence is presented, and whether or not that evidence supports the claim. The ‘defence’ present arguments against the claim, but there is no absolute reason that a defence is necessary. For example, a person who is accused of murder does not need to produce a defence. It is up to the prosecutor to provide the evidence which proves that he was the one what done it.


    The british system of justice (and I use lower case deliberately) has been based for hundreds of years, upon THE COMMON LAW. Only recently has Statute Law fucked everything up. Statute law depends upon the emotions of MPs. It is USELESS. Funnily enough, the same seems to apply to the EU regarding Ecigs – “We do not know what might happen” is the same as ‘being frightened of the dark’.
    Damn it! I must to bed.


    • “We do not know what might happen” is the same as ‘being frightened of the dark’.

      It is, yes. Monsters under the bed. Western humanity is becoming increasingly infantile, isn’t it?


First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s