Or alternatively you could pay me £30,000 a quarter and I would give you a small link at the bottom of my page: then I would love you harder than I love your mother.

Let me know.

Warmest regards

Geeklawyer

———

On 25 Jan 2010, at 23:08, [Casabian Rotunda Emeticus] wrote:

Hello,

My name is [.…] and I work with http://www.[ambulance-chasers-direct].com . Ambulance Chasers Direct is a personal injury claims firm who offer compensation to all UK clients. We were curious to see if you would be willing to let us gain a presence on your site? What we would like you to do is to have a weblink to our site. We’re aiming packages for 3 or 6 months, how much might this cost to be done? Please do let me know, we would really love to be a part of your website.

Thanks so much for your time and consideration.

Warmest of regards

[Casabian Rotunda Emeticus]

Quite some time ago nations decided that it was right & proper that ex-heads of state and politicians who murdered tortured and abused their populations could no longer say;

“Dude, like, I”m a head of state. Sovereign immunity. You can’t prosecute me for anything. Cya. Mwah”

The theory is that the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Pinochet could all of a sudden find themselves in an uncomfortable position. While they owned the corrupt or intimidated judiciary and the political systems of their own countries and got their acts rubber stamped they were no longer able to rely on this rubber stamping to get immunity abroad. This might persuade them to be less beastly.

As Pinochet found to his chagrin he now had to answer for atrocities that he thought, like his victims, were buried at sea. Likewise a steady stream of third world leaders have had to answer to the International Criminal Court: Charles Taylor, Milosevich, President Bashir  and the like. Others have had to answer to national courts. All this has happened one way or another under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Most of these ex-leaders, and their ex-states, then make the plea that this is biased Western Justice that is only applied against Third World nations unimportant to the political needs of the West.

Geeklawyer usually huffs and puffs: dismisses this as unattractive self-serving whining. Usually for good reason. Until now.

The recent outrage of the Labour government at a court having the temerity to issue an arrest for the war criminal Tzipi Livni has lead to suggestions that the system will be fiddled changed so that it can’t happen in future. The absurdity is that there is a credible case to answer under international law and a multiplicity of evidence of deliberate and systematic abuse of Palestinians by the terrorist IDF. There is evidence against Hamas also, it should be said, although less in quantity and severity (though that is hardly an excuse). That there is such a case against past Israeli politicians and current ones is the result of investigations by Mr Justice Richard Goldstone.

Rather than fiddling the system to help out, in the words of US President Roosevelt, ‘our sons of bitches’, they should let justice take it’s course.

What the Labour Government should do is to butt out of meddling in the legal system for political gain. Oh, was Geeklawyer stupid enough to just write that?

Many Brits would agree with the former protest. The Iraq & Afghan wars are perceived by many as pointless, or even dangerously destructive; wars whose only purpose is to allow self-deluding British politicians with large egos to play with big boys and kid themselves they matter a fucking damn.

Where, for many, they cross the line is to besmirch the memories of the fallen. Geeklawyer is not alone he suspects in drawing a firm distinction between the acts of politicians in starting a war and the poor dumb infantry in prosecuting it. To be simplistic, the politicians are slimy manipulative scum and our squaddies are unquestioned heroes who deserve our unqualified support in doing the shit bit of wars. Obviously it’s more complex than that: many politicians are decent and principled; and war-crimes against civilians are committed by a small number British troops who can’t merely be dismissed glibly as “a few bad apples”.

Nonetheless, Geeklawyer gives, nigh-on, unqualified support to our troops. Which made his reaction to the premise of the march one of outraged indignation and deep offence. Attack the war yes; attack our politicians? here — have a rock to throw; but attack our boys? Fuck. Right. Off.

He was not alone: Geeklawyer’s chum, ex-army officer & prospective lawyer, Oedipus Lex tells that ex-soldiers on Facebook are sufficiently unimpressed that they have suggested driving down to the protest march to make their feelings known. Calmer heads are suggesting that common sense on all sides is the order of the day. Perhaps the police should ban the march on public order grounds, or the marcher should be persuaded to be less provocative and confine their invective to the politicians.

And yet.

What of free speech? Real free speech. The speech we hate, rather than the speech we consider acceptable. As Oedipus_lex said on Twitter: “What did these guys die for if not free speech?” One of the issues that causes radicalisation of young Muslims is the unequal treatment they perceive themselves to receive in this ‘multicultural’ society: this may be real or imagined. What they do see is dozens of muslim civilians slaughtered by Blackwater murderers, who are then acquitted. They see one hundred thousands Muslims killed with nothing but crocodile tears shed by the politicians and modern-day ‘Crusaders’, as they put it, of the British army. They may be entirely wrong about this or they may be entirely right. But what they should be able to do is to protest and to make these claims.

Of course doing it in a military town is provocative and some say “Use a little common sense”. But what is ‘common sense’? And why should one not be ‘provocative’? Should the protest be arranged to happen in the middle of nowhere so o-one see? What’d be the point of that? And if one is making the point they wish to make, why not make it directly to exactly the people who are doing what causes one offence? Aren’t they the best people to receive the protest?

As a nation we’ve seen this repeatedly in the Marching Season in Northern Ireland, for example, and it is frequently a bloody expensive and tiresome business. It’s also the price of democracy. All that aside Geeklawyer imagines that the local police will find a compelling reason to block the parade.

No, the abiding impression was that for all the uncertainties of the Bar it’s aspirants remain as buoyant and optimistic as ever. We grizzled old hacks look in awe at youth. We see a calling (it’s a ‘Calling’ not some mere bourgeois profession like soliciting) suffering under a leadership apparently determined to  fix it in Aspic: who ignore the rivalries and encroachments of solicitors, at the junior end of the legal world, on the one hand, and a deeply corrupt abusive government determined to undermine fair trials and independent legal representation for those they persecute, on the other.

Young LP  was well aware of this. She was also well aware of the horror stories of hundreds of applications per pupillage, with each applicant having an Oxbridge double first. Such war stories will become her stock-in-trade when she starts on the BVC and becomes immersed in the whole bloody process. Of course she is an impressive high achiever: past president of her University Union, Good degree (albeit only Eng Lit) and winner of GL’s heart. Lofty achievements indeed. But as she is well aware her peers and competitors will also have  similarly good CVs despite which she remains undaunted.

Ms LP was equally undaunted even by the realities of new entrants to the Bar: last minute instructions for a hearing 100 miles away requiring overnighter preparation and for a fee that barely buys a starBucks.

Geeklawyer pointed out there were two fast routes to poverty at the Bar: Government funded family law and crime; Miss LP’s career preferences. Daunted and deterred? Not even a little, both admirable and worrying. Miss LP’s response was that she had heard that these stories and prophecies of the Bar’s doom went back 30 or 40 years. True, but Geeklawyer remains of the view that recent trends are accelerating the decline of the Bar in its traditional form. Miss LP says “Meh, Twas ever thus, tell it to the hand” .

Her final response was: “What I really need, therefore, to sustain me is a rich husband”. And she caressed GL’s hand and fluttered her long dreamy eyelashes. There is ambition and over–ambition: madam is hot, but is she that hot?

Geeklawyer previously said “[the merger] does smell awfully like a plan being towed behind a very large fast moving steam-roller.” Perhaps the cynicism was uncalled for or perhaps the stiff opposition was effective. As a firm disbeliever in the utility of democracy Geeklawyer really can’t accept that it was the latter.

The statement is:

After lengthy deliberations, the Inner Temple and Middle Temple have concluded that none of the available options for a merger of their libraries and creation of an advocacy and education centre is sufficiently desirable to warrant further investigation and implementation.  We have therefore agreed to bring to an end the negotiations which have been taking place under the aegis of the Joint Collaboration Committee.

We are aware of the great uncertainties these negotiations have caused to our library staffs and the Treasurers of both Inns would like to thank them for their professionalism and forbearance over the last nine months.

Geeklawyer will now be able to continue his second career of supply secret gins at work to the lady librarians, in exchange for sexual favours and being able to steal Halsbury’s laws.

The ABA did ask the top Brit blogs (Geeklawyer and CharonQC) to take part but, to be frank, natural Brit modesty prevented us from engaging in the vulgar self promotion that falls so naturally onto American shoulders: we declined. We were, of course, hoping desperately that they would ignore our affected reticence and put us in anyway. They did; thank heavens for American arrogance towards Brits for once: at least this didn’t involve us invading someone’s sovereign territory on their behalf.

At the moment, to his shame, Geeklawyer is second from bottom out of a field of six. For goodness sake we are even running behind a woman; someone called Althouse who shamefully pontificates on the law, instead of cooking and doing housework. Top runner is someone called Randazza,from whose name we imagine him to be a stage magician johnny.

Of course if Geeklawyer is opposed by contenders then he is desperately hamstrung by his friends: The shocking wicked Scott Greenfield (himself standing in the Criminal Lawyer blog vote) is a firm supporter, as is notorious philanderer Brian Tannbaum, the infamous drunkard and serial online groomer.

Despite being, self-evidently, better blogs we Brits are running behind the Yanks due to their well known zenophobia and resentment at losing the War of Independence in 1776. We would urge you to register to vote. For us, obviously.

Geeklawyer had the recent misfortune to deal with a stupid company selling ladies fripperies and naughty accessories. He was doing this to get an Xmas present for a glamorous meeja laydee friend: the Guardian Journalist, sex goddess & TV pundit Kate Bevan. The transaction failed because of credit card problems, and a hilarious Brian Rix style farce ensued. Each side blamed the other and an increasingly unchuffed Geeklawyer was stuck in the middle.

It may be that being teetotal for the past three months has made GL a little grumpy because in contrast to his normally kind benign and generous disposition when dealing with fuckwits he was a tad sarcastic. For your amusement the email exchange is echoed below.

From: GL

To: FairyGothMother

Subject: Re: Order

Hi

This is the second rejection. I have spoken to Visa who say the payment for £20 was *approved* at 16.23 today. Someone is screwing up I dont know who. I am also concerned in the light of the screw up that you also took £20 on the first occasion you said it was rejected. Can you ensure that a duplicate payment wasn’t taken?

Furthermore It isnt helped by you giving a contact number of the shop whose stock reply is “Computer says ‘no’ ” or a surly and disinterested “sorry you must use email to deal with this.”

Rest assured next time a lady asks for a present from FairyGothMother they’ll be dumped.

Please sort this out.

—————–

Dear [GL],

We have done nothing wrong here, and we are getting these vitriolic comments from you via email and over the phone which are unacceptable.

Firstly, your card declined, and you can check that with your card company. Therefore we could not take monies, as your card company declined. WE DID NOT!

Second time , WE DECLINED, as YOUR card company did not verify the address you gave us as the card holders. We have taken no funds from your account, and this can be checked again with your card company. I have explained in my previous email how credit card address verification works. We again, have no say in this, it is the banks/card companies processes, not ours.

We have not been at fault at any stage of this order to date. If you wish to cancel, it is your prerogative to do so, but please don’t blame us for problems and issues with your credit/debit card!

FairyGothMother / Lulu and Lush

Web:  www.fairygothmother.co.uk

—————–

Dear Mr X

Perhaps you will allow me to put you straight?

Irrespective of any problems you have with credit card providers, by getting on your high horse too quickly you have fallen off the other side from a great height.

I was politeness itself on the phone to your till-monkey, particularly given that it was I who was the victim of an incompetently managed transaction. When I asked your jobsworth employee for ‘someone to speak to about this problem’ it was in the knowledge that most competent e-commerce companies, even the credit card companies, pretend to be interested enough to provide [customer service]. Like you they aren’t really interested of course, but they are clued up enough to understand customer satisfaction even if the don’t care about it. So, when I asked for customer service person to speak to I was slightly surprised to get the ‘computer says no’ response. I did say “Are you sure? Is there no-one?”, and with hindsight this was a shockingly impolite thing to do I’ll agree. I can understand your outrage at this customer insolence.

I may or may not blame you or the credit card for incompetence in address verification or merchant policies in response; what I do blame you for is having inept snotty staff on the phone and a complaints handling policy of [merely sending] a whiney hypersensitive email to a critical email.

If you object to the use of the informal and casual language “screw up” in an email then, Dear Reverend Doctor Sensitive, I do apologise and I wish you joy living in the 19th Century, since I’ll guess the 20th & 21st will be a shock. Give my love to Charlotte Bronte and Queen Victoria.

For the avoidance of any doubt, yes, I have cancelled my order.

Grrr.

So then, the field is thick with competition and Geeklawyer must observer the finest traditions of democracy by asking his friends family acquaintances and enemies to vote for him, so as to skew the poll in his favour.

You must vote for Geeklawyer or Osama wins and freedom dies. While you’re at it vote for some fellow called CharonQC too.