I think you've missed my entire point re: simplification of the law.  What I was saying is that technically it is possible to simplify the law i.e. the government can pass a "murder is bad bill" which literally just says "if you kill someone we will put you in prison for as long as we want".  Thats a very simple law which people understand.  It doesn't differentiate between murder and manslaughter.  It doesn't distinguish between someone who is intending to kill and someone who accidentily kills or between someone who maliciously murders and another person who is assisting with a suicide.  This may also render Doctors guilty of breaking the law because they will switch off someone's life support, is that killing someone? If you don't go onto define those things then you give lots of power to the judiciary because they then have a huge scope as to how they interpret and apply the law.  In any event all situations are never catered for with legislation and so common law fills in the gaps.  This is why laws are complex, to cater for many varying situations, to take power out of the hands of the judiciary and so that people should be able to get an idea of what is legal and illegal in advance of them doing something (for which we use lawyers).

On your first point, I'm not sure what you're getting at.  My initial point to Andy Rimmer was that you should not be so quick to judge people without first getting an "insiders" point of view.  Each person shoulders their own moral burden.  I consider myself to be a lawyer (trainee) and a very moral person.  I did not remove the point made.  You said that lawyers are morally bankrupt becuase of the statement I had previously made.  Your statement was wrong and addressed my point in the wrong way.  I apologise if you think its an "unreasonable trick" to use logic in discussions.

Matt J

If I wanted to listen to an arsehole, I'd fart!

MJ

If I wanted to listen to an arsehole, I'd fart!

Point is- I have an "insiders" view of the law, it's just a different one. Mine comes from over 20 years experience supporting young people who've been let down by solicitors who convinced them that they weren't criminals unless convicted. That a 4 year career of thieving and violence didn't mean anything because that copper forgot to write something down and so you've got away with it.

Or working "absent" parents trying to get residence for a child who's being abused by the ex partner/other parent, having to pay their solicitor thousands of pounds (8 I think), while the ex partner gets a barrister on legal aid even after a 7 page social services report outlining over 20 incidents of concern is produced (one of my staff just experienced this).

Or the young person who's court provided brief turns up 5 minutes before trial having not read his notes and advises him to plead because they want to play it safe.

Or Accident lawyers Rus, or Sue4you or the hundreds of other carrion who've turned simple accidents and insurance claims into years long damages cases (out of the kindness of their hearts).

We're talking about an industry that's as morally bankrupt as any and more than most.

As the old robot saying goes "does not compute"

If a priest was doing the job of a solicitor, wouldn't that make the priest a solicitor? I don't really understand your point.

That's a gross generalisation. There are plenty of solicitors who spend their lives scraping a living on legal aid cases, helping people who have nowhere else to turn. What is it about them that you hate so much? You think that the legal profession is more autonomous than the Civil Service?

Sharia law isn't politically correct where I come from.

J