Most Useless Profession

ComfyKnickers

Kerrigooney wrote: »

I`m a carpenter and at the moment it`s feeling like a useless profession because there`s no bloody work to be had.

You can build the space ship so!!

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjdmZLnfEuE

dttq

Topper Harley wrote: »

Trick or treaters.

Tricksters would be an apt description, yes.

A Primal Nut

I have no great affinity with lawyers, but their profession is very important for our society. I am sure you are ever arrested or ever a victim of a crime you will soon realise the importance of lawyers.

Marketing people - important for companies, but pointless for society as a whole. Very rarelytell us anything other than that their product is the best...duh of course you're gonna say that. Ttrial and error and word of mouth is a much better guide to which products are better. I'm not saying Marketing isn't effective, of course it is, but for society as a whole their is no benefit.

Biggins

Most useless profession?

Acting trainer to Linsey Lohan, Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber or Maria Carey.

MarkHitide

Professional opinion sharers-

boo3000

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I have no great affinity with lawyers, but their profession is very important for our society. I am sure you are ever arrested or ever a victim of a crime you will soon realise the importance of lawyers.

I hear what your saying but they're only important because they make themselves important. Like HR, don't contribute but i need them if i want to get a job.

McCrack wrote: »

I don't hate people on the dole, I just think it's very silly that a person who appears to be can criticise other people's jobs and display an incredible sense of ignorance.

1,000 people on the dole for 5 years:
Cost to taxpayer 500k (give or take)

1,000 lawyers in tribunals for 5 years:
Cost to taxpayer 100 million gazillion (give or take)

1,000 lawyers spend 5 years frolicking about in wigs nd gowns, talking nonsense legal speak (legalese) and write reports that no-one reads or matter.

1,000 on dole spend five years doing whatever, maybe write books or music or visit the sick and elderly etc, possible frolic about in wigs nd gowns, writing reports who knows?

Cost/Benefit analysis: people on the dole cost substantially less than lawyers, may use free time constructively, might not, who knows....

Lawyers cost an absolute fortune and inhibit justice. Benefit - none.

--Kaiser--

MarkHitide wrote: »

Professional opinion sharers-

"Only a fool writes, except for money"
Dr Samuel Johnson

MarkHitide

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

"Only a fool writes, except for money"
Dr Samuel Johnson

Opinioins written to deadlines often tend to make a fool of a writer.

Boskowski

BFB wrote: »

Also people who blatantly open their car doors in carparks and smack it off your car...grrr!

Have they gone pro yet?

Oranage2

Toilet attendant

Flincher

boo3000 wrote: »

It is a myth that is very profitable to lawyers that we need these systems to have justice. The law cannot be so complicated. If it were how could we be expected to live by it?

If understanding the law itself required such years of training (to expert level, 200 euros an hour or thereabouts) we could all be forgiven for breaking it left, right and centre. The years of training are actual spent learning all these codes and practices and language to sell us the idea that we need experts.

I'm sorry, I tried really hard not to comment on this, but I just have to....

You do not need an understanding of law to abide by it, because the vast majority of actions people carry out in their daily lives are not illegal. Most people have a fairly basic grasp about what is illegal or not. We all know that killing somebody is wrong, so we don't do it.

But how do you simplify the issue of somebody being killed? Do you say that if you kill somebody, you go to jail for life? We don't because the motives for killing somebody, and the manner in which people are killed are completely different from case to case. So we take into account a whole range of things to ensure people are punished as fairly as possible, and a whole set of principles have developed around that.

Then we have the process surrounding any conviction - you have to balance the rights of the person being accused - ensure the Gardai investigate in a proper manner - ensure the prosecution have a fair chance of putting their case across - ensure that somebody is not wrongly convicted.

Now that is one very quick example of how the law has to be complex - there are dozens of other areas of law where the same applies - banking, immigration, employment, personal injury, taxation, contract, intellectual property, competition, property.....if you want to roll all of those (and many more) into a little code which everybody can read and understand, then knock yourself out.

(For the record, I think the legal profession as a whole could be streamlined to some extent, and in many instances costs can be excessive, but believe it or not, there are very good reasons why things are done the way they are)

boo3000

Flincher wrote: »

Now that is one very quick example of how the law has to be complex

Except it's not complex. There's just a very straightforward list of variables that have to be taken into account.

I can't see the need for legal speak, and all these airs and graces that i've already described. There only there to swindle people, usually when they have a pressing need for justice or to avoid it.

A few people here have compared law to medicine or science in complexity. I disagree, I think the closest occupation to law as it should be practiced is accountancy.

There's a predefined set of rules which are either met or not. If there are extenuating circumstances a trustworthy person (judge or jury) decides their worth (in the vast majority of circumstances based on previous decisions)

Instead we have lawyers (solicitors, barristers, counsel) who sell us, at huge cost, the notion that we can have better justice through expert showmanship and con artistry. This is nonsense, something is either just or not and it's this con that so often suppresses actual justice.

Sea Filly

Oranage2 wrote: »

Toilet attendant

Agreed. I learned how to wash and dry my hands as a child, I don't need assistance thanks!

DEFTLEFTHAND

boo3000 wrote: »

Except it's not complex. There's just a very straightforward list of variables that have to be taken into account.

I can't see the need for legal speak, and all these airs and graces that i've already described. There only there to swindle people, usually when they have a pressing need for justice or to avoid it.

A few people here have compared law to medicine or science in complexity. I disagree, I think the closest occupation to law as it should be practiced is accountancy.

There's a predefined set of rules which are either met or not. If there are extenuating circumstances a trustworthy person (judge or jury) decides their worth (in the vast majority of circumstances based on previous decisions)

Instead we have lawyers (solicitors, barristers, counsel) who sell us, at huge cost, the notion that we can have better justice through expert showmanship and con artistry. This is nonsense, something is either just or not and it's this con that so often suppresses actual justice.

You have a strong opinion on this subject, which I don't think anybody could possibly alter as you don't seem to be receptive to any of the valid points supporting the profession that other posters have shared with you.

Is it a personal gripe you have with the legal profession? Something in the past maybe, some highfalutin lawyer subject you to a lecture of fancy legal talk whilst swindling 200euro out of you? I think you're stereotyping lawyers because you yourself haven't worked in or studied the profession. Its easy to make assumptions from the outside looking in.

ferike1

Auditors

Melion

No mention of bouncers yet? ? Well I'm shocked

mathepac

The most useless profession is being a paid Daily Mail dot co dot uk tout on boards.ie.

Since I started complaining about the number of threads being started with a link to the stupid newspaper and its equally stupid web-site, there has been a marked decline in dumb threads of this type, but I've spotted a couple today.

It seems the touts are starving, which is good, and are posting again in desperation, which is not good.

boo3000

Ah DEFTLEFTHAND a classic get out argument.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

you don't seem to be receptive to any of the valid points supporting the profession

Calling your points valid does not make them valid.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Is it a personal gripe you have with the legal profession? Something in the past maybe, some highfalutin lawyer subject you to a lecture of fancy legal talk whilst swindling 200euro out of you?

I must be angry because of a personal bias, an individual situation. Because why else would I be criticizing lawayers cough... because they're crooks who swindle people.

Actually there is quite a lot of well documented criticism of lawyers and the legal system. I'm sure i'm not the only person who thinks it's over complicated, does not provide justice and is so simply to benefit lawyers.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I think you're stereotyping lawyers because you yourself haven't worked in or studied the profession. Its easy to make assumptions from the outside looking in.

I sell magic beans, only I can see them. Nobody can criticize me for doing so because your not in my profession and you wouldn't understand. Don't question the nice man.

blackwhite

boo3000 wrote: »

Except it's not complex. There's just a very straightforward list of variables that have to be taken into account.

I can't see the need for legal speak, and all these airs and graces that i've already described. There only there to swindle people, usually when they have a pressing need for justice or to avoid it.

A few people here have compared law to medicine or science in complexity. I disagree, I think the closest occupation to law as it should be practiced is accountancy.

There's a predefined set of rules which are either met or not. If there are extenuating circumstances a trustworthy person (judge or jury) decides their worth (in the vast majority of circumstances based on previous decisions)

Instead we have lawyers (solicitors, barristers, counsel) who sell us, at huge cost, the notion that we can have better justice through expert showmanship and con artistry. This is nonsense, something is either just or not and it's this con that so often suppresses actual justice.

"Legalese" as you keep referring to is a necessary way of wording our legislation and contracts.
If all of our current legislation was repealed and replaced tomorrow with "plain speak" laws, then our new legal system would grind to a halt very quickly.

Smart people would find hundreds of different ways to interpret each and every "plain speak" law, and the laws would soon be rendered impotent, or would have implications not intended when they were drafted.
The people who proved to be the best at finding new and creative ways to interpret these laws would charge their services to others for a fee, and we would soon have a new legal profession forming.

The general populace would quickly grow tired of the laws being exploited by all these various interpretations, and would demand that the laws be re-drafted with wording which would remove any interpretation other than the one originally intended. These new laws would eventually evolve once again into what is currently known as "legalese."

The reason that the laws are written in such a complex way is to try to ensure that only one interpretation of the law can be taken. A loosely written law that can be taken to mean 50 different things is useless.

Our current legal system began 100s of years ago with simply written laws. Once smart people found ways to exploit loopholes in these laws then the wording had to be constantly refined until we have the legislation that's on the books today.
Just because you don't comprehend something doesn't necessarily mean that it's pointless.

blackwhite

ferike1 wrote: »

Auditors

A necessary evil.

Without auditors, there would be very little preventing the directors of large companies from defrauding the shareholders. There would be no way for investors to assess how reliable a set of accounts are before making an investment decision.

Auditors don't catch everything, and they certainly aren't perfect. But without them the business world would be a hell of a lot more corrupt

Brain Stroking

boo3000 wrote: »

Except it's not complex. There's just a very straightforward list of variables that have to be taken into account.

I can't see the need for legal speak, and all these airs and graces that i've already described. There only there to swindle people, usually when they have a pressing need for justice or to avoid it.

A few people here have compared law to medicine or science in complexity. I disagree, I think the closest occupation to law as it should be practiced is accountancy.

There's a predefined set of rules which are either met or not. If there are extenuating circumstances a trustworthy person (judge or jury) decides their worth (in the vast majority of circumstances based on previous decisions)

Instead we have lawyers (solicitors, barristers, counsel) who sell us, at huge cost, the notion that we can have better justice through expert showmanship and con artistry. This is nonsense, something is either just or not and it's this con that so often suppresses actual justice.

You havent an absolute iota about what you are talking about and the emboldened pieces in the above post show that you arent willing to discuss the topic properly.
If it is so easy why dont you get the exams and wow us all? Another internet warrior

Brain Stroking

blackwhite wrote: »

"Legalese" as you keep referring to is a necessary way of wording our legislation and contracts.
If all of our current legislation was repealed and replaced tomorrow with "plain speak" laws, then our new legal system would grind to a halt very quickly.

Smart people would find hundreds of different ways to interpret each and every "plain speak" law, and the laws would soon be rendered impotent, or would have implications not intended when they were drafted.
The people who proved to be the best at finding new and creative ways to interpret these laws would charge their services to others for a fee, and we would soon have a new legal profession forming.

The general populace would quickly grow tired of the laws being exploited by all these various interpretations, and would demand that the laws be re-drafted with wording which would remove any interpretation other than the one originally intended. These new laws would eventually evolve once again into what is currently known as "legalese."

The reason that the laws are written in such a complex way is to try to ensure that only one interpretation of the law can be taken. A loosely written law that can be taken to mean 50 different things is useless.

Our current legal system began 100s of years ago with simply written laws. Once smart people found ways to exploit loopholes in these laws then the wording had to be constantly refined until we have the legislation that's on the books today.
Just because you don't comprehend something doesn't necessarily mean that it's pointless.

Exactly

boo3000

blackwhite wrote: »

If all of our current legislation was repealed and replaced tomorrow with "plain speak" laws, then our new legal system would grind to a halt very quickly.

Please see 'The Great Myth that Plain Language is not Precise' at www.plainlanguagenetwork.org/kimble/great4.pdf it's written by a professor of law who will explain the reasoning far better than I.

What I do know, is that it is becoming very close to possible to program computers using plain speak. Computers are absolutely unforgiving of error or ambiguity. In law a judge or jury could, if things were simplified, decide if you have deliberately misunderstood a law. Guess what, lawyers don't want the law to be simplified because they make so much money from it.

What blackhawk is saying comes back to the argument that the law is too complicated for common folk, such as, us to understand. If it's that complicated, that it needs its own language, then why should i be expected to follow it, decide on it in a jury, or vote on it directly or indirectly.

Yes I know I'm getting close to repeating myself here and it's getting near time to move on. I'm just going to spell out my argument once more to summerize. Legalese is itself the very proof that lawyers are nothing more than well organised BS artists.

If the law is so complicated that i cannot understand it without a special language, then it's no good. If it's no good, we don't need lawyers. Let's develop something useful and practicable.

If the law is actually quite straightforward and is only translated, into and out of legalese, to make money for swindlers, lets just get rid of the swindlers.

Either way, lawyers to the spaceship.

boo3000

Brain Stroking wrote: »

You havent an absolute iota about what you are talking about and the emboldened pieces in the above post show that you arent willing to discuss the topic properly.

No no no, wait, no, no, wait, wait...

You don't know what your talking about.

Using emotive language does not make my argument any more or less valid. If I call Bertie Ahern a w**nker it does not mean that he's not, I don't get your point.

Brain Stroking wrote: »

If it is so easy why dont you get the exams and wow us all? Another internet warrior

Take what exams, the law exams? Yuk, dirty. Lets face it lawyers (hopefully and by the looks of things) are on the way out. Future generations will lump them in with the faith healers, bloodletters etc. The sooner it happens the better in my humble opinion, m'learned friend

Grayson

after looking at the thread on racist athletes, I think triple jumper has to be the dumbest profession.

McCrack

boo3000 wrote: »

Please see 'The Great Myth that Plain Language is not Precise' at www.plainlanguagenetwork.org/kimble/great4.pdf it's written by a professor of law who will explain the reasoning far better than I.

What I do know, is that it is becoming very close to possible to program computers using plain speak. Computers are absolutely unforgiving of error or ambiguity. In law a judge or jury could, if things were simplified, decide if you have deliberately misunderstood a law. Guess what, lawyers don't want the law to be simplified because they make so much money from it.

What blackhawk is saying comes back to the argument that the law is too complicated for common folk, such as, us to understand. If it's that complicated, that it needs its own language, then why should i be expected to follow it, decide on it in a jury, or vote on it directly or indirectly.

Yes I know I'm getting close to repeating myself here and it's getting near time to move on. I'm just going to spell out my argument once more to summerize. Legalese is itself the very proof that lawyers are nothing more than well organised BS artists.

If the law is so complicated that i cannot understand it without a special language, then it's no good. If it's no good, we don't need lawyers. Let's develop something useful and practicable.

If the law is actually quite straightforward and is only translated, into and out of legalese, to make money for swindlers, lets just get rid of the swindlers.

Either way, lawyers to the spaceship.

Again you are showing a great inability to comprehend what has been said to you and a lot of ignorance to boot.

I'll fill you in on a little secret. The actual law and by that I mean Acts of the Oireachtas, Statutory Instruments and caselaw has very little relevance to the practice of law. The practice of law is an art that has been developed over many many years and passed down through generations of lawyers. That's what lawyers learn in practice...how to work the law to the benefit of their client using established norms usually supplemented with practice directions from the respective professional bodies (Law Society and Bar Council).

Legalese is legal language peculiar to the practice of law. Every job/trade/profession has its own terminology/traditions/ways of doing/tools that are exclusive to that job/trade/profession and anybody working outside it will not necessarily understand it. There is nothing sinister in that. It's normal. Sure I'm not an electrician for example, I wouldn't know how to wire a house or the tools/procedure used or the names for them. I'm also not a commercial pilot either so I wouldn't have a clue about procedure and terminology pilots use daily when flying planes.

You are also displaying serious chip on your shoulder stuff. Like I said before, get yourself into a problem where you need your rights vindicated, don't go near a solicitor. Fight your own corner and see how far you get. Sure you have already said there is no need for lawyers and they are useless. You will have a big fool for a client then. Good luck.

PS I still find it amusing that you started a thread to slag off jobs people do as being "useless" and you yourself appear to be a dole recipient.

whirlpool

So, has anyone seen their profession mentioned yet?

boo3000

McCrack wrote: »

I'll fill you in on a little secret. That's what lawyers learn in practice...how to work the law to the benefit of their client using established norms usually supplemented with practice directions from the respective professional bodies (Law Society and Bar Council).

So the law is fairly straightforward? (I keep getting different answers on this) But lawyers expertise is in selling how to work the system. Great we're in agreement. Nothing to do with justice more to do with selling tricks, cons and showmanship. I think it's fair to say we don't really need them so off to the spaceship.

Regarding legalese, yes every profession has it's lingo, terminology and jargon but the degree to which they are necessary and comprehensible vary. For example, i think i could learn the lingo on a building site or in an accountancy office pretty quickly (not that i'd be able to do the jobs, just that i'd understand the lingo). I think it is sinister that lawyers use unnecessary jargon to oversell their wares to a vulnerable public

McCrack wrote: »

PS I still find it amusing that you started a thread to slag off jobs people do as being "useless" and you yourself appear to be a dole recipient.

I still find it amusing that your trying to put forward an argument but are so quick to jump to conclusions. Oh and nice one on people on the dole being useless (again sarcasm, just in case)

boo3000

whirlpool wrote: »

So, has anyone seen their profession mentioned yet?

I'm starting to suspect there might be a few lawyers on this thread :eek:

whirlpool

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I'm not saying Marketing isn't effective, of course it is, but for society as a whole their is no benefit.

Although, marketers encourage people to buy things, thus contributing to the economy.

Snickers Man

phasers wrote: »

Milkmen. Just walk to the shop yourself you lazy cnuts.

I haven't seen a milkman in years. Do they still exist? Or were they shot into space years ago?

I think we should be told.

Snickers Man

Oh and my vote for a profession we really don't need: psychologists.

Pottler

Snickers Man wrote: »

Oh and my vote for a profession we really don't need: psychologists.

Are you mad??

McCrack

boo3000 wrote: »

So the law is fairly straightforward? (I keep getting different answers on this) But lawyers expertise is in selling how to work the system. Great we're in agreement. Nothing to do with justice more to do with selling tricks, cons and showmanship. I think it's fair to say we don't really need them so off to the spaceship.

Regarding legalese, yes every profession has it's lingo, terminology and jargon but the degree to which they are necessary and comprehensible vary. For example, i think i could learn the lingo on a building site or in an accountancy office pretty quickly (not that i'd be able to do the jobs, just that i'd understand the lingo). I think it is sinister that lawyers use unnecessary jargon to oversell their wares to a vulnerable public



I still find it amusing that your trying to put forward an argument but are so quick to jump to conclusions. Oh and nice one on people on the dole being useless (again sarcasm, just in case)

I never said "law is fairly straightforward", again you are showing an inability to grasp what I have said. Lawyers expertise is gotten from legal education and more importantly practice (day-to-day work). If you don't think we need lawyers in a civilised and democratic society then you are really showing your ignorance and thickness. In fact you should get in that spaceship and away you go.

Legalese is generally Latin words or English words derived from Latin or French, easily defined on the internet with a google search or nothing stopping you buying a legal dictionary even. Away you go and learn it. What's stopping you? irishstatutebook.ie has every Act and SI for you to look up. You have the tools under you keyboard, sure you wont need to instruct a lawyer if you ever need legal advice/assistance because you have google and irishstatutebook.ie

MarkHitide

The personnel who work in the deliberately nebulous worlds of Market Research/Public Relations and Advertising/Marketing. I genuinely believe this country has more of them per capita than any other country.

boo3000

McCrack wrote: »

I never said "law is fairly straightforward", again you are showing an inability to grasp what I have said. Lawyers expertise is gotten from legal education and more importantly practice (day-to-day work). If you don't think we need lawyers in a civilised and democratic society then you are really showing your ignorance and thickness. In fact you should get in that spaceship and away you go.

Legalese is generally Latin words or English words derived from Latin or French, easily defined on the internet with a google search or nothing stopping you buying a legal dictionary even. Away you go and learn it. What's stopping you? irishstatutebook.ie has every Act and SI for you to look up. You have the tools under you keyboard, sure you wont need to instruct a lawyer if you ever need legal advice/assistance because you have google and irishstatutebook.ie

Ok, let's start with the basics, see this thing???? Yes this??? It's called a question mark and denotes a question. I'll Repeat the question. Is the law straightforward? (See I used a question mark). You seem to be saying that the law is straightforward (even an ignorant like me could learn it) but what's most important is how it's practiced.

This is getting to the nub of the situation. It's the expertise in practice we pay for. The codes and procedures, know how, wigs and gowns, legal speak (that i need a dictionary to understand). So the reason we should pay for this, is that it makes us more likely to win our case? Am I right? (Question mark, so it's a question)

It's this part that i think society does not need. This means justice goes out the window and paying for legal expertise largely determines who the law favours. Not beneficial to society, into the spaceship.

Pawwed Rig

Wedding planners.

The first victim of the death of the Celtic Tiger:D

McCrack

boo3000 wrote: »

Ok, let's start with the basics, see this thing???? Yes this??? It's called a question mark and denotes a question. I'll Repeat the question. Is the law straightforward? (See I used a question mark). You seem to be saying that the law is straightforward (even an ignorant like me could learn it) but what's most important is how it's practiced.

This is getting to the nub of the situation. It's the expertise in practice we pay for. The codes and procedures, know how, wigs and gowns, legal speak (that i need a dictionary to understand). So the reason we should pay for this, is that it makes us more likely to win our case? Am I right? (Question mark, so it's a question)

It's this part that i think society does not need. This means justice goes out the window and paying for legal expertise largely determines who the law favours. Not beneficial to society, into the spaceship.

Law is not straightforward, that's why you should instruct a lawyer for legal advice/assistance. Similarly you should hire a builder to build your house or a mechanic to fix your car or a pilot to fly you abroad on your holidays...

Get the point? Think I've dumbed it down as much as I can.

Giselle

McCrack wrote: »

Get the point? Think I've dumbed it down as much as I can.

...I don't think its going to be enough.

boo3000

McCrack wrote: »

Law is not straightforward, that's why you should instruct a lawyer for legal advice/assistance. Similarly you should hire a builder to build your house or a mechanic to fix your car or a pilot to fly you abroad on your holidays...

Get the point? Think I've dumbed it down as much as I can.

Ah, your very good. But you're sending mixed messages. So the law is too complicated for a layperson?

With all respect to builders and mechanics (and I think they're more important than lawyers) they don't charge 200 quid an hour.

Anybody will be more proficient at an activity if the do it all the time. The point of this thread is that society does not need some activities. My point and i've made it clearly several times (it feels like more) is that we do not need the activities that lawyers do. We need law, we need people to be proficient at administering it but that does not mean we need lawyers with all their airs and graces charging excessive amounts for those airs and graces.

Justice would be better served without lawyers charging huge amounts for showmanship.

You can agree or disagree but please get the point.

McCrack

boo3000 wrote: »

Ah, your very good. But you're sending mixed messages. So the law is too complicated for a layperson?

With all respect to builders and mechanics (and I think they're more important than lawyers) they don't charge 200 quid an hour.

Anybody will be more proficient at an activity if the do it all the time. The point of this thread is that society does not need some activities. My point and i've made it clearly several times (it feels like more) is that we do not need the activities that lawyers do. We need law, we need people to be proficient at administering it but that does not mean we need lawyers with all their airs and graces charging excessive amounts for those airs and graces.

Justice would be better served without lawyers charging huge amounts for showmanship.

You can agree or disagree but please get the point.

You see, you started this moronic thread inviting people to slag off others jobs as being useless.

You said in your opening post that lawyers do nothing for society and we should get rid of them. Now you say "we do not need the activities lawyers do but we need people proficient at administrating it".
In my book the only people that are proficient in administrating the law are those people legally educated, trained and licensed to practice law and guess who they are?
Yes lawyers (solicitors & barristers)

So away with your generations, sterotypes & ignorance and try get out of the scratcher before noon tomorrow. Do something productive with yourself.

boo3000

Lawyers (solicitors, barristers, counsel) are ineffective at administrating law and more specifically justice. They charge us for their showmanship and special unnecessary law speak.

This is not stereotyping or ignorance it can be deducted from very straightforward and solid reasoning. I've used the figure of 200 euros an hour throughout this debate as i've been told it's the going rate in Dublin for a solicitor, barristers and counsel charging more.

The only justification i can see for these rates (and the affect they have on peoples ability to access the legal system) is that the law must be very complicated but if this were the case it would be useless law (we wouldn't understand it etc)

Another justification for such a high rate is that people have no choice but to pay it and lawyers take advantage of this. Through protectionist practices such as legal speak, arcane codes and systems, can't contact a barrister etc lawyers con the public.

The other possible reason is that some lawyers are better than others. Meaning the wealthy can buy their way through the system. Again in this scenario lawyers are not beneficial to society.

Nobody here has offered a reasoning as to why lawyers as we know them (with all there huge costs and funny ways) are necessary. The only arguments i'm getting are either backing up what i'm saying or offering a 'there a necessary evil logic'

boo3000

McCrack wrote: »

You see, you started this moronic thread inviting people to slag off others jobs as being useless.

So away with your generations, sterotypes & ignorance and try get out of the scratcher before noon tomorrow. Do something productive with yourself.

I've never (sniffle) ever (sniffle) ever been so hurt.

I just start this thread (sniffle) because i thought people might like it. It's a cool book that a lot of people (sniffle) are into.

Also (sniffle) i just thought it was an interesting subject (sniffle)

WWWAAAAA!!!!!

\bawling uncontrollably

Brain Stroking

boo3000 wrote: »

Lawyers (solicitors, barristers, counsel) are ineffective at administrating law and more specifically justice. They charge us for their showmanship and special unnecessary law speak.

This is not stereotyping or ignorance it can be deducted from very straightforward and solid reasoning. I've used the figure of 200 euros an hour throughout this debate as i've been told it's the going rate in Dublin for a solicitor, barristers and counsel charging more.

The only justification i can see for these rates (and the affect they have on peoples ability to access the legal system) is that the law must be very complicated but if this were the case it would be useless law (we wouldn't understand it etc)

Another justification for such a high rate is that people have no choice but to pay it and lawyers take advantage of this. Through protectionist practices such as legal speak, arcane codes and systems, can't contact a barrister etc lawyers con the public.

The other possible reason is that some lawyers are better than others. Meaning the wealthy can buy their way through the system. Again in this scenario lawyers are not beneficial to society.

Nobody here has offered a reasoning as to why lawyers as we know them (with all there huge costs and funny ways) are necessary. The only arguments i'm getting are either backing up what i'm saying or offering a 'there a necessary evil logic'

No it has been explained quite clearly and comprehensively to you. You say we dont need lawyers yet then you say that we need people to administer the law. I'm surprised you can sit straight to type considering the twist your knickers seem to be in.

The bold bit shows, again, your complete ignorance. Do you think a mechanic charges you for fixing the car or for the way he glides around it and under it whilst fixing it? As for the legal speak argument, it has been pointed out to you that legal speak is the means by which legislators and those drafting contracts, pleadings etc ensure that there is one possible interpretation for the law on the issue at hand. If you cant get this then there is nothing really more to say

sock puppet

Why does anyone even argue with these retards?

opinion guy

anyone working in private health insurance.

F*ckers proftieer off the sick and contribute nothing

Daveysil15

Professional wine tasters.

Art Critics.

Film Critics.

Fortune Tellers.

Mardy Bum

opinion guy wrote: »

anyone working in private health insurance.

F*ckers proftieer off the sick and contribute nothing

Even those working in it admit this but the money an actuary gets paid its easy to forget it.

Colmustard

Irish nurses.