Ironically,
there are problems posting comments to the post below which is in itself an apology for not being able to send a newsletter.
I'm trying to look on the funny side (although many people think I already do).
HahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
The Drole Mr. Mair.
Funnyman extraordinaire.
We're all very aware
Of your humour so rare.
Shouldn't that be huh-a-huh-a-huh-a-huh-a-huh-huh with a wiggle of the pelvis?
(Big sister calm!)
We content ourselves, Eddie, with the reassuring tones of your soft Scottish drawl. All else is merely peripheral.
Now how about a sound clip featuring Young Kirsty, your feminine side?
Huh.
Not uh-huh. Just huh.
Eddie, you ARE the funny side.
HAH!
Fifi
If this Eddie-Elvis comparison doesn't stop soon I shall throw up.
Could anyone come up with a helpful suggestion as to why I am so hungry today? I've eaten plenty and have not had any exercise, and I don't think I have a tapeworm.
.........hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.................
Lordy, Eddie, you really gave me the giggles back there, and I'm still................hahaaaaaaahhahahahaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.............still laughing 7 hours later ...... hahahaha hahahaha hahahahaha hahahaha hahaha ...............
Appy: Have you checked all your valves are shut? If they aren't, it doesn't matter how much you eat, it'll all go straight through .........
As we're now headed towards a new strapline, and Master Burns has already had an airing elsewhere on the Blog, I thought it time to post here the source of the strapline in Eddie's honour "Cantie wi'Mair"
Contented Wi' Little and Cantie Wi' Mair
Contented wi' little, and cantie wi' mair,
Whene'er I foregather wi' Sorrow and Care,
I gie them a skelp as they're creepin' alang,
Wi' a cog o' guid swats, and an auld Scottish sang.
I whyles claw the elbow o' troublesome Thought;
But man is a sodger, and life is a faught:
My mirth and gude humour are coin in my pouch,
And my Freedom's my lairdship nae monarch daur touch.
A towmond o' trouble, should that be my fa',
A night o' gude fellowship sowthers it a':
When at the blythe end o' our journey at last,
Wha the deil ever thinks o' the road he has past!
Blind Chance, let her snapper and stoyte on her way;
Be't to me, be't frae me, e'en let the jade gae:
Come Ease, or come Travail, come Pleasure or Pain,
My warst word is:- "Welcome, and welcome again!"
While written by Rabbie as a self portrait, it could also lend itself to Eddie, don't you think?
When did you last see a Water vole?
Jason (3);
Eddie has a feminine side called Kirsty? I've been hearing for years that us chaps need to get in touch with our feminine sides. Wonder what mine is called? And how do I get in touch with it?
Ledge (9);
I'd probably agree with your final comment, if only I knew what the rest was about.
Very confused.
Si.
Simon: Eddie's is easily found on Desert Island Disks, or the news on a.n.other network...
Mine appears to be an East German shot putter named Olga. At least I now understand the hairy legs.
(Stand by for cue to very old pub joke...)
What's yours?
Morning Si, It's basically saying ''Always look on the bright side of life''.... I'd whistle if I could.
I have just "listened again" to Vera Baird as I missed most of last nights programme. I am a solicitor working in Criminal Legal Aid area and was appalled to hear the minister, who was a legal aid lawyer herself, telling your viewers that we get paid by the hour. Civil and Family lawyers may get paid by the hour but solicitors who work in the Magistrates' Court in Crime do not. 90% of the criminal cases in this country are dealt with in the Magistrates' Court. All of those case are subject to fixed fees and have been for a number of years. We do not, I repeat, do not, get paid by the hour unless and until a case is so complex and takes such a long time that the amount of work done on it takes it outside the fixed fee system. Whilst it is accepted that this does happen it does not happen very often. The Minister really shoudl get her facts straight before spouting on national radio. The Means Testing system that has been introduced in the Magistrates' Court does not work and has meant that some very vulnerable people are not being legally represented because they fall outside the very limited scope of legal aid and cannot afford to pay. How many people on average wages could afford to find £1,000 plus to defend themselves against state prosecution at the drop of a hat. Not many. The whole system is crumbling around our ears and Vera Baird continues to chant the Treasury mantra and ignore the blindingly obvious.
Thanks Gillian (13);
It might as well be in Polish for all that I can understand of it.
Tea, toast and bacon butties over on the beach now.
Si.
For you, Simon (and I hope it applies to us all)
Contented with little, and merry with more,
Whenever I meet with Sorrow and Care,
I give them a smack as they're creeping along,
With a pot of good ale, and an old Scottish song.
Sometimes I scratch the elbow of troublesome Thought;
But man is a soldier, and life is a fight:
My mirth and good humour are coin in my pouch,
And my Freedom's my lairdship no monarch dare touch.
A twelvemonth of trouble, should that be my lot,
A night of good fellowship puts it to right:
When at the happy end of our journey at last,
Who the devil ever thinks of the road he has past!
Blind Chance, let her stumble and stagger on her way;
Whether to me, or from me, at the end let her go:
Come Ease, or come Travail, come Pleasure or Pain,
My most cruel word is:- "Welcome, and welcome again!"
(A Ledgie translation - If Eddie wishes to revise, he's very welcome)
Ruth Edwards (15): I am not disagreeing with you but offering a slightly different angle on one thing that was said. Vera Baird mentioned "rewarding inefficient solicitors" - is this perhaps where the unless and until a case is so complex and takes such a long time that the amount of work done on it takes it outside the fixed fee system kicks in? Perhaps less honest solicitors than yourself inflate the work through inefficiency and end up managing to get a disproportionate number of cases outside fixed fees?
This does not justify action against the many, but should perhaps lead to some body to investigate "unusual" claims levels.
Something I have run into in my dealings as an Appropriate Adult is that if the young people are 16 they have to give their National Insurance numbers - I do not know if failing to have this stops them getting represented, but it is not the thing uppermost in the mind of an arrested youth.
About the system falling around our ears, this is something I have worried abut for some time. We have had coach and horses run through accepted legal process in this country - the latest Criminal Justice bill being just another frightening example of the State being able to restrict you regardless of lack of proof to take a matter through the criminal courts. And this presided over by a legal man.
Another matter about which I despair. Does anyone know Claire Short's address - I might just join her in her campaign for more independent MPs.
Simon:
'It might as well be in Polish for all that I can understand of it.'
Are you suggesting that Burns 'waxes lyrical'?
;0)
Jason (18) I totally agree that we would be benefit from indepedent MPs. I don't really understand the mechanics of PR, and I know I'm a bit late joining this particular debate, but its appeal to me is that a coalition government could help to take the ''Party'' out of Politics, which surely has to be a good thing
Ledge (17);
Thanks for that.
Probably sounds lyrical, when done in the original by someone with a broad accent. And I'd love to hear it done that way. But I thoroughly appreciate the sentiments in the 'Ledgie' translation too. Not a bad approach to life in general.
Oh, and Jason G, you knew that Rabbie was a Freemason? See his entry on Wikipedia if interested. It contains a good section on his Masonic life.
BigSis (19);
That brought a smile to my face, once my pea-sized brain figured out the pun!
:-}
Si.
Eddie: Re emails. I've just realised that the version I've sent you will have your name where Lissa's should be, but rest assured that the version I sent you had her name in the appropriate space.
So you haven't been given your cards by me or by anyone else.
I do hope both you and Lissa have enjoyed it, anyway, as it comes from your Sister's Website (no, not me, fellow froggers).
If I knew how to link it to the Blog I would, but my skills don't extend that far. They don't extend very far at all, actually.
Gillian (20) et al;
Party politics does not have to be a bad thing. Any party is essentially a Union of people of like mind and viewpoint. It enables them to present their view to the electorate collectively, and thus appeal to a broader portion of the people nationally.
It functions much like any Trades Union, by allowing the agglomeration of a larger number of people to have a collective appeal and to have a greater bargaining power with the electorate than they could hope to achieve separately. And to pool their financial and other resources together for better efficiency. Kind of 'Together we stand, divided we fall'.
The problems arise with a large majority, with a big number of 'lobby fodder' MP's who simply do what they are told to do by the Whips, irrespective of personal viewpoint or conscience. This allows a Government to ram it's policies through Parliament without due discussion and debate. They are relieved of the need to make a proper case because they can get their way anyhow.
What is required is not Independent (i.e. non-party) MP's per se, but independently-minded MP's who listen to their constituents, to their conscience and to their principles and vote accordingly. This assumes that they have both conscience and principles.....
It will be no surprise to regular Froggers if I say that many of the Labour Party's 'usual suspects' are not my cup of political tea. Our views are poles apart. But I genuinely have the utmost respect for those who do as I have suggested and vote the way their conscience tells them to, without thought of advancement or preferment from their party leaders.
Parties should be looser coalitions of like minded people, not the monolithic forces that they seem to be today. For all the critique of Maggie she had a substantial internal dissent, at least in the beginning, in her Government from the 'Wets' and the 'One Nation' Tories who disagreed with her stronger and more dissonant tone and applied a check to her domination. It was only once she overcame that internal divide by marginalising the Wets that she made the fatal blunder of the Poll Tax.
Labour, hungry for power after Foot and Kinnock, shed it's conscience to attain power. I'm thinking of things like Clause 4, unilateralism and support for Unions and opposition to business. This was the Blair revolution. To ditch those principles which prevented Labour from being elected and adopting such of the policies of the Tories as might broaden their appeal to the centre political ground.
As such he has had the use of unlimited political power for his first two terms. Their has been no real internal or external opposition worth the name, because of the epic scale of his overall majorities. The real sadness is that he hasn't used it to the full in the way that he could have to introduce genuinely 'Labour' policies. History may well record the Blair years as a squandered opportunity to change the face of Britain.
And, of course, it was that same lack of opposition, plus his duping of the other parties with the dodgy dossier, which enabled him to follow Maggie in making his own fatal blunder, the Iraq war. there is probably no way that he would have got that approved by Parliament post-2005 general Election becasue his reduced majority would have meant a lrger 'No' vote.
Si.
Oh dear, all that talk of revolutionary hips threw me when I posted this on the wrong thread:
Fellow Froggers:
I think the following should link to the card sent to Lissa this morning (her name inserted in the blank).
Thought the other froggers might like to see and chuckle!
/bbc7/greetings/card2.shtml
N.B. I did make it clear that we know she's leaving of her own volition
Incidentally, I note that Mr. Mair has tried to send another newsletter. This may explain the problems I'm now having with my email ......
To Jason Good (18): The problem is that the new mechanisms on civil, family and criminal work alike, penalise equally those doing more complex work and those, if any, who are inefficient without bothering to check which factor applies.
It is not as if the current scheme allows it to go on unchecked. Cases that are claimed for under hourly rates in the escapes from fixed fees in crime and civil work are assessed on a sample basis and if any firm is found to be inflating claims inappropriately in the way you describe, the LSC demands back thousands of pounds. The penalty is so draconian that firms always try to err on the side of caution, but these are judgement calls, and there are often disagreements as to what is or is not reasonable - particularly, strangely enough, towards the end of the financial year.
For family work and civil cases that proceed to full court cases, each bill is assessed individually, so there is no scope for claiming for work that was not both necessary to do and performed efficiently.
Meanwhile, the taxpayer continues to pay more than three times the legal aid rate to solicitors acting for NHS trusts, and exponentially more to the City lawyers instructed by the Government. I can understand that publicly funded work should be paid less than private work, but when other publicly funded lawyers are paid so much more, something is seriously wrong.
Big Sis - well it made me smile!
Newsletter at 1.43, stock cubes and all.
Well, it is rural Sussex, isnt' it?
Big Sis (9), it's a thought -- but an "ugh"-inducing one...
Simon (23) Agree with you about the party politics bit at the beginning but couldn't disagree more about your view of the Labour Party. And remeber that the Labour Party and the Labour Government are not the same thing.
Appy: I wanted to make you smile, not ugh. Are you still feeling hungry today?
This a serious thought: If you're taking any medication for anything else, your hunger could be a side effect. It did happen to me once.
On a more amusing note, I was once given some steroid-based stuff for a serious ear infection. The side effect was to make me incredibly, uncontrollably h**ny, and I had terrible problems stopping it from getting completely out of hand. It was incredibly embarrassin and most uncomfortable. But, in retrospect, very funny.
I posted something witty for you, Appy, but I think it's got lost somewhere.
Anyway, sorry I made you feel ugh. I wanted to bring a smile to your face, but have sadly failed ...
The post I sent was a reminiscence of when I was prescribed a steroid for an ear infection which had a rather alarming side effect. For about 24 hours I turned into a predatory female, whose lust knew no bounds. For many, many reasons, I had to try to curb my desire. It was most uncomfortable, and embarrassing to boot. But funny in retrospect.
Oh my, I thought I'd lost the first posting on l'affaire steroide, but now I see I've a double post.
As if it wasn't embarrassing enough in the first place.
Big Sis (29)
I am tempted to ask if this "steroid-based stuff" has a name and if it is available on prescription.
I know that the honourable course would be to leave the room and wait until I’m called back, when you have finished this conversation with Ap.
I will probably wait just outside with my ear pressed to the door.
Appy (28);
I know that we'll agree to disagree. I understand the distinction between the party and the Government.
I hold that after three Election defeats Labour was indeed hungry for power. Maybe desperate for power, and wondering what it had to do, after it lost in 1992 when the win was in the bag.
Kinnock knew this, and also knew that he could not deliver that final push. He knew that leaving some long-established ideas behind was required and did much in that direction.
I still maintain that the party shed it's conscience, particularly when it dumped Clause 4. And it was the membership which changed Clause 4 at conference. The Party itself, which wasn't in power as the Government of the day.
That clause was part of the soul of the party itself. Not just of the government. 'New' Labour is a complete reinvention, trying to take elements from both sides of the political divide. Hence the idea of the 'Third Way', a bridge between the two existing parties, synthesising the best of each. The change of Clause 4 was the symbol which defined the point where Labour stepped to the centre and became New Labour.
Have a look at the Wikipedia entry on Clause 4. It's author acknowledges that Labour was still struggling for electoral acceptibility until the Blair-inspired Clause 4 alteration gave a signal to the electorate that the Party itself had changed.
John Smith, for all his ability, may not have made it to No. 10, because he would not have been able to reform the party into it's current, successful shape. That's one of the great imponderables of British politics.
The Party could see that the notion of reform was both vital to attain power and appealing to the electorate. When the Blair/Brown project came along it formulated the changes, demonstrated the media interest in those changes, placed a photogenic and charismatic man in charge and thus convinced the Party that the changes proposed, however distasteful to many, were indeed the way for Labour to achieve power.
In essence it had indeed discarded some of its core principles purely for electoral gain and to obtain political power.
I'm not being judgemental here. I do not state that this was; cynical; a necessity; or whatever. But Labour did sacrifice something of itself to be able form a Government.
And lest I be accused of bias, it seems that the Tories are doing something similar. I don't know that I like the idea of sacrificing principles for power any more with them than with Labour. Again; cynicism; necessity; something else? Others will judge.
Si.
BigSis (29,30);
I imagine your SO is still trying to ascertain the nature of said medication, in order to obtain further doses for you?
:-)
Si.
Thanks, Big Sister (24)....I did chuckle
Oh but Big Sis, you did make me smile - and think "ugh" at the same time!
I suppose -- and I should've thought of this before asking -- that as I'm now nearly well again, my apetite might be to do with my body making up for lost time and wanting to "rebuild" me (a la 'The Bionic Man'... then again, no, not really...) Anyway, no, I'm not taking anything. Judging by your steroid expereince this is just as well -- I only have my favourite Johnny photo to play with today!... ;-)
I'm all for the reduction of '', as many will already know.
In the absence of PR, the tendency is similar to that in commerce, the larger entities continually absorb the smaller until we end up with two gargantuan and almost indistinguishable parties, each trying to be all things to all folk. Look around you.
Let's have lots of parties, all capable of having their say and making their compromises and alliances with each other, but in a diverse, de-centralised and ever-changing system. Sounds like Nature, doesn't it, and remember, there's a prize for anyone who can identify a system in Nature.
xx
ed
Richard Miller (25): Thanks for that. I imagined that there would be some method of checking but don't have a lot of faith in the system to actually do obvious things anymore.
Interesting what you observe about other solicitors within the public sector. I also wonder what the pay and conditions are like for the CPS lawyers.
My (very limited) experience is that most cases are very obvious when it comes to charge/caution/drop and that Custody Sergeants predict with unfailing accuracy what the outcome will be without the several hours sitting and waiting. As a volunteer my time is free to the system, but the PC is being paid to sit there, drinking coffee, waiting for CPS Direct to return the call rather than go back out and do good. Something wrong there, I feel.
RJD and Si: If only I could remember what it was called! And it was pre-SO. I was in a situation where there was no 'known' relief on hand. But lots of 'unknown' relief. And I was trying to be so, so good.
A long and expensive taxi ride was called for.
Sis,
I've got some steroid stuff I was given for an ear infection, but I don't recall any such effect. I think I'll dig the stuff out and see if it works now...It's at leaast three years old, but maybe it improves with age?
Thanks for the reminder.
xx
ed
Si, your phrase, regarding ''the appeal to the centre political ground'' is what makes me believe that this would be a good time to have a coalition government. I write as one who voted Labour well before it was New, and who cried with joy when Labour came into power. I agree with everything you say about the Labour Party since. The thing is, there used to be a real, perceivable difference between the parties, which no longer exists in any real life-changing way as far as I can see. For the first time in my life I don't know who I would vote for in the next election and more importantly I don't know what difference it would make anyway....and it's not simply cynicism that makes me say that. Perhaps having a Government that was genuinely ''Centre'' would shake us out of our complacency, and there would be a renewal of true political zeal and real Opposition.
Big Sis, hang on until I get to my favourite cafe and see my favourite waiter again -- then give me the name of this stuff if you can dig it up. Perhasp it will embolden me!
Simon, we do always agree to differ, don't we. Some of wht you say is undoubtedly true, but I contend that -- despite the impression given at the time -- true, 'old' Labour was not only about one clause, and thus Labour was not altogether given up by the removal of Clause 4 -- that really is far too simplistic. I could say all sorts more, and I might later, but for now I have to finish a piece of work if I ever want to go home...
Oh I wish I hadn't come back for another look! It makes me really angry and depressed when people say they can't see the difference between the major political parties. Please don't judge any of them via the news media -- not even the lovable PM-- but read the manifestoes, examine their track records from the primary sources and investigate their values and views of human nature. Look at how their MPs and Councillors have voted on major issues. Listen to how they deal with fellow human beings. Look for the evidence -- don't expect it to be brought to you. The huge diffferences will smack you in the face.
I'm going home to cry with frustration.
Good to see some of my fellow lawyers contributing to this blog! Hi guys.
They will know me under a less mad name I think.
I posted my little contribution on Legal Aid on another thread, but no-one noticed *sob*.
I support everything Ruth Edwards and Richard Miller says about the system. Especially Ruth's point about Vera Baird getting her facts so horribly wrong.
Mary
Jason, a person in custody at a police station doesn't have to provide his solicitor with his or her NI Number but if he or she is not in full time education legal aid for court will be means tested and if the solicitor doesn't obtain the information for this at the earliest stage then there is the possibility of delays at court for the young person. Actually as I understand it most 16 year olds cannot claim benefit in their own right and generally wouldn't be on the sort of benefit that would require that number. I suspect the legal advisors you meet may just be playing safe.
It's not on the minds of many people in custody to think about such numbers but you would be amazed at the amount of people who know their numbers off by heart.
Your point though really highlights the strain the system is under.
Mary
Jason, I'm not up on the latest salaries for CPS lawyers but all I know is that some very promising defence lawyers that I know have abandoned Legal Aid work for the relative security of the Civil Service (CPS). It is very difficult for private firms like mine to afford to keep on young lawyers. They also get very attractive pension schemes and of course no out of hours work unless they choose to work for the out of hours service which they can do from home, equipment supplied.
I was at a conference in November of Criminal Lawyers where the head of the CPS was proudly telling us how the CPS funding had increased by a huge percentage in the last few years, whilst at the same time legal aid rates have not increased at all. Richard could give you chapter and verse on the rates and dates.
And before anyone starts accusing me of being a fat cat and complaining I can tell you that I am most certainly not a high rate tax payer by any means.
Mary
I noticed you making the point Mary and making it veyr well I thought.
Now we have finally got expense forms for our two abortive trips to court to help defend ther indefensible, so can someone explain to me why on earth we need to put our National Insurance numbers on those?
Cos unless there's a good reason, they aren't having mine.
I agree Aperitif (43) that it is easy to forget what it was like before, and David Cameron did sound as if he was taking on social justice there for a while, but TB is not any version of Labour that I can identify with.
mary, I promise I did spot your contribution on legal aid where ever it was, but I had nothing to respond, and I just absorbed the information!
Mmary - I saw it too!
Big Sis - mmm, do let us know if you have any left? I did have some steroid ointment for an eczemic condition, but as my nose was the problem, and the cream didn't work, I binned it. sob
madmary (46): I just see my idea of retraining go floating away towards the horizon as you speak. Ah, well. I'm sure I'll work out what I really want to do before I actually grow up. As life begins at 40, I am only really 7 months old. Plenty of time, then....
ValP: It was far too long ago for me to have any left. It was also, from memory, very strong because the inner ear infection was very bad.
I'd not recommend trying it with steroidal creams! These were pills .....
But, if it's any consolation, it's not an experience I'd want to repeat. It's one thing to feel r*ndy, but quite enough to feel totally out of control (and that was how I felt!)
Happy days!
Hey! Where's my response to Valery from last night???
Ap - I think I can imagine what it might have been!! This is Friday, after all?
Exactly so Valery -- I asked why you might've needed Big Sis' substance. Clearly our moderator understood my reference to your Fridays and was appalled... ;-)
Valery - Whether you can imagine it or not I still want to know what it was. My ear is still pressed to the door!
Jason if you are thinking of retraining as a solicitor go for it. You can make loads of money doing the boring stuff. You can have an OK living doing the criminal stuff. BUT the criminal stuff is soooo interesting. It's like living in a perpetual drama, and you are privileged to have insights into the lives of others and occasionally be able to help.
I hope I haven't misunderstood what you were saying. Oh and I qualified when I was 42, I know someone else who qualified at 50.
Mary
madmary: I don't think I could cope with the hours to be honest. It's an idea among many on my back burner. Decisions, decisions.
Jason, the hours can be gruelling sometimes, but it's quite good fun and most solicitors cope as you usually have a rota which means you know when you are working overtime and when you are free not to.
It's a drag sometimes, but you sort of get used to it. Far better than being a doctor in a hospital. That must be hell!
Mary