Comments on: It’s a dog’s life

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:00:39 +0000

Armagnac, I guess your question is at the root of my query. In our present system, the quality of one’s experience of the legal system is often (not always) directly proportional to the amount of money one has to spend. So some millionaire can throw money at a top QC on a stupid matter (pets, or whatever), and some guy can languish in gaol on a charge of which he is innocent because of a lack of decent defence counsel.

It seemed at the outset like the Channel 7 litigation was one of those cases where Stokes believed what he wanted to believe, and was determined to bring the action regardless, because he was convinced he was right. He’d be a vexatious litigant…if he didn’t have so much money…

By: armagnac esq

armagnac esq — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:22:11 +0000

To put it another way I am saying there’s an analogy between this issue and the more general question of whether we give to ‘each according to his/her need’, or allow the wealthy few to indulge every whim while others, even in our own country, go without the basics.

By: armagnac esq

armagnac esq — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:20:30 +0000

Persuasive, to a point, however I would turn this back and say ‘what of all the abuse of the legal system by large corporations and absurdly rich morons who use it as a tactical plaything, while others have no access to justice’?

Lawyers for pets does sound ridiculous to me, but perhaps no more so than channel 7 spending 20,000 a day to bring Jonathan Sumption over to argue a losing battle over football rights- a useless issue of no relevance to the common person, just one man’s astonishing ego (Stokes, not the relatively humble if brilliant Sumption).

By: Legal Eagle

Legal Eagle — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:33:14 +0000

Laura, fair enough to give your pet quality food. I wasn’t questioning that. We don’t give the family dog the cheapest brand of dog food either; we get him a decent brand with identifiable origins. We want him to be healthy and happy, and if we have to spend a little extra to do that, I think it’s fair enough.

However, it’s really a question of degree. What about pets that are given gourmet food cooked by expert chefs? Pets that have diamond collars? Pets that wear Gucci? I tend to find that disgusting. Dogs don’t need diamond collars to be healthy and happy.

The specific question here is about pets who are represented by lawyers, and some humans whose lives may hang in the balance are not represented in our legal system. What then? What is the priority?

By: laura

laura — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:38:01 +0000

i appreciate your sentiment, but it’s a bit of an artificial dichotomy . . . not much more logical than the ‘you must finish your sprouts if you want to help the starving children in africa’ school of thought. i’d much rather spend a little bit extra so my cat can eat food of identifiable origin. i’m not convinced the world would be a better place if i didn’t.

By: pete m

pete m — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:14:29 +0000

“So what happens when a dog has a top attorney but an inmate on death row can only get a legal aid attorney? ”

oh oh … packet of worms in that sentence!

hehe

I argued quite often with female colleagues who have dogs and hold them in higher esteem and value than fellow human beings. Could never win ;(

re corporations - great documentary called “corporation” - haven’t seen it but riveting reviews on the unchecked power of them.