Comments on: Excuse me? http://crookedtimber.org/2005/09/16/excuse-me/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:53:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Yarrow http://crookedtimber.org/2005/09/16/excuse-me/comment-page-1/#comment-99611 Yarrow Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:37:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3816#comment-99611 "The opportunistic bit is—obviously—that they base the claim that these victims should be treated differently ... " Ah! I'd taken your post to be accusing them of opportunistically lining their own pockets in some way, and couldn't figure out how. Instead you're accusing them of advancing an argument in an intellectually shabby way. Fair enough—but isn't that what lawyers <b>do</b>? “The opportunistic bit is—obviously—that they base the claim that these victims should be treated differently … ”

Ah! I’d taken your post to be accusing them of opportunistically lining their own pockets in some way, and couldn’t figure out how. Instead you’re accusing them of advancing an argument in an intellectually shabby way. Fair enough—but isn’t that what lawyers do?

]]> By: Chris Bertram http://crookedtimber.org/2005/09/16/excuse-me/comment-page-1/#comment-99603 Chris Bertram Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:22:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3816#comment-99603 The opportunistic part isn't that they are saying that victims shouldn't have their benefits reduced, nor is it necessarily opportunistic to say that victims of terrorism in general should be treated differently (though I don't think they should). The opportunistic bit is -- obviously -- that they base the claim that these victims should be treated differently on a suggestion that the goverment is co-responsible (with the terrorists) for the bombings. The opportunistic part isn’t that they are saying that victims shouldn’t have their benefits reduced, nor is it necessarily opportunistic to say that victims of terrorism in general should be treated differently (though I don’t think they should). The opportunistic bit is—obviously—that they base the claim that these victims should be treated differently on a suggestion that the goverment is co-responsible (with the terrorists) for the bombings.

]]> By: Yarrow http://crookedtimber.org/2005/09/16/excuse-me/comment-page-1/#comment-99602 Yarrow Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:10:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3816#comment-99602 Some context for the UK-clueless please: what does it mean that "victims who are currently in receipt of benefits will have the amount of the CICA payment deducted from their benefits"? That sounds to me like people receiving government payments for something else will have those benefits docked in the amount of the CICA payments, which does seem like the kind of thing to which pro-bono lawyers might object on behalf of their clients. I don't know that such a policy is more obnoxious when the victims are victims of terrorism rather than (say) common and garden variety murder; but I don't see why it's opportunism on the part of the lawyers to object to it. Some context for the UK-clueless please: what does it mean that “victims who are currently in receipt of benefits will have the amount of the CICA payment deducted from their benefits”? That sounds to me like people receiving government payments for something else will have those benefits docked in the amount of the CICA payments, which does seem like the kind of thing to which pro-bono lawyers might object on behalf of their clients.

I don’t know that such a policy is more obnoxious when the victims are victims of terrorism rather than (say) common and garden variety murder; but I don’t see why it’s opportunism on the part of the lawyers to object to it.

]]> By: Harry B http://crookedtimber.org/2005/09/16/excuse-me/comment-page-1/#comment-99594 Harry B Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:24:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/?p=3816#comment-99594 Odd initials. Are they trying to be confused with the SPG, or the SPGB? Odd initials. Are they trying to be confused with the SPG, or the SPGB?

]]>