Thread

some disappointing news

demolitionred, 04 May 2006 10:27:45

Rabinder Singh -- whose opinion has been very important in persuading the Hoem office to tread carefully and seems to have been a major reason why groups were asked to meet with the Home Office -- has approached the Spanenr Trust and said his opinion took longer than anticipated to draw up.

He says he now wants 2,000 +VAT for his opinion.

While this is usual practice, Spanner have asked for him to take into consideration the vicarious finacial position of both Spanner and backlash.

They ahve -- unfortunately -- had no success.

It looks therefore like we have to write a much larger than expected cheque for this expense.

Fortunately, we do have the money in the bank to do so.

while this is a blow it is worth noting how important Singh's opinion was and also it is time to thank the many donors who ve made it possible to amek this payment and to publish new flyers and other publicity material.

Alan, 04 May 2006 20:40:31

I can spare a bit more cash if necessary. Can anyone else

Al

Author wrote:
> Rabinder Singh -- whose opinion has been very important in persuading the Hoem office to tread carefully and seems to have been a major reason why groups were asked to meet with the Home Office -- has approached the Spanenr Trust and said his opinion took longer than anticipated to draw up.
> He says he now wants 2,000 +VAT for his opinion.
> While this is usual practice, Spanner have asked for him to take into consideration the vicarious finacial position of both Spanner and backlash.
> They ahve -- unfortunately -- had no success.
> It looks therefore like we have to write a much larger than expected cheque for this expense.
> Fortunately, we do have the money in the bank to do so.
> while this is a blow it is worth noting how important Singh's opinion was and also it is time to thank the many donors who ve made it possible to amek this payment and to publish new flyers and other publicity material.

Teddy, 04 May 2006 21:54:02

This is disappointing...but I guess it gives Mr Singh's paper a better look of integrity and impartiality if things are kept to a purely professional arrangement.

T.

Author wrote:
> Rabinder Singh -- whose opinion has been very important in persuading the Hoem office to tread carefully and seems to have been a major reason why groups were asked to meet with the Home Office -- has approached the Spanenr Trust and said his opinion took longer than anticipated to draw up.
> He says he now wants 2,000 +VAT for his opinion.
> While this is usual practice, Spanner have asked for him to take into consideration the vicarious finacial position of both Spanner and backlash.
> They ahve -- unfortunately -- had no success.
> It looks therefore like we have to write a much larger than expected cheque for this expense.
> Fortunately, we do have the money in the bank to do so.
> while this is a blow it is worth noting how important Singh's opinion was and also it is time to thank the many donors who ve made it possible to amek this payment and to publish new flyers and other publicity material.

Paul C. Dickie, 04 May 2006 23:02:04

In message <6910188.1146771340693.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>I can spare a bit more cash if necessary. Can anyone else

No, nor should anyone have to stump up any extra. Nor should BackLash
nor the Spanner Trust, for it may seem at least a little less than
responsible for a lawyer to incur costs or to run up a bill for a client
without keeping that client informed of how those costs are rising.

The Law Society might have something to say about such antics.

>Author wrote:
>> Rabinder Singh -- whose opinion has been very important in persuading the Hoem
>office to tread carefully and seems to have been a major reason why groups were
>asked to meet with the Home Office -- has approached the Spanenr Trust and said
>his opinion took longer than anticipated to draw up.
>> He says he now wants 2,000 +VAT for his opinion.
>> While this is usual practice, Spanner have asked for him to take into
>consideration the vicarious finacial position of both Spanner and backlash.
>> They ahve -- unfortunately -- had no success.
>> It looks therefore like we have to write a much larger than expected cheque
>for this expense.
>> Fortunately, we do have the money in the bank to do so.
>> while this is a blow it is worth noting how important Singh's opinion was and
>also it is time to thank the many donors who ve made it possible to amek this
>payment and to publish new flyers and other publicity material.

Although I am not a lawyer, I do believe he should be referred to the
celebrated retort in the (unreported) matter of Arkell v. Pressdram.

--
< Paul >

doulos, 05 May 2006 01:50:24

demolitionred, 05 May 2006 10:11:29

Alan wrote:
> I can spare a bit more cash if necessary. Can anyone else
> Al

demolitionred wrote: we have had sufficient fundraising to cover this. donations have been coming in it at a reasonable level and we had one very genrous donor that paid for the last round of flyers (200 pounds).

*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 05 May 2006 10:09:51 ***

demolitionred, 05 May 2006 10:14:04

Paul wrote:

> No, nor should anyone have to stump up any extra. Nor should BackLash
> nor the Spanner Trust, for it may seem at least a little less than
> responsible for a lawyer to incur costs or to run up a bill for a client
> without keeping that client informed of how those costs are rising.> --
> < Paul >

Spanner have been in extended discussion with Rabinder because I said much the same as you. These discussions have got nowhere.

I am assured that his original quote was more of an estimate. If he had stopped after 5 hourse, we would not have got the fully researched, timely and invaluable opinion we did. (which took 10 hours)

Apparently this is not uncommon practice.

*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 05 May 2006 10:10:35 ***

zak, 05 May 2006 19:39:01

Not the point. He initially said he would charge Ł1k and now he's all of a
sudden doubled it, without any warning that his initial estimate was way
off? That's regarded as dodgy when builders/plumbers/car mechanics do it,
so is it really permissible in lawyers just because they've been to college?
Original Message:
-----------------

doulos youngslave@gmail.com, 05 May 2006 19:39:01

Well how much more than expected has he asked for? I mean, while it is
unfortunate, I imagine the price is reasonable for his measured
opinion and Ł2000 should be replenished by more fundraising
eventually. Considering the size of the community, it isn't an
unreasonable cost to incur while defending it.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4686

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

demolitionred, 05 May 2006 22:29:02

evilzak wrote:
> Not the point. He initially said he would charge Ł1k and now he's all of a
> sudden doubled it, without any warning that his initial estimate was way
> off? That's regarded as dodgy when builders/plumbers/car mechanics do it,
> so is it really permissible in lawyers just because they've been to college?

Yes it is permissable. When your plumber does it it is irritating but you cough up. same here, I'm afraid.

Graham Marsden, 05 May 2006 22:53:45

Hi there,

demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:

>>Not the point. He initially said he would charge Ł1k and now he's all of a
>>sudden doubled it, without any warning that his initial estimate was way
>>off? That's regarded as dodgy when builders/plumbers/car mechanics do it,
>>so is it really permissible in lawyers just because they've been to college?
>
> Yes it is permissable. When your plumber does it it is irritating but you
> cough up.

Not necessarily. If they've only given an Estimate, then the law doesn't
generally consider that as binding. If it's a Quote (preferably in
writing) then you can make a good case for not paying any more unless
the job required more work than originally planned for and that could
not be forseen (and even then they're expected to tell you before doing it).

> same here, I'm afraid.

I'm not sure if the following applies to Barristers, however Which?
magazine (in 2001) had the following to say about problems with
Solicitors, including higher than expected fees:

"[...]solicitors' practice rules expect them to meet certain standards
of client care. These include giving this type of information to their
clients at the start of the case."

"Solicitors should keep their clients regularly informed about progress
and costs."

"If you're unhappy with your solicitor's service, you should write to
the solicitor first. They may be able to put things right without need
for any further action. If this doesn't help, make a formal complaint,
in writing, to the partner responsible for complaints. If you're unhappy
with the response, you should contact the Office for the Supervision of
Solicitors, the complaints handling body of the Law Society of England
and Wales"

However since The Law Society is run by lawyers for lawyers, although
complainants have started getting better results, Which? suggests that
there was still room for improvement.

Cheers,
Graham.

demolitionred, 05 May 2006 23:22:27

Teddy, 06 May 2006 02:26:21

I agree. This document is invaluable to the campaign...

Author wrote:
> The original guesstimate was based on 5 hours work. Rabinder worked over a weekend at the last minute to get us the opinion as soon as we needed it. As it turned out, it took 10 hours. But we got an opinion from possibly the leading Human Rights lawyer in the UK. It was well argued, unconditional in its support of our view and has done more than we could have possibly hoped for.
> There was not the option to ask us whether we wanted him to stop and not give us an opinion or only half an opinion.

Paul C. Dickie, 06 May 2006 08:10:07

In message <480924.1146867466315.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>
, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
>The original guesstimate was based on 5 hours work. Rabinder worked over a
>weekend at the last minute to get us the opinion as soon as we needed it. As it
>turned out, it took 10 hours. But we got an opinion from possibly the leading
>Human Rights lawyer in the UK. It was well argued, unconditional in its support
>of our view and has done more than we could have possibly hoped for.
>There was not the option to ask us whether we wanted him to stop and not give us
>an opinion or only half an opinion.

How is it *possible* to have "half an opinion"?

--
< Paul >

snowflake, 06 May 2006 11:11:42

On 06/05/06, Paul C. Dickie wrote:

> How is it *possible* to have "half an opinion"?

"I think I might favour /this/ option, but then again I might prefer
/this/ other option. I'm not entirely sure, I'd need more time to
think about it"?

Zoe
--
If you're interested, I can be found at these places:
www.t-vox.org: A support, community and resource site for trans,
intersex and genderqueer people.
www.nobmouse.net: My own, weird website
www.livejournal.com/users/nobmouse: My LiveJournal
www.catnip-radio.com: My show broadcasts every 2nd Saturday of the
month, 3pm to 9pm (GMT)

mr.kellan, 15 May 2006 01:52:30

IS he taking the piss???

what does he think we are... a corporate conglomerate...

make him an offer and make it clear we dont have bottomless pockets to
fund his hedge fund pension account

On 04/05/2006 10:23:03, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rabinder Singh -- whose opinion has been very important in persuading
the
> Hoem office to tread carefully and seems to have been a major reason why
> groups were asked to meet with the Home Office -- has approached the
> Spanenr Trust and said his opinion took longer than anticipated to
draw up.
>
>
> He says he now wants 2,000 +VAT for his opinion.
>
> While this is usual practice, Spanner have asked for him to take into
> consideration the vicarious finacial position of both Spanner and
backlash.
>
>
> They ahve -- unfortunately -- had no success.
>
> It looks therefore like we have to write a much larger than expected
> cheque for this expense.
>
> Fortunately, we do have the money in the bank to do so.
>
> while this is a blow it is worth noting how important Singh's opinion
was and also it is time to thank the many donors who ve made it possible
to amek this payment and to publish new flyers and other publicity
material.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>

doulos, 15 May 2006 05:25:32

Money well spent, it sounds like. How will the financial situation
look afterwards?

On 5/4/06, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rabinder Singh -- whose opinion has been very important in persuading the Hoem office to tread carefully and seems to have been a major reason why groups were asked to meet with the Home Office -- has approached the Spanenr Trust and said his opinion took longer than anticipated to draw up.
>
> He says he now wants 2,000 +VAT for his opinion.
>
> While this is usual practice, Spanner have asked for him to take into consideration the vicarious finacial position of both Spanner and backlash.
>
> They ahve -- unfortunately -- had no success.
>
> It looks therefore like we have to write a much larger than expected cheque for this expense.
>
> Fortunately, we do have the money in the bank to do so.
>
> while this is a blow it is worth noting how important Singh's opinion was and also it is time to thank the many donors who ve made it possible to amek this payment and to publish new flyers and other publicity material.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4671
>

demolitionred, 15 May 2006 11:37:56

There will be a bit less than 1,000 pounds in the pot.

That is equivalent to 50,000 flyers.

So far we have incurred no costs other than publicity.

zak, 16 May 2006 23:48:28

Ok, fair enough, and it seems to have been wortht the money as well. After
all, as someone else said, at least he can't be accused of excessive bias
towards the perverts.

Original Message:
-----------------

demolitionred@yahoo.com, 16 May 2006 23:48:28

The original guesstimate was based on 5 hours work. Rabinder worked over a
weekend at the last minute to get us the opinion as soon as we needed it.
As it turned out, it took 10 hours. But we got an opinion from possibly the
leading Human Rights lawyer in the UK. It was well argued, unconditional in
its support of our view and has done more than we could have possibly hoped
for.
There was not the option to ask us whether we wanted him to stop and not
give us an opinion or only half an opinion.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4713

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

doulos, 17 May 2006 00:20:14

Exactly, it isn't! Hence we pay for the full one or for none of it.

On 5/6/06, Paul C. Dickie wrote:
> In message <480924.1146867466315.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>
> , demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> >The original guesstimate was based on 5 hours work. Rabinder worked over a
> >weekend at the last minute to get us the opinion as soon as we needed it. As it
> >turned out, it took 10 hours. But we got an opinion from possibly the leading
> >Human Rights lawyer in the UK. It was well argued, unconditional in its support
> >of our view and has done more than we could have possibly hoped for.
> >There was not the option to ask us whether we wanted him to stop and not give us
> >an opinion or only half an opinion.
>
> How is it *possible* to have "half an opinion"?
>
> --
> < Paul >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4718
>

Paul C. Dickie, 17 May 2006 06:42:18

In message ,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Zo=EB_Robinson?= wrote:
>On 06/05/06, Paul C. Dickie wrote:
>
>> How is it *possible* to have "half an opinion"?
>
>"I think I might favour /this/ option, but then again I might prefer
>/this/ other option. I'm not entirely sure, I'd need more time to
>think about it"?

That is having *two* opinions, not *half* an opinion.

I'd probably add something urbane, witty and downright sexist here, but
I really cannot be bothered. Please pretend I did...

--
< Paul >

snowflake, 22 May 2006 09:50:20

On 06/05/06, Paul C. Dickie wrote:

> That is having *two* opinions, not *half* an opinion.

It all depends on perspective, really.

> I'd probably add something urbane, witty and downright sexist here, but
> I really cannot be bothered. Please pretend I did...

But wouldn't that require effort? It's too early on a Monday morning
for me to even think of considering effort.

Zoë