Sunday
In this posting earlier today, Jonathan mentions how The Incredibles includes some "clever and sly digs at America's litigation culture". So here is another clever and sly dig at Britain's fast expanding litigation culture:
With thanks to b3ta.com.
Did you join an army, and then get hurt in a battle? Sue your commanding officers for forgetting to warn you that war is sometimes violent.
Did you fall over, because of running too fast? Sue the owner of the floor you fell on, the person who employed the person who spilt some water on it and made it slippery, the maker of your shoes for not making them with more grip, the maker of the floor tiles, but: on no account blame yourself, for being careless. Your life is not your fault. It is the fault of somebody else, somebody rich. And if you were engaged in robbing the place at the time, never mind: this makes no difference!
Oh, the digs at the second oldest profession in the Incredibles weren't subtle - they were pretty blunt. And probably the least stretch from reality in the whole plotline...
Posted by Wind Rider at November 29, 2004 12:50 AM
Er, you guys think this is in jest? Never heard about the hearing loss compensation scandal back in good ol' Ireland? Stick 'ireland army hearing' into Google and you'll see what I mean. And it wasn't even in wartime!
Fact is stranger than fiction! :)
Posted by James at November 29, 2004 06:18 AM
I found the claims direct ad very amusing and laughed so much I now have a headache. You will be hearing from my solicitors in due course.
Posted by Cancergiggles at November 29, 2004 11:59 AM
Preventing this kind of thing was one of the reasons why for years there were regulations banning lawyers from advertising or from taking on no win, no fee cases. The rules are repealed, see what happens.
Not all rules and controls are bad, even if most are.
EG
Posted by Euan Gray at November 29, 2004 08:55 PM
Imagine if such litigation had been around at the time of Operation Market-Garden.
Posted by Alan K. Henderson at November 30, 2004 07:37 AM
Please feel free to correct me on this, but doesn't "thy" mean "your"? Shouldn't the ad read "Hast thou"?
Posted by Squander Two at November 30, 2004 05:14 PM
Squander Two, yea verily, thou art correct! And thou didst write even that which I was about to write, and should indeed have writ, hadst thou not done so ere I had done.
I wish thee a silly day! :-)
("silly" meant "blessed", long ago -- thus shalt thou find, iwis, in thy Great Boke of Words).
Posted by Mary in LA at November 30, 2004 07:16 PM
Are you from Yorkshire, then, Mary?
(Sorry. English joke.)
Cheers.
jo
Posted by Squander Two at December 2, 2004 11:16 AM
No, it's not clever and sly. It's almost impossible to look at without disgust and horror. It's a commonplace example of our culture's hatred for the facts of our history and the hiistory of our language.. The solecism 'hath thy' proclaims a knowing (I am sure) contempt for anybody who would be 'anoracky' enough to know the correct grammatical form.
Posted by Graham Asher at December 2, 2004 08:29 PM
Mr. Asher, I think I'm in love with you! (Too bad I'm happily married and all the way across the pond.) I take it that "anoracky" means "hopelessly, pathetically geeky"? Well, cheers from one grammar geek to another!
Hello, Jo! No, I'm not from Yorkshire, but I've always enjoyed my visits there. All the Yorkshire dialect I know, I learned from the James Herriot books. :-)
Posted by Mary in LA at December 3, 2004 07:11 PM
How wonderful it is! Today, I had seen the film - "The Incredibles" this afternoon, my father also had seen this film in this evening. This cartoon movie is powered by Disney-Pixar.
In this film, I love the people's sensation, scene, bugbears. The scene is so sublime.
With the great imagination.
Posted by Creford at March 21, 2005 12:37 PM
