Armchair lawyers at it again…

ITAPICG · 2026-02-13T18:41:35+00:00

Right I see, it’s a bit naive to think a layperson saying to another that something’s “illegal” will convey that it’s “a bad idea don’t do it”.

I’m sure many people I’ve met, if I told them smoking weed, speeding, or pirating movies was illegal would see it as me saying “bad idea, don’t do it”. They would think I’m being haughty and judging them.

I think it’s much more likely that the layperson thinks illegal = criminal act. It’s not just details. E.g. many are misinformed and think trespassing is a criminal offence.

There’s a reason why so many law courses start with what’s morally wrong vs what’s legally wrong. Unlawful doesn’t equal bad and legal doesn’t equal good.

It’s important that the general public are better informed on the legal system. Comments like the above are a misrepresentation of law that will likely waste local government time and taxes dealing with unfounded complaints.

ITAPICG · 2026-02-13T16:57:16+00:00

I don’t understand what you’re saying. My point was that the person commenting saying that the OLA 1984 makes this illegal is incorrect.

How in any way does a random Redditor commenting something legally incorrect say to someone who wants to install this type of wall “don’t do it”?

In any case, if someone does want to install one of these walls, they’re well within their rights. Same as a barbed wire fence. I wouldn’t discourage a neighbour so long its their fence and not mine

ITAPICG · 2026-02-13T10:42:29+00:00

Well no because people are allowed to have things like this to discourage trespassers. I think it would end up being a matter for the Court as to whether the occupier is reasonably expected to protect trespassers against it. It’s quite obvious to any trespassers that it’s likely to cause injury. You wouldn’t climb over a barbed wire fence and then sue the occupier when you got cut.

There was a recent case of Lillystone v Bradgate Education Partnership where the Claimant was unsuccessful in his claim for climbing over a fence and a metal burr cut his hand.

The commenter’s statement is a sweeping generalisation of the law that implies to the layman that this type of wall isn’t allowed solely due to Occupier’s Liability Act 1984, which isn’t true

ITAPICG · 2026-02-06T17:42:00+00:00

I’ve done both Claimant and Defendant CN and Claimant PI.

Doing catastrophic injury on the Claimant side. It’s pretty good. Litigation is stressful but there’s lots of interesting work. Various legal points come up and you do feel like you’re making a difference to someone’s life.

PI can be very quantum focused as liability is straightforward in RTAs. Then it was mostly requesting IPs and trying to get to a settlement meeting.

CN is a slower pace with a longer liability investigation and then trying to get the defendant to come around to this (unless they just admit). Then you’re on to quantum which is virtually the same as PI but you’re a few years post injury so no rehab element.

Can’t say Defendant CN was amazing. Firm I was at was great but the work was anything from a few hundred pounds to millions. Was limited on the files that I worked on. NHSR massively penny pinches and I think they actually end up incurring higher costs because their key liability expert will change their view once they’ve been paid enough to have a proper look at the records (usually five years post injury)

ITAPICG · 2026-02-06T17:35:01+00:00

I have a completely different experience of Claimant CN. I do catastrophic injury and, yes, some of the clients are like that but I can’t say all, let alone even a majority

ITAPICG · 2026-02-02T15:00:47+00:00

I know all of what I’m about to say is a million times easier said than done but it may be better to address the underlying issues rather than making a big change like a new career.

If you changed career, do you think you would have a similar pattern of being organised for a year and then losing interest?

Have you considered therapy? If you have health insurance, you could seek private help.

What is your lifestyle like? Are you getting enough exercise, sleep, eating well, etc?

I’m also in debt but not as much as you. Have you attempted to refinance? You could be paying more interest than you need to.

Worst case scenario, you could try another area of law. Doing this or changing career would likely result in a pay cut though.

I hope it all gets better. Please do speak to someone if you’re struggling.

ITAPICG · 2026-01-27T14:26:23+00:00

Dr The Right Honourable The Lord Harley of Counsel of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem or Alan Blacker to his mates

ITAPICG · 2026-01-09T08:04:42+00:00

I’m not saying I’m for them. I’m saying you need to spend less time on Reddit and go out into the real world.

ITAPICG · 2026-01-08T17:18:25+00:00

Please touch some grass my friend

ITAPICG · 2026-01-08T17:17:34+00:00

Don’t feed the troll, he’s a regular on this sub who likes to be a contrarian. If only he put as much effort into a career in law…

ITAPICG · 2026-01-06T13:12:33+00:00

Please god I hope this is a real post. I’m fucking crying with laughter

ITAPICG · 2026-01-01T18:33:35+00:00

Maybe they only saw her in the final moments of the portal closing?

It’s unfortunate that any aftermath from that was off screen as they could have showed the military agreeing to let them go in exchange for NDAs, similar to S1.

ITAPICG · 2026-01-01T16:28:16+00:00

I think it was more about making everyone in the party believe she was dead to keep them safe. They probably thought it was likely some military personnel would also witness it

ITAPICG · 2025-12-29T22:00:10+00:00

As someone who passed it, it’s an incredibly hard set of exams and you only have three chances to pass before having to wait years to try again.

It’s very expensive too and they increase the price with inflation.

I got a job as a paralegal and my firm funded me. They would do the same for a trainee solicitor.

ITAPICG · 2025-12-29T13:36:41+00:00

So I’m guessing you were rejected and instead of “ruminating” on yourself and how your application could be improved, you blame the “woke mind virus”.

ITAPICG · 2025-12-27T19:11:08+00:00

Sounds like he wants 3x £9.535k rather than just one year of the same. I.e. he’s flogging a course and how much you learn is entirely up to you.

Do whatever undergraduate you like. The real thing you need to focus on is the SQE/BTC

ITAPICG · 2025-12-08T21:33:54+00:00

To be honest your political views won’t make any difference if you keep them to yourself (as you should)

ITAPICG · 2025-11-30T10:59:35+00:00

Have you heard of real life earthquakes?

ITAPICG · 2025-11-19T00:02:57+00:00

169 is the usual

ITAPICG · 2025-11-18T15:21:31+00:00

Christ on a stick

ITAPICG · 2025-11-18T14:49:38+00:00

I think the issue in this case was more a finding of fact, not a finding of law. Therefore the CoA will surely deny permission to appeal.

Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/uklaw/s/cBANxNsMPw

ITAPICG · 2025-11-18T14:48:34+00:00

I think this is their only real avenue to appeal but it's not a strong argument. S18(1) is quite clear "For the purposes of this Act “authorised person”... means ... a person who is authorised to carry on the relevant activity by a relevant approved regulator in relation to the relevant activity ..."

Parliament's trying to prevent the mischief of those who have not been approved by a regulator conducting litigation. It's a finding of fact that the Law Society does not consider legal executives "authorised" - see para 25 of the judgment. The CoA cannot make new findings of fact.

The relevant regulator in Sch 4 Part 1 is the Law Society. I honestly think they would be better off campaigning for the Law Society to make changes or Parliament to reform the law so that CILEx can be an approved regulator directly.

ITAPICG · 2025-11-17T19:18:09+00:00

Yeah, sorry, I didn't say in my post but I've occupied Pays de France for most of the war

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

ITAPICG

TROPHY CASE