EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

And if by doing something 'better' could you be making people's lives worse, e.g. tricking them in parting with money they can't afford to spend.

Yeah, that's the question of "better". It's difficult* though. I used to work on housing schemes. Some for HAs, some for developers. You can easily argue that by doing the work better you're making a positive impact on people's daily lives. On the other hand, when it's some scumbag developer, you also know you're just part of the machine putting money in their pocket and contributing to the property problem.

(* not actually difficult... )

Are you doing it better than someone else would? In what way better?

@amey is bringing them down from the inside.

I have worked on tobacco, alcohol and gambling clients

Turned down an online gambling gig - just couldn't face it, despite the cray cray day rate. I suspect a lot of people won't work for them. Wouldn't touch tobacco but I'd probably do booze - if it was an interesting gig. Brewdog or startup brewery or something. Shades of grey I guess.

i've done gambling. senior management is populated entirely by strutting, mercenary lizard cunts. never again.

Were you the faux-respectable spread betting, or proper gee-gee's and roulette?

sofa & giro fruit machines, divorcee bingo, 'live' neckbeard roulette and poker, sprots, the lot. getting an eye twitch just thinking about it.

i'm in banking now which is far more respectable.

#hellawaits

Working in robotics research is shite in this respect. You can try as hard as you like to do something as noble and as worthwhile as possible (I didn't) but you know some dickbag is going to come along and weaponise it.

Meh. I'm professionally obliged to act for anyone who can afford my fees. I'm not allowed to be fussy about clients.

Is that true for all lawyers?

I was just thinking about this. A barrister doesn't get to choose who he defends. Or prosecutes for that matter.

But I guess they're working for law, justice and all that jazz ..?

Do you have a flexible scale of fees ?

hella waits - long time?

I think in that instance you can probably balance the disgust at a specific client/case, with the overall benefit of having a (mostly) blind legal system

That was put so much better than me :D

Nope. Solicitors can pick and choose, I believe. Only barristers are subject to the cab rank rule. Well, and cabbies too. Obvs.

I guess you must be able to fall back on the fact that everybody has a right to a defence no matter how grave their crime.

Somebody I know had to defend a man who murdered his new born baby by kicking it down the stairs. That trial was in the late 80s and it still affects him a little now.

Don't think so. I don't know though - my clerks negotiate and collect my fees. I leave that stuff to them. I know I'm not allowed to charge more for unpleasant or undesirable clients though.

No prosecuting for me - I don't do criminal law. Not my cup of tea. And the money's crap.

The person I mentioned switched to matrimonial. Helps break up families instead :P

Friends of mine specialise in family law and child protection. That can get really grim. Particularly when they get to see the inadmissible evidence after they've made sure the children stay with the parents.

What I will say is that he seems to have no principles at all and joins dodgy causes who are willing to pay him lots of money.

He probably won't get the job then. Whoever gets this is will have their past career scrutinised and publicly aired. They won't choose someone who's been associated with dodgy causes.

I'm curious now, is this person a hack or a flack?

Were the weapon manufacturers not in robotics from the very beginning? As early as WWII?

@danstuff which chambers are you at? You might know my other half who is at brick court?