Prejudice is for commies and gays

The other day I wrote in one of my posts about a legal matter. I pointed out that to avoid prejudicing the proceedings I would not elaborate until the matter was settled. After long and careful whisky-based deliberations I reaslised a couple of things.

1. It's a civil, not a criminal matter.
2. Due to this it is unlikely to be heard before a jury.
3. If, somehow, it were to be heard before a jury, it's unlikely that said jury would consist of the ever increasing readership of 5 of this blog.
4. Screw it.

I've decided that as long as I change the names to protect the innocent and the quite blatantly not-so-innccent then we should be on a firm legal footing. Therefore, I bring the you the long running legal saga of The Hero vs. The Twat.

Back in 2002, the Hero was driving his vehicle along a one-way street when he approached a road coming from left to right. He did not alter his manner of driving as the people wishing to join or cross this street were subject to 'give way' restrictions.

Another party ('The Twat') was waiting at the give way point to cross the one-way street. Living up to his name, but unfortunately not that of the sign, he proceeded across the street directly into the Hero's path. The Hero manfully tried to avoid the Twat, but ended up striking his vehicle on the front right hand side and landing in someones garden on the right-hand side of the Hero. The Twat's car was now in the middle of the street with a rather small-willied and embarassed student in the drivers seat. Due to the final resting places of the cars, it was pretty obvious what had occurred. However there were no independant witnesses so the Hero called the police.

Whilst waiting for the police, the Twat made some calls on his mobile, and some 20 mins later an independant witness arrived (hereafter referred to as 'The Liar'). The Hero refuted that he was a) a witness and b) independant, therefore calling into question his 'independant witness' status.

Legal proceedings for damages were instigated by the Hero, and by his passenger ('The Surfer') immediately, and some rather astonishing claims were brought to light. It appeared that far from the version of the story you see above, it transpires that the Twat was happily sitting at the give way sign minding his own business when the Hero completely lost control of his own car, steered round obstructing parked cars and hit the Twat while he was stationary. The force of the impact was so great that instead of pushing the Twat's car backwards in the normal manner, it bent the laws of physics and moved both the Twat's car forward into the street that he was hoping to move into, and the Hero's also moved backwards after a forward-facing collision, all the way across the street into someones garden (sorry about the fence by the way).

This version of events was supported by the Liar, who in his concise, legally witnessesed statement, stated this, whilst also stating the wrong date, and amazingly the wrong weather conditions. Thank god for the legal system.

This has been maintained for nearly three years now, until finally, at the Hero's insistence, it was pushed forward to a court date of next month.

Imagine my The Hero's surprise when he received a letter from his solicitors stating the following:

The Twat's solicitor has requested that he be discharged from representing the Twat for the following reasons: "After our investigations it has transpired that the independant witness evidence was flawed, and so much so that there is in fact no independant witness to the incident. The insurers have concluded that there is a significantly less than 50% chance of recovery in this case and have withdrawn all legal funding from the Twat"

What a shocker! So the Liar was lying all along? Who woulda thunk it?

So whilst the trial date still stands about three weeks from now, it seems unlikely that it will proceed that far, as the Twat would have to pay for his own defence, whilst explaining why his mate the Liar, is no longer a liar. I'll keep you posted on any outcome.