Taxpayers to pay?

[yorkie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4312182.stm

So this huge legal bill (don't worry, lawyers are a good cause! :roll: ) is going to be charged to network rail? But Network Rail is funded by taxpayers, so what does that mean?

Either cuts in levels of maintenance or improvements (unlikely, and I certainly hope not) or else it simply means us taxpayers, and farepayers, footing the bill.

So, either fare increases or tax increases, or money diverted from elsewhere. Either way, we pay!

What a crazy world we live in.

 

[Techniquest]

They expect ME (as a taxpayer) to contribute my earnings (in tax form, almost £30 of which was tax and other stuff on Friday!) to pay for their flaming trial?!

Now THAT is unfair. If I had contributed to the trial in some way, my opinion on paying for it (although it would still be unfair) might be slightly, ever so, different. I've had no interest in this trial or incident, why should I contribute money to paying for the expensive lawyers?

On a less serious note, it does remind me of (again) an episode of The Simpsons when they go to sue Mr. Burns, his response being 'Yes, well, I have 10 high-priced lawyers', with the reaction of Troy McClure being to scream repeatedly and run. The relevance I'm getting at here is that this trial must have had some very expensive lawyers to make it so expensive (£8m? Ridiculous), with the opposition running for cover.

And yes, before anyone suggests it, I do watch too much of The Simpsons, Futurama and Family Guy. It's a good thing, what with it providing all this interesting and hilarious stuff.

 

[Mojo]

As I learnt in Law today, all solicitors run as 'No win, No fee' - all you have to pay is the Legal Expenses Insurance.

 

[yorkie]

There's an update here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4318994.stm

Where does the fine money actually go? Where will it be spent? It had better be spent on improving safety on the railways!