Thursday 17 September 2009

Technological Progress in the Law

It used to be a fairly common lament in these fights folk have over their weans that one party - the daft faither, usually - wasn't fit to have contact with the child because of his temper/bad language/threatening demeanour towards the former partner.

Sometimes you'd get complaints that a particularly misguided soul had committed those threats or harsh words to paper, having written "a nasty letter".

More recently, people come into the office anxious that you scroll through their mobile phone text messages, to "see whit he's been sayin' aboot me."

It was a first, however, when I stood up in court the day and offered the explanation that the hateful diatribe attributed to my client hadn't been his doing at all, and that his position was that "someone has clearly sabotaged his Bebo page."



  1. If I ever ask you to represent me...please, p-l-e-a-s-e, don't accept! (lol)

    I'm curious ...was the explanation accepted?

    Naw, don't be silly it couldn't have been...could it???

    ...AND...can you actually sabotafge a Bebo page?

  2. I can't claim it was accepted in its entirety - but it created just enough doubt to enable him to get through to Round Two.

    The jacket of caring paternal competence is on a very shoogly peg though.