The Devil’s in the Detail…

30 11 2009

Just a quick post because I’m really very concious of my complete lack of blogging in recent times, and will endeavour to fix the issue as soon as I feel inspired enough to write about something in the news or which grabs my attention sufficiently long enough.

At the moment my frustration is with “Injury Lawyers 4 U”, or, more specifically, with one of their TV ads. It’s a familiar ad that feels like it’s been running for about a decade, mainly because all such injury-based lawyer adverts follow the same monotonous routine which attempts to encourage people to go around suing everyone for anything.  Anyway, the particular ad which irks me has Billy Murray, who apparently is famous, although I really don’t know what for; as the straight talking fellow who will give it you like it is, which, we are meant to believe, is how the lawyers will act.

In this advert Murray attempts to give us brief definitions of the words which form the company’s name. However it all goes awry very quickly when trying to define “injury”. As I can’t find the advert in question on YouTube, or indeed via Google, I’ll precis it. Basically we are told that an injury is an accident caused by someone else. It is a crude, completely wrong definition of ‘injury’, and makes the company look very stupid. By which I mean, if they fail to adequately define terms in their own company name, then how can we be expected to believe they are competant lawyers (who, after all, make careers from making the most out of the small details of wording, language and style)?

I’ve written before about how such adverts are the cause of the red-tape society which we find ourselves crushed under, but there is a certain level of hypocrisy about this. The people who claim via such lawyers should, in reality, take some responsibility for the levels of bureaucracy which so confines so many people, yet, invariably they are the ones who are found complaining about it. The employers/companies/organisations etc have to cover themselves in order to prevent any little thing being used in a law suit. The great example I like to cite is that of my dad. He owns his own business, a small town firm based out of an old two storey town house. He employs a team of seven people who work within this office. None of them smoke, nor have any of them ever smoked. Yet he has been told by the council to put up numerous ‘no smoking’ signs within his office to comply with the smoking ban. Previously, if any of his clientele had wanted to smoke he simply asked them to go outside. Now he still asks them to do the same thing, but he has to have the signage, you know, ‘just in case’.

Injury lawyers 4 U (don’t even get me started about how crap the ‘text-speak’ name looks, and how it is indicative of the market the company is aiming itself at), along with the other various lawyer firms which run similar adverts have a lot to answer for in regard to how they have shaped today’s society into one crippled by paranoia. And yet, if they struggle to provide accurate adverts, with good definitions, you really do wonder how they keep going at all.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: