<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ruthie: DoomBringer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/01/13/ruthie-doombringer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/01/13/ruthie-doombringer/</link>
	<description>A barrister gossips &#38; rants on intellectual property law, the legal system and civil liberties.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:47:33 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ruthie</title>
		<link>http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/01/13/ruthie-doombringer/#comment-712</link>
		<dc:creator>Ruthie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2007 23:54:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=208#comment-712</guid>
		<description>Why wear a suit and bridal gown at a marriage indeed? In the event that Ruthie is ever foolish enough to get married she will commission a set of white leathers, and ride off into the sunset on a white Harley.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why wear a suit and bridal gown at a marriage indeed? In the event that Ruthie is ever foolish enough to get married she will commission a set of white leathers, and ride off into the sunset on a white Harley.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geeklawyer</title>
		<link>http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/01/13/ruthie-doombringer/#comment-711</link>
		<dc:creator>Geeklawyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:42:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=208#comment-711</guid>
		<description>It isn't fancy dress, it's formal wear. Like all formal wear it betokens the solemnity &#038; seriousness of the event. On your argument why wear a suit &#038; bridal gown at a marriage? Does it make the marriage work better? Why not go in jeans t-shirt or halter top rather than fancy dress? Why have the Queen open Parliament in a crown &#038; gown? Does it make democracy work better?
Truth is, people need to be reminded of the seriousness of an event &#038; formal wear helps that: I'd prefer to do my examination in chief in the bar of the local pub, but somewhere more formal is a better bet: fewer lies, more attention to detail.

At it's worst the wig does nothing significantly to damage the process: do you really think European advocates are less intimidating with their weeny gowns, or US lawyers with just their business suits? Doubt it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It isn&#8217;t fancy dress, it&#8217;s formal wear. Like all formal wear it betokens the solemnity &#038; seriousness of the event. On your argument why wear a suit &#038; bridal gown at a marriage? Does it make the marriage work better? Why not go in jeans t-shirt or halter top rather than fancy dress? Why have the Queen open Parliament in a crown &#038; gown? Does it make democracy work better?<br />
Truth is, people need to be reminded of the seriousness of an event &#038; formal wear helps that: I&#8217;d prefer to do my examination in chief in the bar of the local pub, but somewhere more formal is a better bet: fewer lies, more attention to detail.</p>
<p>At it&#8217;s worst the wig does nothing significantly to damage the process: do you really think European advocates are less intimidating with their weeny gowns, or US lawyers with just their business suits? Doubt it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ruthie</title>
		<link>http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/01/13/ruthie-doombringer/#comment-710</link>
		<dc:creator>Ruthie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:19:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.geeklawyer.org/?p=208#comment-710</guid>
		<description>Somewhat worryingly Ruthie has been described on a number of occassions as "nothing but trouble". But then, some people are life's Easy Riders and some life's pillion passengers, eh Geeklawyer?

Controversially, Ruthie agrees with the abolition of wigs in the civil courts. The donning of fancy dress hardly facilitates the resolution of contract disputes between businesspeople, nor eases the break-up of marriages. The decision has nothing to do with solicitor-advocates. It's been mooted for years. It's just easier to blame it on them as a sop to the Bar.

Oh, and if you're really lucky Geeklawyer I'll let you clean my new car. Just be sure not to scratch it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Somewhat worryingly Ruthie has been described on a number of occassions as &#8220;nothing but trouble&#8221;. But then, some people are life&#8217;s Easy Riders and some life&#8217;s pillion passengers, eh Geeklawyer?</p>
<p>Controversially, Ruthie agrees with the abolition of wigs in the civil courts. The donning of fancy dress hardly facilitates the resolution of contract disputes between businesspeople, nor eases the break-up of marriages. The decision has nothing to do with solicitor-advocates. It&#8217;s been mooted for years. It&#8217;s just easier to blame it on them as a sop to the Bar.</p>
<p>Oh, and if you&#8217;re really lucky Geeklawyer I&#8217;ll let you clean my new car. Just be sure not to scratch it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
