> I find this objection to be bizarre. I am aware of no ethical or legal rules that require the wronged to structure the suit filed for the well-being or conven

> I find this objection to be bizarre. I am aware of no ethical or legal rules that require the wronged to structure the suit filed for the well-being or convenience of the wrongdoer. I have spoken to a chap on here who apparently thought it was a legal obligation on the defendant to seek the highest financial settlement and that deviation from this aim was prima facie evidence for corruption. It's just a hail of non sequiturs one after the next. This is of course when they're not claiming that we should return to the feudal age laws, apart from all the ones they don't like, which would be almost all of them. I fancy myself quite the neo-victorian and enjoy steampunk fashion but even I wouldn't go back that far. Not sure what would happen to Gawker Media's Jezebel under the auspices of the Witchfinder General but it would probably bear some similarity to descriptions of that namesake in the Bible. It is quite funny to watch all these journalists LARPing into the middle ages. Much like the judge of this court case, they hate not being taken seriously, but how can you take them seriously when they're quoting non-existent laws from countries that don't exist anymore. It's like the title of a book found in a library from a Harry Potter novel. There's a heap of principals I think are good ideas but I don't pretend they should exist as codified law just because it suits me at this time. That is delusional thinking. -10 points from Hufflepuff.