- Nothing to pay
- No deductions from your compensation
- Access to UK's leading personal injury solicitors
- Excellent claim success rate
- Friendly, supportive and genuine staff
- Impartial legal advice without any cost or commitment
This requires Flash
Is there truth in no win, no fee anagrams?
If I say that I am a writer for a no win, no fee personal injury claims company, there are two things that are important to the sentence: that I'm helping people learn more about making no win, no fee compensation claims, and that, whatever I write about, I'm a writer.
One of the things this means is that I get excited about the tools, words, in the same way that footballers get excited about developments in boot technology and personal injury solicitors get excited about new developments in the law.
Which means that things like anagrams fascinate me. I have, for example, just found out that "no win no fee lawyer" is an anagram of "werewolf in anyone" - I take that to mean that a personal injury solicitor has the one face for a client, that is kind and understanding and humane, and another fierce and uncompromising one that handles the claim itself.
Another entertaining one is that "compensation claim" translates into "a complaint's income". It's worth remembering there that, if you're making a compensation claim, it's very likely to be a justified complaint and the income is to replace losses and costs that an accident, disease or other form of personal injury has brought you.
The phrase also becomes "It's a common pelican", which I can't see any reasoning behind, however much I enjoy it. But some people like to believe that there are hidden truths in anagrams - the classic example being Pilate's query "What is truth?" - in Latin, "Quid est veritas?" - being an anagram of "est vir qui adest", it is the man here before you.
Problems with this include the question that if the shift in language loses the anagram, does it cease to be true? And why this particular anagram, and not, say, "tidiest quavers"? Neat rows of corn-based snacks have very little to do with eternal truth, I'd say, and the anagram here is more usefully thought of as a point for meditation, not a particular proof.
It's similar to that pelican - yet even there, I can think of the medieval image of that bird as one who manages to feed its young through its own injury.
That said, the knowledge that "work accident" becomes "cracked it now" is very apposite to a nasty fracture caused by a falling filing cabinet may make that hidden truth idea seem stronger. But "whiplash injury" seems to produce nothing profound - does that harm the idea? Or - if you're browsing this no win, no fee site and have some time to spare to think about it - can you see one I've missed?
