The judge has delivered his verdict in the action brought by personal injury lawyers to halt the Government's move to limit costs in RTA 'portal' cases. During the hearing it was alleged the Cabinet Office had been in communication with the Association of British Insurers to engineer what could be said to have amounted to a stitch-up prior to any consultations taking place with the public or the lawyerly fraternity. The judge, Lord Justice Elias, dismissed the action on the basis that no matter how unfair you may think government actions are, the place to overturn them is at the ballot box.

That reasoning infuriated correspondents to the Law Society Gazette's Comments section, most of whom were of the view that trying to defend lawyers' fees to the electorate may not prove particularly fruitful. There was one dissenting voice from the clamour for a march on Parliament, pointing out that to a great extent the 'industry' had brought it all on itself – "Did you really think hiring a bunch of paralegals and charging upwards of £200 an hour for firing off a few poorly worded template letters was going to last forever?" – but most were howling with outrage.

The point is, though, that His Lordship was perfectly correct in his assertion that, in a democracy, the place to change government policy is at an election. So there you have it, chaps: all you personal injury and motor claims lawyers have to do is turn out in force to vote against the architect of these reforms next time they come up for election...except nobody elected them in the first place.

• The same applies to members of the boards of so-called health 'trusts'. I have always been puzzled as to how these people get into positions of such unaccountable power and then appear nigh-on impossible to get rid of.

The latest news from Mid-Staffs concerns the putting into administration of the trust.

Its deputy chief executive is quoted on the BBC's local site as saying: "The board wants to emphasise in the strongest possible terms that our focus remains on delivering care to our patients.

"We want to reassure our patients and all the local community that we will continue to put our patients first throughout this challenging period."

There you are, then; everything's alright again.

• The cost-cutting measure that got the Ministry of Justice into most bother – this time with people who HAVE been elected, namely the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee – was its appointment of a single contractor to provide all translation and interpreting services for the courts. The ministry's handling of the process was described by the committee as "shambolic" and it has now taken on board all of the recommendations.

They just can't be gracious in defeat, though. Courts minister Helen Grant is reported as saying: "There has been a dramatic improvement in the interpreter contract over the past 12 months, with the vast majority of bookings now being completed and a major reduction in complaints."