At times of adversity, we try to rationalise the situation. We wonder how it happened, what led to it and how we got here. This is how we make sense of the world. But certain things, like accidents, are incapable of being rationalised. We want to feel that we have some kind of control in an unpredictable world, and we attempt to attribute meanings to random events.

At what point do we retreat to accepting it as what it is. At what point do we fight on to get to the bottom of something, even if it is not your war to fight.

Expectations breed disappointments. Nobody in this world owes you the time of the day. Some people are nice, but most people are not. Even priests, preachers and judges are incentivised by promotion.

Sometimes you hit a bump on the road. You get out, you check that the wheels are fine and you carry on. Other times, irrationally, you think "damnit I should have taken a different exit". It doesn't always make sense to find someone or something to blame, in fact, most of the time it doesn't. Blaming someone or something is like masking your own incompetence and your inability to navigate or survive in your environment. (Hello employment tribunal 101). But however illogical, one just needs to park it somewhere; it's a matter of self-preservation.  When you can't park it, the thought goes round and round and round in your head, until you run out of reasons, until it exhausts you, until it puts you to sleep.

Another day, another year.

It has never mattered any less if anyone remembers, who remembers and who doesn't.

By force of habit and the indoctrination with cakes and gifts that we are led to believe such is worthy of celebration.

So much effort and planning have gone into ensuring smoother sailing and a less bumpy road ahead, but the ship is sinking. The mind is inevitably filled with "what ifs" and "could haves" that drag down any uplifts in spirit.

A wonderful year ahead? I have many doubts.

At what point does mutual good faith become blind faith?

At times over the past year before all hell broke loose, there was a voice at the back of my head saying "this is a bad idea". Other times, it was the savaging of damages left behind by others who got where I wish I am by possibly nothing more than sheer luck.

People have come and go, for better or for worse. I have always believed that such environment was fraught with dangers. This was even before I committed to this. I have anticipated all kinds of problems that would arise before 1 Nov but this was not one of it. No one really anticipated this. To an extent, this was anticipated and as such measures were put into place to avoid this consequence but the unforeseen delay and incompetence, so I have been told, contributed to this consequence that hundreds in the profession have found themselves in but the professional body has provided no assistance.

The professional press coverage of this is disappointing. The editorial is too lazy to present voice of those affected. It chooses to speak to an advisor for those affected instead. The rest of the profession not affected by this because their firms avoided it on the basis of size and the commercial viability that comes with it as a customer, has no interest and only utters a few words of sympathy, not camaraderie. Well, they don't have to be. It's like an entrepreneur turned FTSE CEO who doesn't have to care about the small FTSE-listed wannabes. But the difference is that certain areas of law are considered bread and butter while others can only command a certain level of fees on the lower end of the spectrum. So how is it that big firms seek someone passionate about law when the less profitable areas are clearly law as well, and if anything, the less commercial areas. Yet none of the big guys from the big firms have anything to say in public. (Whereas when it come to legal aid, many who don't practise in that area have a lot to say. Why? Barristers are vocal, and many of them make at least of their living out of it.)

Let's face it, a lot of lawyers out there are shit. They have no interest in keeping up to date; no interest in doing the right thing and shouldn't have qualified in the first place. But surely when insurance is a requirement, the regulator should have more teeth, through black letter regulations or soft power, to persuade the insurers with their commercial interest to do the right thing, rather than basing their models on legacy claims and not recent records. Well unless the regulator is dead set on putting small firms out of business (but surely this is not the case when it is pro-consumer rights an pro-competition). How exactly are insurers well place to assess risk when they have vested commercial interests? Who else are professionals meant to turn to if not their professional body?

No amount of venting will change this situation (unless someone gets a dime every time I vent). If all that can be done has been done, there is nothing else to do but to carry on and reassess at every turn.