I don't BELIEVE it...

...'Victor Meldrew' style. A MILLIONAIRE MP, Alan Duncan has the cheek to complain that he feels that MPs are "treated like shit" and are "forced to live on rations". At a time of financial hardship for a lot of people, this is hardly an appropriate comment to be making. Is it?

If he feels that his wealth isn't up to par (or his job not fulfilling its expectations), he is more than welcome to send some of it my way to pay off some of my tens of thousands of pounds of student debt. Not all of us have rich mummies and daddies or parents who care enough about their education to provide for us.

Cheeky so and so.

I don't believe it!

CBC

xx

p.s. AND exhale...

(Read the story here)

"I don't think so Sonny-Jim"

If you watch Big Brother, then you'll 'get' the reference. As I imagine, not very many lawyers and academics would own up to watching the show. I do. I think I'm a little bit in love with 'Halfwit'. He's actually quite an intelligent, eloquent character. Watch his telling off of Noirin...




Funny chappie!

On another note, on reading the latest law reports on The Times Online, I found the one entitled, 'Guidance for juries when alcoholism is raised as a defence to murder' really interesting. I suppose there is a difference between an isolated drunken incident which resulted in a murder compared to that of a seasoned alcoholic. The report stated that,

"Their Lordships had concluded that the effect of the directions to the jury was that the defence of diminished responsibility would not be available if the jury found that any of the appellant’s drinking was voluntary. Save semantically, that was indistinguishable from the direction in
Wood and, for the same reasons, constituted a misdirection. "

This would suggest that where the drinking was an isolated incident and that the defendant was not alcohol dependant, the defence of diminished responsibility would not be applicable. The report also referred to this dependency as a disease or underlying 'condition' that the jury would need to consider and that the killing was an 'involuntary result of an irresistible craving for or compulsion to drink.'

So, the defendant in such an instance would need to firstly prove that some form of 'abnormality' of the mind existed and then whether there was a link between this abnormality and the 'disease' or illness. Because of experiences with alcohol (not personally, but close enough) I find it difficult to accept that alcoholism is in fact a 'disease' and that dependency on alcohol is a valid defence to a murder when to me it seems a self inflicted, voluntary 'condition'

Overall, some of the issues which are said to be likely to arise in similar cases are the following:

"(a) the extent and seriousness of the defendant’s dependency, if any, on alcohol,
(b) the extent to which his ability to control his drinking or to choose whether to drink or not, was reduced,
(c) whether he was capable of abstinence from alcohol, and if so,
(d) for how long, and,
(e) whether he was choosing for some particular reason to decide to get drunk or to drink even more than usual. "

and the jury would be invited to come to their own conclusions based on these factors. In my opinion: Alcohol an excuse?

I don't think so Sonny-Jim!

CBC

xx

Article/ Report taken from Times Online.

Are lawyers misunderstood creatures?

I was reading the Law section of Times Online today and came across this shocking article. Avert your eyes fellow law students and practitioners...

Why are Lawyers so Hated?

Read at your peril, particularly the comments.

Furthermore, in Criminal Law News the first trial without a jury for '400 years' is scheduled for July. This is because it was ruled by the Court of Appeal that the trial could be heard by the judges alone due to "jury nobbling". Apparently, this is the FOURTH trial scheduled to be heard with the previous three costing a total of £22 million and the previous trial collapsing due to "a serious attempt at jury tampering". So having a trial without jury in this case is found to be in the interests of justice. Hmm so many issues here....I don't even know where to begin. Costs? Why this 'nobbling' occurred in the first place?

Pfft.

And so I'd like to conclude with this beautiful song which I came across yesterday whilst watching videos on YouTube; it was playing in the background of someone's make-up tutorial. (I think it was Romaquillage)

For some reason, watching the video I get the feeling there is some underlying message involving domestic violence which you don't quite get when you merely listen to the track. Great all the same. I'm going to purchase the album on my next pay-day.



So, that's enough ranting and raving for one day, ne c'est pas?

CBC

xx

P.s. I've vowed to take and use my own photographs in this blog so I'll be looking forward to the commentary on my amateur photography.

Tea Off!

Wow www, I am tired. After a long day spent 'leafleting', I am tired but energised. A three hour nap in the middle of the day is fantastic...

I just came across a news story which really got my juices bubbling. As you will have discovered from reading this blog, I do love me a cup of tea. So imagine my surprise to find that a Tetley Green Tea advert was banned from being shown for being 'misleading' after FOUR people complained that it appeared to suggest that drinking a cup of tea had the same of similar health benefits to exercising. A spokesman for the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) said the following,

"While it did not imply the tea had the same or similar health benefits to exercise, it did imply that the tea had some general health benefits beyond hydration, in particular because it contained antioxidants. As we had not seen any evidence to demonstrate that green tea, or the antioxidants in it, had general health benefits we concluded that the ad was misleading. "

It seems a fair statement from the ASA but surely an educated person would know this? The ASA should be looking into those mascara adverts which suggest that by wearing a certain mascara, you'll get the 10 mile long lashes featured on the models in the ads. Only recently have I noticed that in the small print, the ads are telling consumers that the ad was 'filmed with lash inserts'. Before that, we were all misled as to the lengthening, volumising and false lash effect of many mascaras!

The above being said, I am not going to be one sided. It seems that the health benefits of green tea are not concrete and according to this Wikipedia article, have been long disputed and there are still many unproven claims as to its benefits.

Wonders never cease... in conclusion, it's JUST tea. Take a chill pill (instead)...





CBC

xx

P.s. Who ARE these four busybodies?

"A deep-seated attitudinal problem" (?)

Well hello there www. As you probably know, I was away for a few days swotting up for my Professional Conduct exam; my last exam. As the law of the sod would go, several things occurred during that exam to make me feel less confident about the outcome:

• I got writer's cramp about 5 minutes in


• It was an hour and a half exam and although visiting the ladies just before it started, I became desperate to go about 30 minutes from the end so thus lost 10 minutes


• I had 2 minutes to do 14 marks' worth of multiple choice questions


• I ran out of time and bullet-pointed 2 whole questions (just about)


• There were two questions which I could not identify the issues which were being tested UNTIL THE END (see the previous point)

So after feeling relatively confident prior to the exam as I had prepared, read over everything, practised questions, walked around my house talking to MYSELF about 'Regulated activities' and s.327 FSMA and Scope Rule compliance...it all went (for lack of a better word) "teets up".

Pah.

So last night, after watching another exhilarating episode of Eastenders (I was not being sarcastic...much) I caught an episode of Panorama, entitled 'A Very Dangerous Doctor' about paediatrician David Southall. I had not been aware of this story prior to this but it really caught my attention. Evidently, Southall had used secret filming of his patients and managed to uncover a ridiculous number of cases of child abuse. Now of course in learning about Family Law, you become familiar with the concept that the safety/ best interests of the child are of paramount importance etc (Apologies if my wording is a bit off; I haven't looked through my family law things for about a year...)

So why were so many people up in arms about the findings of Southall's research? Perhaps it's because several people have been accused of child abuse due to the findings of it? But in my head, all I can think about is the fact that children are possibly being abused and that this research/ surveillance may save a few children from this. Sadly for their parents though, it may mean false accusations of abuse.

Where is the balance?

Now, in reading a follow up article (because CBC likes to do her research) Southall has been described as having 'a deep-seated attitudinal problem' by a disciplinary panel. It seems a shame that the focus is now on his personality than the issue in hand; the safety of the children. However, I am not looking at this through 'rose tinted' glasses and ignoring the fact the he may have had an agenda which had nothing to do with the children and more to do with a 'power trip'.

As the judge ruling that the decision to strike him off was justified said,

"He was speculating on non-medical matters in an offensive manner entirely inconsistent with the status of an independent expert."

But what about this Münchausen's syndrome? The article describes it as, "... a condition which means parents deliberately induce or fabricate illnesses in their children to get attention for themselves."

Are Southall's accusations justified in some way? Obviously every case is different but isn't it better to be safe than sorry?

Interesting stuff. So many questions...so few right answers.

*sigh* I love the law

CBC

xx

(p.s I really need to discover once and for all the issue regarding copyright and images in this blog. Although there are links to all the photos and otherwise I have obtained permission from folks for certain cartoons, I am still a little concerned. All in good time.)

Love, Actually...

So after having a cosy evening (alone) watching 'Love Actually' for the first time (sensing audible gasps here. Yes, it's the first time) on ITV2, I haven't been able to go to sleep so here I am bloggity blogging. I did cry a little at the end; I'm getting less embarrassed at this now!

There is a story in the media which has captured my interest over the past few days and I meant to blog about it yesterday but hey, no time like the present.

Pregnant Briton Samantha Orobator faces death penalty in Laos http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6220226.ece

There are just so many 'annoying' (for lack of a better, less explicit word) issues I can see arising from this case:

• The refusal of legal representation
• The fact that she is reported to be five months pregnant BUT has been in prison for eight months
• The severity of her proposed punishment; death
• The question as to the 'fairness' of the impending trial
• Her 'treatment' in prison

I suppose the main overriding issue here is that of human rights. I'm not sure whether it matters at this stage if she in fact was guilty of the offence she's been charged with. I think now it's gone beyond that. With Trisha Goddard in the background this morning, it got me thinking. Why is lie detection software not used in court? Or just generally...as normal as brushing one's teeth.

HER: "Does my bum look big in this darling?"

HIM: "No love. You look beautiful and I love you just the way you are."

HER: Well, let's just hook you up to the lie detector first dear..."

[BEEEEEEEEEEP]

Because it doesn't matter if the person on trial is actually guilty or not; it's their right to represent themselves in a positive light? Human Rights? It's all very mind- boggling to me.

Though, please don't misinterpret what I'm saying www. I am all for human rights and think that Orobator's reported treatment is disgusting to say the least. But I often cant help but think that things might be so much easier if criminals were just 'hooked up' to lie detectors.

"Did you steal that money?"
"Did you murder Mrs Bloggs?" (unfortunate name in the context)

Yes? No? Problem solved. NEXT!

However, it's the fact that the law isn't this black and white that gets me all...hot under the collar (!)

Till next time,

CBC

xx

(I realise of course that the suggestion to use lie detectors in law is just plain crazy but...actually no buts...it IS crazy so apologies!)

Procrastination at its finest?

Well after having spent an entire 2 hours on facebook this morning, I can confidently announce that this has not been my most productive morning yet. However, it quickly dawned on me that I no longer need to be particularly productive as I've finished my exams and have no more studying to do.

I feel the past 15 years or so of studying has been a sort of comfort blanket for me. I seem to take solace in my work and studying; though I often grumble to myself about how tired I am. I think I'm feeling slightly at loss with what to do with myself now that Im finished. That is, provided I pass all these exams! Eeepenema!

Anyway, I think it's fair (in a paranoid woman's mind) to say that Mr Literary was a 'one-off'. Not one of my most intelligent moves ever but all in a growing woman's day huh? I think that's possibly ruined a perfectly civilised friendship now but I may just be growing in paranoia; we'll see the outcome of that.

LEGAL RANT TIME!

I remember during the LPC whilst studying Advanced Criminal Litigation and doing Road Traffic Offences and I came across something which, at the time, really annoyed me. I think it was something to do with the different penalities for Death by Dangerous Driving and Death by Careless Driving. As far as I can remember, the penalties for death by dangerous driving were far higher than that for careless driving. (Though I think that the offence of death by careless driving was relatively new or being reviewed). Anyway, my argument in class was that surely if the outcome is the same, i.e. DEATH, then what does it matter whether the driver of the car was driving carelessly or dangerously?!

I suppose in a really pedantic legal-brained way of looking at it would be to take the two terms 'dangerous' and 'careless' and consider their meanings. The term 'careless' seems to suggest that there was no intention to cause harm whereas 'dangerous' in this context seems to suggest that the person knew that the manner in which they were driving would cause some harm. I really don't know...I think as long as someone is killed the penalties should more or less be the same but I know it's not as simple as that.

The law is indeed "...a ass..."

Well I had better scuttle off and make myself more useful today. I suppose seeing as I have less work to do I can be more dedicated to my blogging now

CBC

xx

I really could do with a nice tea!

Vent up Pent up

Woke up this morning with a spring in my step! Watching 'The Wright Stuff' and brought the following story to my attention.


Victory for Christian registrar who refused to carry out gay ‘weddings’



A Christian registrar who was harassed and discriminated against after she refused to carry out same-sex civil partnership ceremonies has won a key legal battle.
Lillian Ladele, 47, said that she was treated like a pariah by colleagues at Islington council in North London after she said that she could not carry out the ceremonies as a matter of religious conscience.
An employment tribunal found that the council showed no respect for Ms Ladele’s rights “by virtue of her orthodox Christian beliefs”.
Employment lawyers said that while the case set no binding legal precedent, it would make councils much more likely to give weight to the religious views of employees.
The decision outraged gay rights campaigners, who said that it “sanctions the right of religious people to discriminate”.
Ms Ladele, who had held her £31,000-a-year job for almost 16 years, could receive thousands of pounds in compensation at a further hearing in September after the tribunal found that the behaviour of her colleagues had “the effect of violating Ms Ladele’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”.
The tribunal decided that gay rights should not be allowed to “trump” the rights of those with religious beliefs and said that the council’s other registrars were able to provide a “first-class” service to same-sex couples without Ms Ladele’s involvement.
The ruling said that Islington council “placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief”.
Ms Ladele, who is now expected to return to work, wept as she told the tribunal that her bosses ordered her to perform the ceremonies or face dismissal for gross misconduct. She said: “I felt harassed and victimised. I was being picked on on a daily basis.”
She added: “This is a victory for religious liberty, not just for myself but for others in a similar position. Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs.”
She was applauded last night by the Christian Institute, a Newcastle-based charity that funded her case, and the Evangelical Alliance. Don Horrocks, head of public affairs at the alliance, said: “This decision underlines that, despite some recent claims to the contrary, freedom of religious conscience must be protected by law in the same way as any other human right.
“We would call on local politicians to take note and live up to the challenge of this benchmark decision.”
Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, said: “Public servants are paid by taxpayers to deliver public services. They shouldn’t be able to pick and choose who they deliver those services to. Doubtless 40 years ago there were moral objections to mixed-race marriages. Quite rightly such objections would no longer be entertained.”
Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner, said: “Lillian Ladele claims she was won a victory for religious liberty. No, she has not. She has won a victory for the right to discriminate.”
Islington council may appeal.



Article taken from Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4312447.ece)




All I can say in comment really is good on her. Yes, gay rights are important. Yes, I believe in equal rights for everyone. Yes, I believe that someone's religious belief, if they feel strongly enough about it should not force them into doing something that they feel strongly against. The Human Rights campaigners claiming that "she has won a victory for the right to discriminate" are being ridiculous. Are there no other registrars that can perform the ceremony? Stupid stupid PC happy clappy people. Maybe this woman should just resign anyway instead of being in an environment where people have so little respect for her religious beliefs that they would ostracize her for them. However I must see the other side. It is somewhat exclusive and although I am biased as I am Christian myself, when I see a spade, I call it such and this is tinged with homophobia. (This is potentially the most contradictory thing I've ever said but there you go!)

I think if it was another religion it'd be different but Christianity is becoming such a 'black sheep' of a religion in recent times, it doesn't surprise me.


Another news story that has amused me no end is the story about the British woman facing imprisonment after being found having sex on a Dubai beach. On the one hand, if you know that it's a bit of a taboo in the country, compose yourself; when in Rome. On the other hand, it's the 21st century! Apparently people get arrested for kissing in public. Not that I'm the biggest fan of public displays of affection but this is extreme. However, on a more serious note, respect people's cultures and ways of life when in their country - don't like it then stay at home!


(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4300911.ece)




I'm now hungry. All that venting has built me up a bit of an appetite. Am going away for the weekend so probably won't post until next week! Toodle

CBC

xx

"The moronisisation of TV is complete"

I love LBC! I heard this line on LBC last night. The presenter whose name I can't quite remember...Clive Bull? Iain Lee? used the phrase to describe the changing face of television. He was remarking on the fact that in the past, British Television and newsreaders, relied on one man (or woman) sitting down delivering a piece to camera. Now he says the frantic hand gestures and funky camera angles are used to correspond with our alleged shortening attention spans and growing stupidity. He reckons that we are being taken to be morons...hence the phrase ..."the moronisisation of TV is now complete..." Love it!

I find it pretty funny that being a potential lawyer...well I like to think so anyway... that I rarely post about my legal adventures at law school. I guess I've been slightly inspired by the fictional "Baby Barista" account of a trainee barrister on Times Online. I also saw how many legal brains also published blogs and got thinking...hey, why don't I also talk more about my legal life? Can't say I'm satisfied with my recent set of law school examinations...nonetheless, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger right?

I feel I should apologise for my last post. I was in a different place. You know...reminiscing is sometimes a good thing but I think I did that a little too much that day and so brought a whole lot of my feelings for Leo back. Then today whilst sitting on the train on the way back from law school, Ipod in my ears, it got me thinking...obviously I just need to get a grip on the situation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise when someone wants nothing to do with you regardless of what you've done (or not done). Not everyone will like you and you just have to get on with it. This folks, I will have to accept in relation to this boy. Besides...this really won't do in my quest to become a successful lawyer.

Anyway, I am saddened by this Chelsea shooting story regarding the barrister involved in the shootout yesterday. Just reinforced the sheer stress faced by young bright people in the legal profession and was slightly unnerving. Surely everyone will deal with their problems in a different way but it is really really sad that a young professional like this man succumbed to the pressures of life at the top...This quote sums it up really,

“I think a lot of people working in the law will see this as another
barrister who has cracked under the pressure.”

Makes one think twice really...what am I getting myself into?!

CBC

xx

[You can read the article online at :http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1934958/Chelsea-shooting-Barrister]