First, an apology to Blog, who I have neglected for quite a while. I have been busy with work, which is proving to be very interesting. I feel that I have got very lucky.
It was nice to be quoted extensively by Simon Myerson, even if it was to demonstrate the folly of my position. I’m still not sure that I agree with his ‘distance travelled’ idea though. I was planning to write about some current legal issue or event, but having scoured the legal press it strikes me that there is not a great deal happening.
I have a complaint about the Pupillage Portal. It involves clearing and the lack of clear instructions. Perhaps I had failed to look sufficiently hard enough, but I could find nothing to tell me why there was a question in my clearing application asking why I had chosen X particular chambers, when there was no option to choose X particular chambers. I was also under the impression that clearing applications had to be submitted at the time of normal applications – not the case apparently! But it wasn’t made apparent enough for someone of my level of stupidity.
One issue which has just struck me is a story in The Times about the list of people banned from entering the UK, seemingly on the basis of their beliefs and their willingness to vocalise them. I find the existence of such a list disturbing. Quite clearly we do not want people who come to kill and take direct action. But to stop people from saying what they believe is appalling as far as I am concerned. I would far rather have one of these Muslim hate preachers be allowed to preach whatever they liked than not. That is the essence of democracy and free speech – you cannot choose what people can and cannot say. Far more dangerous than hate speech is intolerant legislation. It is time for Smith (and Labour) to go.
About Me
- Pupilpedia
- An aspiring Barrister, who has finished converting and finished BVCing, and is ready for pupillage.
7 comments:
I think I may have interpreted the 'clearin can come later' with the benefit of having worked in university applications for a number of years and so been familiar with that. However, you are right, it shouldn't take 3 years of working at UCAS through the clearing period to understand the PP.
Agree re letring crazies into the country - though I do wonder why they would care. If you believe 'God hates fags' and that your country is going to pot because your country is too tolerant of gays, why bother 'saving' another country that you don't live in?
I've already sent off my clearing app, believing that it had to be done by the deadline, PP, so you aren't the only one in that particular boat. I kept mine very generic, including the 'why this chambers' section - though in all honesty, I cant really see many chambers having pupillages to spare or go wanting, other than those who participated in the old Autumn round, which were tragically few; still, he who dares, eh?-
Jaqui Smiths latest idiotic scheme to ban, name and shame 'undesireables' is precisely that. Idotic. Just because these people cant enter the country doesnt mean that their views can't be accessed via the internet, or that they cant give television/radio interviews. All a bit reminiscent of the 'Spycatcher' farce, really.....
get rid of labour and let's have the old etonian who thinks you can abolish the hra and all our problems will be solved - if the lawyers are annoyed with this lot they will be apoplectic with the (sadly inevitable) tory government around the corner. and that's allowing for the fact that i reckon about 70% of the bar are tory voters. at least i will be able to mock the stupid bastards. and goddess above will i mock - i will mock them on the beaches...i'm gonna mock them like nobody's ever mocked them come rain or come shite. etc...
tho i will ban blue jacqui as long as you throw in wee hazel blears and her red red hair. i think they boiled down the last red flag to colour it. should have locked her in a box and been done with it. didn't even need to be a big box. unless you put in all the shite she appears to believe in with her.
sorry - the 'becky' comment above was me as well. that's just a ahem err working name.
*shuffles off sheepishly*
Hazel Blears is even worse! God that woman is awful. Absolutely two faced little irritation. And how hypocritical of them all to be criticising Fred Goodwin for taking his pension?! It's within the rules afterall, so that's ok isn't it?!
Post a Comment