Today I went to an open evening for the Kaplan Law school. It was very useful for giving me all the info I need so far to prepare for post grad as a student lawyer, and after today, I definitely want to apply for a post-grad law vocational course there.
I initially went to their campus for Business studies, but one of the tutors cordially walked me to the correct campus, where I was greeted with chocolate, and a guy who had seen my tweet on going to the open evening, saying I should follow them on twitter (which I am now.) there was wine (white wine!) and I was given a pack of useful info in relation to applying for training contracts/pupillage's and of the law school itself, before having a mini talk on the former topics.
I was really impressed and grateful that they gave a lot of information for law students, despite us not having secured a place there yet. There was a lot of information I received by going there that I have not been told at uni! I think it was also quite encouraging to go there and find such a great atmosphere for working and relaxing. I thank God I live in London, as it was so much more easier for me to travel there, as opposed to some people who had to pay more to travel from out of London.
Going to this open evening, allowed me to set my eyes on the things ahead. It's better for me to study harder now, in the knowledge that that will assist in my being accepted at this and other law schools. I needed to have some sort of focus as to why I am studying so much, because all the books,cases and legislations can sometimes blind, as well as suffocate me.
For now, I shall continue to study hard, gaining work experience wherever I can, so that a few years down the line (when I hopefully secure a 1st or 2:1) I will be one of those taken by Kaplan's gracious arms, to study more law, and get a career in it! Now, where is that book on EU law? :-)
The rants of a baby law student. Occasional politics &and personal stuff. All my own thoughts, I am capable of that much...
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Monday, 14 November 2011
Law on TV. (And I don't mean those awful PPI adverts...)
I flicked to BBC1 on Sunday evening, and was initially drawn to the show, having perceived it as a periodic drama (I love em). I continued watching as I became engaged with the case itself (a mentally ill terrorist of the day, attempting to assassinate the King to result in his being hanged for treason.) and how the Barrister Garrow (who actually existed might I add) would argue his case for the defence of this troubled defendant.
I was engaged with this episode from it's commencement to it's dramatic and emotional ending, capturing the audiences undivided attention throughout, whilst still maintaining an easy plot for us to follow. I was not surprised to discover that this successful programme has gone well into it's 3rd season, despite me watching it on Sunday for the first time.
What I enjoyed most about this programme was the ability it had as a whole to widen people's perspectives of the legal world. A lot of people have a distorted view of lawyers, thinking them all liars and apathetic deceivers. Yet this programme (despite it being set in another era) portrayed a degree of realism to the lives of lawyers.
Garrow actually had his own domestic anxieties to concern himself with (his wife attempting to legally own her son,stolen by her 'ex. Yep, normal life.) he did not throw his hands up and say 'I'm done'. He continued to defend the guy no one believed deserved defending. That's the kind of lawyer I aspire to be. I want to give people who otherwise wouldn't have a voice, exactly that. I'd like to represent and aid people who don't have the legal knowledge or confidence to do so independently. For me, that's what Garrow's Law is all about ultimately, and that's why, above all other legal TV shows around, I shall solely watch this one alone, religiously. So, Huzzah to Garrow. :-)
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
The choice to voice my opinions.
Today at uni my lecturer ended a seminar by asking us 'If we had 30 days to live, what would we spend it doing?' One 'joker of the class' said he'd spend it having all the sex he wanted. I rolled my eyes, and others tutted in expectation of such a typical response.
Then a woman (we have young people and a few older people studying with us) said the same thing, laughing. At this, I spoke up in disbelief and reproach. I was astonished that she would proudly degrade herself and the reputation of her sex by stating something like this. I was also upset that she made no mention of showing regards to her family, who would be left behind if that actually happened.
This is a woman who has three children, one of them being autistic. I was outraged that she could display such ignorance of how to consider loved ones, but as I looked around, I knew I wasn't the only one who felt this way.
Yet because I was the only one who verbally conveyed my disapproval, she launched an argument, saying that I have no right to judge her or her opinions. I responded (barely audibly as the whole class was in an uproar by now) saying that I honestly did not mean to offend her, but had to state my disapproval of such a statement from such a woman of responsibilities.
I am sure she thought that because the young boy had said it, she was also entitled to. But this boy is one of ignorance, arrogance, inexperience, and little responsibility. A woman of many experiences and responsibilities, cannot align herself to a younger boy like that, thinking it acceptable. I just found it shameful and almost repulsive.
Was I right to voice such repulse, or ought I just to have kept it to myself as others did? I began to question my verbal actions when she suddenly packed her bag and stormed out of the classroom, even though my friends said she was being a bit of a drama queen, and couldn't hack the truth.
The thing is, some people ought to hear such reproof to change their ignorant ways, despite how right they think they are. I am someone who openly accepts constructive criticism, as only my loved ones provide this, so I know it must be for my benefit. Maybe she had never got the training I have growing up, and so now she lives chaotically and irresponsibly, doing as she pleases. There is no excuse for what she said, and I genuinely believe that we must all wake up, smell the coffee and change from our naive behaviours to become better people. Sometimes constructive criticism does that.
Then a woman (we have young people and a few older people studying with us) said the same thing, laughing. At this, I spoke up in disbelief and reproach. I was astonished that she would proudly degrade herself and the reputation of her sex by stating something like this. I was also upset that she made no mention of showing regards to her family, who would be left behind if that actually happened.
This is a woman who has three children, one of them being autistic. I was outraged that she could display such ignorance of how to consider loved ones, but as I looked around, I knew I wasn't the only one who felt this way.
Yet because I was the only one who verbally conveyed my disapproval, she launched an argument, saying that I have no right to judge her or her opinions. I responded (barely audibly as the whole class was in an uproar by now) saying that I honestly did not mean to offend her, but had to state my disapproval of such a statement from such a woman of responsibilities.
I am sure she thought that because the young boy had said it, she was also entitled to. But this boy is one of ignorance, arrogance, inexperience, and little responsibility. A woman of many experiences and responsibilities, cannot align herself to a younger boy like that, thinking it acceptable. I just found it shameful and almost repulsive.
Was I right to voice such repulse, or ought I just to have kept it to myself as others did? I began to question my verbal actions when she suddenly packed her bag and stormed out of the classroom, even though my friends said she was being a bit of a drama queen, and couldn't hack the truth.
The thing is, some people ought to hear such reproof to change their ignorant ways, despite how right they think they are. I am someone who openly accepts constructive criticism, as only my loved ones provide this, so I know it must be for my benefit. Maybe she had never got the training I have growing up, and so now she lives chaotically and irresponsibly, doing as she pleases. There is no excuse for what she said, and I genuinely believe that we must all wake up, smell the coffee and change from our naive behaviours to become better people. Sometimes constructive criticism does that.
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
To be a Barrister, or Not to be?
I'm going to an open day for the BPP Law school in one of the London centres this saturday, so i'll be writing up a post on that soon afterwards. I'm ever so excited, and hopefully going there will reinforce the reasons why I wanted to go into law in the first place, and show a bit of an insight as to what I'll expect after my degree.
The trouble is, I still don't which type of lawyer I want to be yet. I have at least three years from now, but I know that'll go swiftly. I know that whichever type of lawyer I become, I shall definitely go into Human rights law, as that interests me most (I wanted to do criminal but my mum opposes.) but I just don't know which type of lawyer. I'd love to be a barrister (I can be quite argumentative and would love to verbally defend) but I'm scared It'd be too competitive and expensive and I know that my skills can't guarantee me the job.
I know becoming a solicitor would also be pricey and competitive, but I feel it may be somewhat more manageable than going into the Bar. I already fear that my ethnicity, poorer background and gender are set backs, and going to uni where a lot of people seem smarter than me doesn't ease those insecurities. Hopefully all shall work out in by the time I reach that hurdle eh?
The trouble is, I still don't which type of lawyer I want to be yet. I have at least three years from now, but I know that'll go swiftly. I know that whichever type of lawyer I become, I shall definitely go into Human rights law, as that interests me most (I wanted to do criminal but my mum opposes.) but I just don't know which type of lawyer. I'd love to be a barrister (I can be quite argumentative and would love to verbally defend) but I'm scared It'd be too competitive and expensive and I know that my skills can't guarantee me the job.
I know becoming a solicitor would also be pricey and competitive, but I feel it may be somewhat more manageable than going into the Bar. I already fear that my ethnicity, poorer background and gender are set backs, and going to uni where a lot of people seem smarter than me doesn't ease those insecurities. Hopefully all shall work out in by the time I reach that hurdle eh?
Grr, Money, Grr...
I've been at uni for about two months, and not a single penny of my loan or grant from student finance has found it's way into my account. Not one. Not even a sixth pence (whatever value that'd have would be more than I have in my account anyhow.) Why? Ask the indecisive student finance.
Every time I fill out yet another form, they find a flaw so significant that they refuse to pay me. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be as infuriated, if my parents were filthy rich (like other friends at uni) or if I had a part time job (which apparently nobody requires me to have.) but I don't. I haven't a penny, my mum's out of work to look after my baby sister, and my dad has another 5 mouths to feed other than my own. I have no idea why this financially instability has befallen on me.
Although my parent's struggle financially, and I live in a supposedly 'deprived' part of London, I have no criminal record, I didn't take part in the summer riots, I don't miss lectures, and I study hard. I wanted to take a career in law for partly this reason. Hopefully when I become a qualified lawyer, I'd be able to help my family and myself gain financial stability, and pay for my baby sis to go to a private school and end up in oxford. Until then, must I live in poverty? And how on earth can an organization which claims to help people, not fulfill it's purpose? Finally, where on Earth do I go from here? I feel as though my hope is dying (and I've applied for copious jobs, they never get back to me.) :(
Every time I fill out yet another form, they find a flaw so significant that they refuse to pay me. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be as infuriated, if my parents were filthy rich (like other friends at uni) or if I had a part time job (which apparently nobody requires me to have.) but I don't. I haven't a penny, my mum's out of work to look after my baby sister, and my dad has another 5 mouths to feed other than my own. I have no idea why this financially instability has befallen on me.
Although my parent's struggle financially, and I live in a supposedly 'deprived' part of London, I have no criminal record, I didn't take part in the summer riots, I don't miss lectures, and I study hard. I wanted to take a career in law for partly this reason. Hopefully when I become a qualified lawyer, I'd be able to help my family and myself gain financial stability, and pay for my baby sis to go to a private school and end up in oxford. Until then, must I live in poverty? And how on earth can an organization which claims to help people, not fulfill it's purpose? Finally, where on Earth do I go from here? I feel as though my hope is dying (and I've applied for copious jobs, they never get back to me.) :(
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
Coming soon to a blogpost near you...
I haven't blogged about my personal life in a while, because my mum believes I'm addicted to blogging and I ought to prove her wrong. But there will be a blog post coming soon about uni, my dreams aspirations and anxieties. Sounds interesting eh? It might not be, but I feel I have to post about it. Watch this space.
Monday, 10 October 2011
Should the English legal system be unbound by the ECJ?
At the end of the Conservative's Party conference for 2011, David Cameron (leader of this political party) did mention his strong desire to detach this country from the EU legislative powers completely. But, why? This post will be looking into a couple of legal systems from European countries, comparing them to our countries legal systems (only breifly, this isn't an essay, just a blogpost.) and aim to decipher why it is that the topic to remove ourselves from Europe should even be discussed.
I am going to start with a seemingly irrelevant case in relation to the title, but don't worry, it'll all hopefully make sense by the end (if not, sue me. Don't really, I don't have the money for that...)Anyway, on the 4th of September, Amanda Knox (Accused of murdering Meridith Kercher in 2007) had been acquitted after a successful appeal by the defence after four years of appeals. The outcome was of course a shock to everyone, and I concur with Meredith's brother, when he stated: "We are now left looking at this again and thinking how a decision that was certain two yeas ago has been so empathetically overturned..."
How indeed could the judges acquit miss Knox based on her appeals, even though there was significant evidence to suggest that Amanda Knox did part take in the murder of Meredith? Would this acquittal suggest that the Italian courts were too quick to 'judge' initially, or does this acquittal of a once acclaimed 'She Devil' show confusion, and a certain lack for standing by their previous decisions made? Which brings me unto my next question; are the English legal systems much more secure and predictable than the legal systems in other European countries (like Italy in this example)?
Let's go back in time a little bit. Ever since the Norman Conquest, the English legal system (let's just call it the ELS for short?) has improved century by century, and become more defined and effective, just by the courts applying the simple idea of stare decisis (standing by a previous decision) and submitting to the binding precedents of higher courts in the hierarchy. This has meant that cases in English courts are more predictable, and can therefore act as a deterrent for potential offenders in England. For example, knowing that murdering someone would result in serious and possibly lengthy custodial sentencing, could persuade most people not to murder in the first place.
Yet other European countries do not necessarily follow the same principle of stare decisis in their courts. Let's take Italy for example. Although there is a clear hierarchy of courts in the Italian legal system, it is claimed to be too 'complicated', mainly because there are just too many laws set in place, most of which are dismissed, meaning the Italian public and even Italian lawyers find it difficult to decipher which laws the judges are likely to use, making their cases harder to predict.
If a cases' outcome is unpredictable, this could mean solicitors advising clients not to begin the lengthy and costly litigation process in the first place, resulting in the possible reduction of work for lawyers, and an in balance in the justice system. I am not suggesting that this is the case in the Italian legal system, but merely stating potential calamities which would occur (in any legal system) without a secure principal of precedent.
Moving on from Italy, let's look at another European Legal system, different to England. France. Unlike England, France follows a system founded on 'Written law', not Case law. Although the hierarchy of the French judiciary coincides and is similar to that in England, judges in France play a more active role in the procedural and investigatory process of trials. There are clear benefits to the French legal system (Following written law also promotes comprehension in the outcome of cases like England, and would therefore have a likewise effect) and the book 'Civil law and the Anglo - American lawyer: A case illustrated introduction to civil law institutions and method' by Henry P. De Vries, George A. Schneider, René David States that 'French courts (are) bound by the written law....'
Even though the French legal system refer religiously to written law, surely this must mean that cases would take longer to proceed with because of the numerous laws in relation to the case that they must look into? Also, how can judges in France be certain that their interpretation of these laws they apply in cases are the intended interpretation?
For years now, David Cameron (British PM) has made it known that he wants to abolish the Human Rights act and replace it with an Act which would have no ties to Europe. In a bid to end the Act, Theresa May (Home secretary) falsely claimed at last week's Conservative Party Conference that an illegal immigrant was permitted to stay in this country because 'and I am not making this up' - he owned a cat. She was later proved that this was falsely given information, and it can be argued that Britain has far too many benefits and ties with being involved with Europe, and that taking away our courts being bound to the ECJ and one of their legislations, detaching ourselves could mean cutting ourselves off financially too, at a time when we (beggars) cannot be the choosers.
However, even though there are benefits to our being bound by their legislative statutes, a lot of cases (as Theresa May attempted to state) in Britain, end up with absurd outcomes, because of this restriction of courts having to be bound by the ECJ. There are a couple of examples Mrs May told party members: “We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act: the violent drug dealer who cannot be sent home because his daughter – for whom he pays no maintenance – lives here; the robber who cannot be removed because he has a girlfriend.”
I am going to start with a seemingly irrelevant case in relation to the title, but don't worry, it'll all hopefully make sense by the end (if not, sue me. Don't really, I don't have the money for that...)Anyway, on the 4th of September, Amanda Knox (Accused of murdering Meridith Kercher in 2007) had been acquitted after a successful appeal by the defence after four years of appeals. The outcome was of course a shock to everyone, and I concur with Meredith's brother, when he stated: "We are now left looking at this again and thinking how a decision that was certain two yeas ago has been so empathetically overturned..."
How indeed could the judges acquit miss Knox based on her appeals, even though there was significant evidence to suggest that Amanda Knox did part take in the murder of Meredith? Would this acquittal suggest that the Italian courts were too quick to 'judge' initially, or does this acquittal of a once acclaimed 'She Devil' show confusion, and a certain lack for standing by their previous decisions made? Which brings me unto my next question; are the English legal systems much more secure and predictable than the legal systems in other European countries (like Italy in this example)?
Let's go back in time a little bit. Ever since the Norman Conquest, the English legal system (let's just call it the ELS for short?) has improved century by century, and become more defined and effective, just by the courts applying the simple idea of stare decisis (standing by a previous decision) and submitting to the binding precedents of higher courts in the hierarchy. This has meant that cases in English courts are more predictable, and can therefore act as a deterrent for potential offenders in England. For example, knowing that murdering someone would result in serious and possibly lengthy custodial sentencing, could persuade most people not to murder in the first place.
Yet other European countries do not necessarily follow the same principle of stare decisis in their courts. Let's take Italy for example. Although there is a clear hierarchy of courts in the Italian legal system, it is claimed to be too 'complicated', mainly because there are just too many laws set in place, most of which are dismissed, meaning the Italian public and even Italian lawyers find it difficult to decipher which laws the judges are likely to use, making their cases harder to predict.
If a cases' outcome is unpredictable, this could mean solicitors advising clients not to begin the lengthy and costly litigation process in the first place, resulting in the possible reduction of work for lawyers, and an in balance in the justice system. I am not suggesting that this is the case in the Italian legal system, but merely stating potential calamities which would occur (in any legal system) without a secure principal of precedent.
Moving on from Italy, let's look at another European Legal system, different to England. France. Unlike England, France follows a system founded on 'Written law', not Case law. Although the hierarchy of the French judiciary coincides and is similar to that in England, judges in France play a more active role in the procedural and investigatory process of trials. There are clear benefits to the French legal system (Following written law also promotes comprehension in the outcome of cases like England, and would therefore have a likewise effect) and the book 'Civil law and the Anglo - American lawyer: A case illustrated introduction to civil law institutions and method' by Henry P. De Vries, George A. Schneider, René David States that 'French courts (are) bound by the written law....'
Even though the French legal system refer religiously to written law, surely this must mean that cases would take longer to proceed with because of the numerous laws in relation to the case that they must look into? Also, how can judges in France be certain that their interpretation of these laws they apply in cases are the intended interpretation?
For years now, David Cameron (British PM) has made it known that he wants to abolish the Human Rights act and replace it with an Act which would have no ties to Europe. In a bid to end the Act, Theresa May (Home secretary) falsely claimed at last week's Conservative Party Conference that an illegal immigrant was permitted to stay in this country because 'and I am not making this up' - he owned a cat. She was later proved that this was falsely given information, and it can be argued that Britain has far too many benefits and ties with being involved with Europe, and that taking away our courts being bound to the ECJ and one of their legislations, detaching ourselves could mean cutting ourselves off financially too, at a time when we (beggars) cannot be the choosers.
However, even though there are benefits to our being bound by their legislative statutes, a lot of cases (as Theresa May attempted to state) in Britain, end up with absurd outcomes, because of this restriction of courts having to be bound by the ECJ. There are a couple of examples Mrs May told party members: “We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act: the violent drug dealer who cannot be sent home because his daughter – for whom he pays no maintenance – lives here; the robber who cannot be removed because he has a girlfriend.”
Bearing such absurd cases in mind, do we think of how 'linking arms' to the rest of Europe can benefit us, or how cutting ourselves off could lead to better outcomes in cases and legal matters, bringing ultimate order to our country as a whole. One final question, when taking into consideration the definite ambiguity and variety in European legal systems, is it wise or helpful, for this country to remain entangled with the European legal system, being bound to the ECJ and the Human Rights Act 1998?
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
One of my tweets on Cameron's speech on the BBC website. #proudmoment.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
The Wedding of River Song (A Dr Who review...)
*** Spoiler alert for episode 13 season 6 ***
This episode was the last before the Christmas special, and so was supposed to be epic, intriguing and exciting, leaving a massive cliff hanger for the Christmas special. I'll give Steven Moffat (head writer and exec. producer) some credit though. This episode, answered the questions I wanted to know (how would the Dr die without ending Dr Who as a programme, and when would he supposedly marry Melody Pond?), whilst keeping me on the edge of my seat in my mental attempts to decipher how the narrative would play out.
Unfortunately though, as much as I was intrigued, I also found myself beguiled and quite confused in this complex,complicated,and incomprehensible narrative. Now if me being an adult could not grasp this episodes' storyline, I wonder if the 11year olds who this programme is aimed at could?
Let me try to reconstruct the story line for you: Ages ago, there was an episode which showed the Dr dying, and ever since then there have been hints that the future Dr will obviously die also, but that his death would be shown differently, explaining why he had to die.
In this episode, It is explained that the 'silence' (a religious movement) believe that a time will come when all beings will have no choice but to speak the truth, and that's when a question will be asked, a question that must never be answered which the Dr will answer if he is alive. The question is unknown. Following so far? Yes? Okay. So, because the Dr's been 'on the run' time (past, present and future) have intertwined in a way that they shouldn't have, and the Dr needs to touch Melody Pond (the present one) to bring him to the appointed time of his death. Why Melody Pond? Because Melody Pond (the future one) kills him. (His murder is supposed to be her whole reason for existence apparently.) He finds Melody, along with her parents, Amy Pond and Rory (who are visibly younger than her, and were the Dr's companions) who allow Melody and the Dr to marry.
Of course, tracing back to three episodes ago, there were a group of people who transformed themselves into tiny beings living inside a robot which was disguised as any human they wanted it to be, and these people were like the 'time police' travelling through time and torturing aliens/humans who committed serious offences which would affect time. The Dr asks them to transform him, and take his bodily form, so that when he does die, it isn't him dying, it is the robot thingy.
My obvious questions now are this:
- Wouldn't this 'silence' be smart enough to know that it wasn't the actual Dr who had died?
- Can the Dr still travel through time saving lives without being detected?
- Can the Dr still see Amy and Rory?
And finally-
- Is this programme just a little too confusing for adults and kids now?
This episode was the last before the Christmas special, and so was supposed to be epic, intriguing and exciting, leaving a massive cliff hanger for the Christmas special. I'll give Steven Moffat (head writer and exec. producer) some credit though. This episode, answered the questions I wanted to know (how would the Dr die without ending Dr Who as a programme, and when would he supposedly marry Melody Pond?), whilst keeping me on the edge of my seat in my mental attempts to decipher how the narrative would play out.
Unfortunately though, as much as I was intrigued, I also found myself beguiled and quite confused in this complex,complicated,and incomprehensible narrative. Now if me being an adult could not grasp this episodes' storyline, I wonder if the 11year olds who this programme is aimed at could?
Let me try to reconstruct the story line for you: Ages ago, there was an episode which showed the Dr dying, and ever since then there have been hints that the future Dr will obviously die also, but that his death would be shown differently, explaining why he had to die.
In this episode, It is explained that the 'silence' (a religious movement) believe that a time will come when all beings will have no choice but to speak the truth, and that's when a question will be asked, a question that must never be answered which the Dr will answer if he is alive. The question is unknown. Following so far? Yes? Okay. So, because the Dr's been 'on the run' time (past, present and future) have intertwined in a way that they shouldn't have, and the Dr needs to touch Melody Pond (the present one) to bring him to the appointed time of his death. Why Melody Pond? Because Melody Pond (the future one) kills him. (His murder is supposed to be her whole reason for existence apparently.) He finds Melody, along with her parents, Amy Pond and Rory (who are visibly younger than her, and were the Dr's companions) who allow Melody and the Dr to marry.
Of course, tracing back to three episodes ago, there were a group of people who transformed themselves into tiny beings living inside a robot which was disguised as any human they wanted it to be, and these people were like the 'time police' travelling through time and torturing aliens/humans who committed serious offences which would affect time. The Dr asks them to transform him, and take his bodily form, so that when he does die, it isn't him dying, it is the robot thingy.
My obvious questions now are this:
- Wouldn't this 'silence' be smart enough to know that it wasn't the actual Dr who had died?
- Can the Dr still travel through time saving lives without being detected?
- Can the Dr still see Amy and Rory?
And finally-
- Is this programme just a little too confusing for adults and kids now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)