Well folks, that's a wrap for me being a first year law student. Yesterday I finished off my final exam of this semester, and walked out leaving the cares of the world in the exam hall. I cannot begin to express how thankful I am that I made it at least one year, with now only two more years until I can (hopefully) walk out of uni, and waltz into law school. Yikes.
For now though, I am going to enjoy this summer like any teenager would, and meet up with all my mates who went out of London for uni, and what a reunion it shall be! Yet despite my plans for fun I shall still seek for legal work experience (I won't give up until I get something) and continue to work hard at the job I now have. Which isn't hard to do, as I absolutely love it. Working for a charity is definitely rewarding, with or without pay.
Well then, I just wanted to blog and let the world know that in general, everything here seems to be on the up, and I have great hope for the near and far future, especially in terms of my career. I think it's good to have some positive attitude whilst studying something like law at some point, or else you'd kill yourself eh?!
Anyway I better get some rest as I have to leave quite early (for a Saturday) for work tomorrow. But before I go, I'd like to say that all legally interested or qualified person(s) must refer to the BBC programme Silk. It is absolutely fantastic and entertaining to watch, even though some aspects of the film are a melodramatic version of how the Bar is in real life.
Okay, having said all this malarky, I am off. God knows when I'll blog again, I'm sure it won't be long, especially if I actually get some legal work experience. Ta for now! :-)
The rants of a baby law student. Occasional politics &and personal stuff. All my own thoughts, I am capable of that much...
Friday, 15 June 2012
Friday, 8 June 2012
'Tis I, once again...
Hey again, I am back! I just wanted to update anyone who wanted to know the good news that I have an internship for this summer. It's nothing law based , it's a charity I work for but it's still experience, and I love it. The environment is very cool and easy going, and everybody I work with are very friendly and helpful, so I don't feel intimated, and always enjoy going to work!
Despite me finding a job, I am still on the lookout for any mini pupillage's etc, even though it's 'summer' now (despite the English rain) and so I may not find one, or one where I'd be required to do a lot of legal work. Whatever happens I am totally enjoying life at the moment. It's very weird that I am enjoying life, because I am the most busy nowadays, and often freak out when I realise how much I have to do each day.
Okay, so I only lead a youth choir at my church, go to work, meet up with friends, spend time with my family, look for legal work exp. and continue reading law but I'd say for a teen that's a lot to do eh? I just love it though. I love feeling like there's so much to do, it gives me an energy and zeal I wouldn't get if I were a couch potato.
Also, there's a guy... at my workplace... Now, I still am not convinced that it would go anywhere, but can't help thinking he may like me, only because my colleagues pointed it out in the first place. They all tease me about how he only "has eyes for me" and only really speaks to me etc, but I'm sure he is just being nice. I just can't bring myself to believe that a gorgeous, blond haired and blue-eyed guy would think a dark skinned, short, chubby cheeked girl is pretty enough to fancy. I guess I'll see how everything plays out, but I am soo behind in the love department, I don't know how to "flirt" back or seem confident, all that kind of stuff makes me cringe and want to throw up.
I'm also not that girly. I mean, I'm not a strict tom-boy, but I like a good play fight with my brothers, watch a Chelsea match here and there, and would prefer to wear converses on my wedding day as opposed to glass slippers. I always freak out when I hear that a guy is interested in me, because I always think "If you knew the real weird, 80's obsessed, book worm, baggy jeans wearer I REALLY am you'd run a mile" So I always keep them at a distance. In addition to that, I have so many commitments (previously listed) that I simply couldn't get involved with anybody right now. I feel like I'm finally beginning to enjoy my adolescence and freedom, but also becoming actively involved in everything I do (like church), that I just wouldn't hack it.
Yesterday, I went to my first proper gig to see a band I adore, and I got to meet them afterwards, taking pictures, and talking to them, inevitably getting back home late, but I had had so much fun I didn't care ( I had also called my mum to let her know I was fine so it wasn't too bad ha).I came home grinning, and in awe that I had actually met one of my favourite bands! I plan to do a lot more stuff where I can have fun with mates, because I'd hate to grow up thinking my youth was boring. Also, because I study a supposedly "boring" subject, I feel like I ought to make up for it by having fun with friends.
I'll wait and see how everything with this guy turns out, and how work as a whole turns out, but I won't worry too much about it all. I know this year will be the start of many new things in my life, and I am looking forwards to each event, like a child watching to see a shooting star. :)
Wednesday, 9 May 2012
hi all.
I'm back. But only to say that despite my brill birthday last month I am still gutted.
Gutted that Borris is still our mayor after a seemingly promising may3rd.
Gutted that I have an exam tomorrow and practically everyday hence forth up until the end of this month.
And gutted that I have assignments due in too.
So what am I doing online? I came to say hello.
Okay bye now :)
....by the way I am not a misery guts I promise.
I am happy about some things, like the caramel machiatto which awaits me.
Alrighty I'm leaving now...
Gutted that Borris is still our mayor after a seemingly promising may3rd.
Gutted that I have an exam tomorrow and practically everyday hence forth up until the end of this month.
And gutted that I have assignments due in too.
So what am I doing online? I came to say hello.
Okay bye now :)
....by the way I am not a misery guts I promise.
I am happy about some things, like the caramel machiatto which awaits me.
Alrighty I'm leaving now...
Monday, 20 February 2012
Encouragement.
Hello, long time so see eh? Well I have been a busy bee you know, being a law student and all. I also learn Spanish and play my guitar during spare time so I am always doing something, but I am back yaay!
Anyway I wanted to blog something very positive this time round. Last week my lecture class and I went on a trip to visit some chambers (which if you don't know are where barristers work) by strand, Inner Temple and Middle Temple. They were absolutely wicked, and I fell in love with the old buildings and their hogwarts themed dining hall.
I also had the lucky chance of having a cuppa with a QC (Queen's Counsel,i.e senior barrister) who gave me great encouragement me as well as describing the realities of the job. I thought it may throw me off but the whole experience encouraged all the more to go into the field of law.I found it incredibly compelling and thrilling, despite all the negative points the QC raised (which I think I could handle). I honestly feel like God himself wants me to go into the field of law, which I guess means I have the 'go-ahead' from above eh?!
The whole day seemed magical, and as I wondered around the chambers I could visualise myself working there and doing my pupillage there too! Which reminds me, the QC I spoke to said he definitely wants to see me again, so I shall try and get a mini pupillage from him, I think he would give me a good reference and I need all the work experience I can get. So all in all I am exceedingly encouraged, and today I even picked up a magazine which had two articles on inspirational young girls who have begun their own businesses or become successful by not giving up. So that's what I'll do. Not start a business, (at least, not now) I won't give up. :-)
Anyway I wanted to blog something very positive this time round. Last week my lecture class and I went on a trip to visit some chambers (which if you don't know are where barristers work) by strand, Inner Temple and Middle Temple. They were absolutely wicked, and I fell in love with the old buildings and their hogwarts themed dining hall.
I also had the lucky chance of having a cuppa with a QC (Queen's Counsel,i.e senior barrister) who gave me great encouragement me as well as describing the realities of the job. I thought it may throw me off but the whole experience encouraged all the more to go into the field of law.I found it incredibly compelling and thrilling, despite all the negative points the QC raised (which I think I could handle). I honestly feel like God himself wants me to go into the field of law, which I guess means I have the 'go-ahead' from above eh?!
The whole day seemed magical, and as I wondered around the chambers I could visualise myself working there and doing my pupillage there too! Which reminds me, the QC I spoke to said he definitely wants to see me again, so I shall try and get a mini pupillage from him, I think he would give me a good reference and I need all the work experience I can get. So all in all I am exceedingly encouraged, and today I even picked up a magazine which had two articles on inspirational young girls who have begun their own businesses or become successful by not giving up. So that's what I'll do. Not start a business, (at least, not now) I won't give up. :-)
Monday, 9 January 2012
'Racial equality' Is really just a phrase.
Last week the news of the Stephen Lawrence case obtaining partial justice re-opened Britain's shut eyes on how bad this country was and still is when dealing with racial issues. Then our fellow Labour MP Dianne Abbot claimed that "White people love playing (the) 'divide and rule' game." Which of course brought an uproar in the media,provoking her to apologise and step down from her post very grudgingly. Now, I disagree and agree with Mrs Abbot here. Don't shoot me yet I haven't explained myself. I am in no way racist, and have (like many others) tried to ignore the topic of racial issues when possible, but like Danny John Jules: "One day I woke up and realised I was black, that I was always going to be black, and that racism would always be there." So now when I hear of things like the Stephen Lawrence case or see racism before me, my blood boils. Okay, back to Mrs Abbott. I agree with her in the sense that there is a game of "divide and rule" going on. I disagree with her because I don't think it is solely white people. Black,white,asian,oriental,mixed races, all of us divide ourselves. I've seen it in every institution I have been in (aside from my church which is good eh). From primary school where there were only three white people in my class and nobody spoke to them because everybody thought they were 'smelly' (mind you this is in Britain, London, a place packed with people of different backgrounds) to college where there were literally two cafeterias, one where white people hung out, and the other where black people and asians were. Uni isn't so bad, but I cannot say people 'grow out' of these silly racial prejudices, because I am sure people see/feel/do this same kind of segregational (if that's a word) stuff in all stages of their lives.
People seriously have to stop looking on the outward appearances and thinking that because someone is a particular race, they will act a certain way or ought to be treated a certain way. Someone even tweeted that "...it's incredible that we're still in charge of everything." The "We're" being "white people". Who the Hell said any race is superior or in charge of anything? What worried me is that I saw this tweet on my timeline because a lawyer 're-tweeted' it. I don't want to enter law school and be intimidated (as I was on some of the open days) because I am the only black person there, and have a hunch that all the white,upper/middle-class,most likely Oxford/Cambridge students will get immense and immediate preference over me.
What if I am better than the 'typical' white middle class girl for the job? How would anyone know if they always prejudge? Even with the police, as horrified I was to hear that they literally threw what Lawrences' mother had handed over to them back in her face because they too were in on the racist malicious behaviour, I am not surprised. Even today the police stop myself and my brothers more than our white friends, and when I am with white friends only, I am never stopped. If so, I am usually searched more than my fellow Caucasians.
Please, remember once again that I am not racist, so when I refer to white people as 'caucasians' or whatever I previously said, I mean in no way to offend or mock any of them. Back to topic,I do feel the tension between races. During college I made friends with a lot of middle class white people. It took ages for them to stop prejudging me, and realising that I am in no way related with gangs, am serious about my education, and would actually prefer a book to an iPod. It annoyed me so much that they even tried to speak 'gangster' to me because they thought I was like that, and one of the guys thought he could only relate to me by saying he "saw someone get stabbed." It became ridiculous when people only tried to set me up with black guys, as though I wouldn't dream of dating a white guy, even though I prefer gingers!
Anyway, I think I am getting too personal with this so back to generalization. Anyone remember Teresa May's attempts to cut down immigration? With the 'go ahead' from Mr Cameron of course. How can people of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds flourish in a land where they feel as though they are being pushed away? (and let's face it, this is what they're doing) who will rise and be a mixed race prime minister, or future asian Lord Sugar, or even a black Einstein, if everybody pushes everybody away? Do not be afraid or paranoid of other races. Whites, black people don't bite. Asians, appreciate Caucasians. Blacks, crack the ice between you and others. (made it rhyme on purpose *bows* thank you, thank you.)
Sorry if this post was ill structured as I believe it to be, I just wanted to rant and vent in some constructive form. Oh and um, I really ought to lighten the mood of my blogposts eh? I'm working on it, I'm working on it (Happy new year once again) ;)
People seriously have to stop looking on the outward appearances and thinking that because someone is a particular race, they will act a certain way or ought to be treated a certain way. Someone even tweeted that "...it's incredible that we're still in charge of everything." The "We're" being "white people". Who the Hell said any race is superior or in charge of anything? What worried me is that I saw this tweet on my timeline because a lawyer 're-tweeted' it. I don't want to enter law school and be intimidated (as I was on some of the open days) because I am the only black person there, and have a hunch that all the white,upper/middle-class,most likely Oxford/Cambridge students will get immense and immediate preference over me.
What if I am better than the 'typical' white middle class girl for the job? How would anyone know if they always prejudge? Even with the police, as horrified I was to hear that they literally threw what Lawrences' mother had handed over to them back in her face because they too were in on the racist malicious behaviour, I am not surprised. Even today the police stop myself and my brothers more than our white friends, and when I am with white friends only, I am never stopped. If so, I am usually searched more than my fellow Caucasians.
Please, remember once again that I am not racist, so when I refer to white people as 'caucasians' or whatever I previously said, I mean in no way to offend or mock any of them. Back to topic,I do feel the tension between races. During college I made friends with a lot of middle class white people. It took ages for them to stop prejudging me, and realising that I am in no way related with gangs, am serious about my education, and would actually prefer a book to an iPod. It annoyed me so much that they even tried to speak 'gangster' to me because they thought I was like that, and one of the guys thought he could only relate to me by saying he "saw someone get stabbed." It became ridiculous when people only tried to set me up with black guys, as though I wouldn't dream of dating a white guy, even though I prefer gingers!
Anyway, I think I am getting too personal with this so back to generalization. Anyone remember Teresa May's attempts to cut down immigration? With the 'go ahead' from Mr Cameron of course. How can people of various ethnic and cultural backgrounds flourish in a land where they feel as though they are being pushed away? (and let's face it, this is what they're doing) who will rise and be a mixed race prime minister, or future asian Lord Sugar, or even a black Einstein, if everybody pushes everybody away? Do not be afraid or paranoid of other races. Whites, black people don't bite. Asians, appreciate Caucasians. Blacks, crack the ice between you and others. (made it rhyme on purpose *bows* thank you, thank you.)
Sorry if this post was ill structured as I believe it to be, I just wanted to rant and vent in some constructive form. Oh and um, I really ought to lighten the mood of my blogposts eh? I'm working on it, I'm working on it (Happy new year once again) ;)
Friday, 6 January 2012
Happy New Year All!
Sorry I haven't blogged in a while, just been very busy this festive season. Christmas and new years' was fantastic, but I dont have time to go into details, but I just wanted to let you know I am still alive thank God! I actually forgot I was a law student, so that proves I have been super celebratory! Anyway, I promise I shall blog soon. I am still on a break from uni though.. x
Monday, 26 December 2011
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
The importance of books. Because they are important...
Ever since the age of four, my mum took me to our local library, and introduced me the wonderful world of books. I have developed a passion for books ever since, which may therefore come as no surprise that I now study law (which requires excessive reading) but that I always have two books minimum with me to read, where ever I may be.
I was therefore a bit gutted to discover via the Stylist magazine that nearly four million children in Britain do not own ANY books. None whatsoever. I brought the article home from uni to read further, and turn on the TV, to watch a programme on BBC1, about how physical hard copy books are becoming extinct by these online, E-books, which young people may not read anyway because they concern themselves more so with social networks.
I personally find it appalling that young people are growing up in a world of booklessness (I just invented a word, I know). The adventure to travel to an actual bookstore, or make the mature decision to join a library, is part of the voyage of growing up. I am sure I am not the only one who can say that all the books I read and still read, make me who I am today.
Yet this is also true for those who waste their time solely on social networks and the like. (I say solely because I acknowledge the importance of social networks, as I have plenty, but only when used moderately.) People who spend more time on social networks, fretting over how many ‘followers’ they have, or how many ‘like’ their facebook statuses, are more likely to have low self esteem, caring more about what others think about them, than those who spend time away from the world time and again to spend time in another world, in another book, in another adventure.
I think it is time for people, young and old (although I dare say the old have inherited the great habit of reading) to take it upon themselves to read. To open their eyes to worlds beyond their own. To deepen and improve their vocabulary, as the reason many young people have adopted ‘slang’ as their first language (if that’s what such a vile dialect can be called) is due to these social networks and online activity as opposed to spending more time with books and knowledgeable pastimes.
Books not only broaden your vocabulary, open your eyes, deepen your mind and intellect, but also generate positive attitudes in human behaviour. The mere process of setting out to read something (usually in a tranquil environment) and carry it out till the end, promotes patience, and I have personally found myself grow in patience, in comparison to my sister who was not brought up with books as much as I was. So, having said all this (with little facts or figures, maybe if this was an article I could’ve provided facts, but I have no time to research, and my brother wants to use the computer) I hereby declare my urging you to read read read! Oh you do so already? Fantastic! :-)
I was therefore a bit gutted to discover via the Stylist magazine that nearly four million children in Britain do not own ANY books. None whatsoever. I brought the article home from uni to read further, and turn on the TV, to watch a programme on BBC1, about how physical hard copy books are becoming extinct by these online, E-books, which young people may not read anyway because they concern themselves more so with social networks.
I personally find it appalling that young people are growing up in a world of booklessness (I just invented a word, I know). The adventure to travel to an actual bookstore, or make the mature decision to join a library, is part of the voyage of growing up. I am sure I am not the only one who can say that all the books I read and still read, make me who I am today.
Yet this is also true for those who waste their time solely on social networks and the like. (I say solely because I acknowledge the importance of social networks, as I have plenty, but only when used moderately.) People who spend more time on social networks, fretting over how many ‘followers’ they have, or how many ‘like’ their facebook statuses, are more likely to have low self esteem, caring more about what others think about them, than those who spend time away from the world time and again to spend time in another world, in another book, in another adventure.
I think it is time for people, young and old (although I dare say the old have inherited the great habit of reading) to take it upon themselves to read. To open their eyes to worlds beyond their own. To deepen and improve their vocabulary, as the reason many young people have adopted ‘slang’ as their first language (if that’s what such a vile dialect can be called) is due to these social networks and online activity as opposed to spending more time with books and knowledgeable pastimes.
Books not only broaden your vocabulary, open your eyes, deepen your mind and intellect, but also generate positive attitudes in human behaviour. The mere process of setting out to read something (usually in a tranquil environment) and carry it out till the end, promotes patience, and I have personally found myself grow in patience, in comparison to my sister who was not brought up with books as much as I was. So, having said all this (with little facts or figures, maybe if this was an article I could’ve provided facts, but I have no time to research, and my brother wants to use the computer) I hereby declare my urging you to read read read! Oh you do so already? Fantastic! :-)
Friday, 2 December 2011
Three months into law. Three years More..
Okay, three months into uni, and NOW I am feeling like a true law student. Not in a good way, in a 'OMG This work is soo hard, HELP ME LORD' kind of way. I keep up to date with all work that must be given in (sometimes I am even ahead) but that doesn't change the fact that I am still feeling the pressure.
Reading in advance still isn't enough either. How do I know this? Because every time I go to lectures and seminars, my lecturers give me ways and things I ought to be doing, that I had no idea I was meant to do. Yes, there is always something to improve on whatever field or circumstance you find yourself in, but when I'm told to improve or 'up my game' it is to such a high extent that I marvel whether I shall ever finish trying to reach there. For example, books. I am a natural reader, but law is about excessive reading, up to the point where you are reading 5-8 books minimum a week, and each chapter of each book could be a book in itself - No joke.
*breathes* It'll get better though. In a way, I embrace pressure, as it shows that I will always be on my toes and giving 110% into all. Also, seeing as I know that second, third year and even law school shall be harder, I guess I ought to get a grip right? Right? Mmmm... In other news, it's almost Christmas! I am extremely excited (as some may tell from my theme) and shall post a couple of Christmas special blogs. Asta luego. x
Reading in advance still isn't enough either. How do I know this? Because every time I go to lectures and seminars, my lecturers give me ways and things I ought to be doing, that I had no idea I was meant to do. Yes, there is always something to improve on whatever field or circumstance you find yourself in, but when I'm told to improve or 'up my game' it is to such a high extent that I marvel whether I shall ever finish trying to reach there. For example, books. I am a natural reader, but law is about excessive reading, up to the point where you are reading 5-8 books minimum a week, and each chapter of each book could be a book in itself - No joke.
*breathes* It'll get better though. In a way, I embrace pressure, as it shows that I will always be on my toes and giving 110% into all. Also, seeing as I know that second, third year and even law school shall be harder, I guess I ought to get a grip right? Right? Mmmm... In other news, it's almost Christmas! I am extremely excited (as some may tell from my theme) and shall post a couple of Christmas special blogs. Asta luego. x
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Set on the things ahead.
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? :-)
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? :-)
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?
Friday, 30 September 2011
Here's the email I sent to Mr Miliband (Ed of course....) let's hope he actually replies.
***** ******
Hello Mr Miliband. I would firstly like to congratulate you on your speech
at the labour conference this week in Liverpool.
I did very much enjoy viewing your evident enthusiasm
on this 'New Labour' concept, and hearing the 'promise of Britain' as your motto,
however I do feel that Britain has received far too many 'promises'
for us to believe any of them to have any substantial truth in them any more.
There are two flaws and anomalies I noted during the course of your speech in particular.
One of which was the evident ambiguity of distinguishing the 'predators' from the 'producers',
just how would you propose to go about regulating businesses in such a way as to define them?
Also, in terms of giving those who 'benefit society' priority for housing, how would you
propose to determine who benefits society, if after these people get their homes, stop
their community commitments?
I do understand that there must be an effective equality system where people get what they deserve,
however I do feel that there are grey areas in your tactics for tackling this problem, and it does
seem to me (judging by your speech as I haven't heard of your sentiments otherwise, aside from when
you criticised the public sector union strike which may take place in November.) that your ideas
and approaches to tackle Britain's issues day by day increasingly become more right-wing based.
What is your response to this?
I do hope that you take this email into serious consideration and respond satisfactorily to the
out cry of the public. Thank you very much,
Yours sincerely,
***** *******
You can do so too, via 'Dear Mr. Miliband'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)