but using "indepdendence" as a shield in respect of unpopular clients or political criticism. People aren't stupid and they currently see independence as a fig leaf. I was pleased to see the head of the Faculty the Bar Council recently pointing out that this was a problem, but more needs to be done.
December 1, 2025 at 4:10 PM
but using "indepdendence" as a shield in respect of unpopular clients or political criticism. People aren't stupid and they currently see independence as a fig leaf. I was pleased to see the head of the Faculty the Bar Council recently pointing out that this was a problem, but more needs to be done.
Unfortunately this will never stick because every time I open social media I see lawyers saying "so pleased for my client" "we've secured a landmark judgment holding evil corporations to account" etc. Parts of the profession are very good at personally identifying with virtuous clients...
December 1, 2025 at 4:10 PM
Unfortunately this will never stick because every time I open social media I see lawyers saying "so pleased for my client" "we've secured a landmark judgment holding evil corporations to account" etc. Parts of the profession are very good at personally identifying with virtuous clients...
Knowingly using or fraudulently selling, I suppose
December 1, 2025 at 11:22 AM
Knowingly using or fraudulently selling, I suppose
Reposted
EU example of drowning small companies in paperwork. UK examples will be easy to find (and let's not start again on ending small company de minimis exemptions...) www.ft.com/content/0797...
Companies swamped by 3,000 hours of paperwork to tap EU climate funds
Of the €7.1bn awarded from the bloc’s flagship innovation programme for clean tech, only 5% has been paid out
www.ft.com
November 30, 2025 at 10:31 AM
EU example of drowning small companies in paperwork. UK examples will be easy to find (and let's not start again on ending small company de minimis exemptions...) www.ft.com/content/0797...
Its almost like the only real answer is to build an additional set of tracks to run fast services between Manchester and London, so that they aren’t competing with stopping services.
November 29, 2025 at 7:33 PM
Its almost like the only real answer is to build an additional set of tracks to run fast services between Manchester and London, so that they aren’t competing with stopping services.
Apologies for being dense, but if the train is still running in order to get staff to London in the morning, than how does it improve reliability - presumably the train is still there on the tracks blocking stopping services?
November 29, 2025 at 7:14 PM
Apologies for being dense, but if the train is still running in order to get staff to London in the morning, than how does it improve reliability - presumably the train is still there on the tracks blocking stopping services?
Also, of course, the common law brought with the settlers in the early 1600 is contemporaneous with Proclamations and Prohibitions, pre-Civil War/Glorious Revolution and pre-Entick. The Mayflower landing was as far away from Entick as we are Disraeli and Gladstone.
November 29, 2025 at 6:11 PM
Also, of course, the common law brought with the settlers in the early 1600 is contemporaneous with Proclamations and Prohibitions, pre-Civil War/Glorious Revolution and pre-Entick. The Mayflower landing was as far away from Entick as we are Disraeli and Gladstone.
You end up with German, Italian, Polish etc lawyers bringing ideas of a droit administratif with them, and superimposing that onto the common law foundations via the medium of the Bill of Rights and, later, 14A.
November 29, 2025 at 6:06 PM
You end up with German, Italian, Polish etc lawyers bringing ideas of a droit administratif with them, and superimposing that onto the common law foundations via the medium of the Bill of Rights and, later, 14A.
This is just the same phenomenon as their take on Entick v Carrington - trying to find some special public law principle to restrict government action. I do wonder if it is partly a result of European immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries.
November 29, 2025 at 6:06 PM
This is just the same phenomenon as their take on Entick v Carrington - trying to find some special public law principle to restrict government action. I do wonder if it is partly a result of European immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Or just have a judge sitting with two or three lay persons. You get reasons, but also collective reasoning.
Coincidentally, that is what Leveson is suggesting, and many of our European neighbours already have.
Coincidentally, that is what Leveson is suggesting, and many of our European neighbours already have.
November 28, 2025 at 2:53 PM
Or just have a judge sitting with two or three lay persons. You get reasons, but also collective reasoning.
Coincidentally, that is what Leveson is suggesting, and many of our European neighbours already have.
Coincidentally, that is what Leveson is suggesting, and many of our European neighbours already have.
I am doubtful that the first part of the analysis is in any event correct - if my employer believes that I am more likely than not to donate money to PA, can they stop paying me my salary?
November 28, 2025 at 2:51 PM
I am doubtful that the first part of the analysis is in any event correct - if my employer believes that I am more likely than not to donate money to PA, can they stop paying me my salary?
I would imagine a court would be reluctant to conclude you can escape your contract by unilaterally declaring you will use the proceeds for a criminal purpose (thus making performance illegal) and then using that non-payment as grounds for termination.
November 28, 2025 at 2:49 PM
I would imagine a court would be reluctant to conclude you can escape your contract by unilaterally declaring you will use the proceeds for a criminal purpose (thus making performance illegal) and then using that non-payment as grounds for termination.
Assuming the interpretation of the TA re not paying her based on stated intentions is correct, I'm doubtful that that provides her a ground for lawful termination of her contracts.
November 28, 2025 at 2:49 PM
Assuming the interpretation of the TA re not paying her based on stated intentions is correct, I'm doubtful that that provides her a ground for lawful termination of her contracts.
They are progressive until they aren’t. Once you earn enough you can pay them down voluntarily to avoid the punitive interest rates (Plus children for wealthy parents can avoid taking loans altogether). It’s basically the only tax reduction tool left for the top 1-5%.
November 27, 2025 at 10:57 PM
They are progressive until they aren’t. Once you earn enough you can pay them down voluntarily to avoid the punitive interest rates (Plus children for wealthy parents can avoid taking loans altogether). It’s basically the only tax reduction tool left for the top 1-5%.
This is what £800k should by you in a normal country. Not a two bed flat in zone 2.
November 27, 2025 at 8:05 PM
This is what £800k should by you in a normal country. Not a two bed flat in zone 2.
One is a fully qualified barrister, one is an associate member of a chambers and two were consulting on recent high profile cases.
November 26, 2025 at 11:46 PM
One is a fully qualified barrister, one is an associate member of a chambers and two were consulting on recent high profile cases.
There is one course I sometimes audit where all a majority of the academics in the room either currently do (or have done in the recent past) work on live cases either as barristers or consultants.
November 26, 2025 at 11:44 PM
There is one course I sometimes audit where all a majority of the academics in the room either currently do (or have done in the recent past) work on live cases either as barristers or consultants.
But they do so in secret, without reasons or even any ability to ask them why they did what they did. Knowing what I know about jury misconduct, the idea of being tried by jury terrifies me (unless I’m guilty and hoping the jury will act lawlessly).
November 26, 2025 at 3:30 PM
But they do so in secret, without reasons or even any ability to ask them why they did what they did. Knowing what I know about jury misconduct, the idea of being tried by jury terrifies me (unless I’m guilty and hoping the jury will act lawlessly).
A £20000 allowances for gilts then.
November 26, 2025 at 1:09 PM
A £20000 allowances for gilts then.
And and, that a jury is still the same thing it was 100 years ago even though, unlike in the US, we no longer allow challenges without cause or exclude hearsay or bad character, and allow majority verdicts.
November 26, 2025 at 11:57 AM
And and, that a jury is still the same thing it was 100 years ago even though, unlike in the US, we no longer allow challenges without cause or exclude hearsay or bad character, and allow majority verdicts.
Oh and wild jingoism that basically nowhere else in Europe has fair trials, and that 95% of criminal cases here, no tried by juries, are also unfair.
November 26, 2025 at 11:57 AM
Oh and wild jingoism that basically nowhere else in Europe has fair trials, and that 95% of criminal cases here, no tried by juries, are also unfair.
It’s based on 12 Angry Men and romanticism of cases like Bushell’s case, when jurors were all property owning men.
November 26, 2025 at 11:50 AM
It’s based on 12 Angry Men and romanticism of cases like Bushell’s case, when jurors were all property owning men.