Thursday, November 17, 2011


In the absence of any family law news to speak of this week (in stark contrast to the excitements of the last two weeks), I thought I would go for a short ramble around the internets.

Before I do so, however, I should just say that, for the first time, I am using Blogger's new interface to write this post, so bear with me. Being the reactionary type, I prefer Blogger's old interface and have been sticking doggedly to it, but yesterday Google/Blogger buggered messed up the old interface, forcing me to use the new one. Now, I'm not saying that this is a conspiracy to force us old farts to use the new interface, but quite why they altered it when it has already been replaced, I don't know.

Anyhow, what nuggets have I spotted on my travels?

A motley crew...
Firstly, we had the spectacle of bloggers giving evidence this week to the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions. Not having the least interest in the work of parliamentary committees, I can't tell you why they were asked to give evidence, but presumably it was on the basis that the views of the blogging community might be useful to the work of the committee. The problem with this is of course that by their very nature, bloggers do not have 'representatives', so the views of a few bloggers do not represent the views of the blogging community. I'm sure that none of the bloggers who gave evidence considered that they were representing anyone but themselves, but they certainly were not representing me.

Still on the subject of blogging, what was it that legal bloggers chose to hyperventilate over this week? Why, it was a couple of articles in the Comment is free section of The Guardian, written by members of the 'Occupy London' movement. Well, what do you expect, they'll let anyone write in the Comment is free section these days...

Elsewhere, I see that Lucy Reed at Pink Tape has taken to publishing reviews of her own book. Oh well, I suppose that any (self-) publicity is good publicity...

Penultimately, it gives me no pleasure to see the Gazette today agreeing with what I've been saying for some time: that the virtual abolition of civil legal aid is a fait accompli. The article points out that vastly more people in this country seem to care about a few pence more on a litre of petrol than about access to justice, which is, of course, precisely why the Government can happily ignore the cries of 'greedy' lawyers, and proceed with its "ideological crusade" aimed at "removing the state from another area of civil society". The article concludes bleakly:
"So will the Lords ride to the rescue? We can hope for scope concessions on clinical negligence and domestic violence. But with opposition to the cuts fractured, even that might be too much to expect. At this late stage, alas, it seems hope is all there is."
Ultimately, some might find it strange but I certainly don't find it unexpected that the Catholic church dislikes an image of love and religious harmony:

Achieved the desired publicity...

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.