Friday, December 20, 2013

Friday Review: A hello and a good riddance bye


Notable things this week:

Well, the most notable thing is of course the return of my Friday Review!

In other news:

Mr Justice Coleridge got his knuckles rapped by the JCIO. Some lawyers seemed to think this was a bit over the top. I disagree. Obviously every judge is entitled to his views just like anyone else, but for a family judge to lay his cards so clearly on the table doesn't seem right to me, particularly after he had received 'advice' from the JCIO last year. As regular readers of this blog (if there are any) will know, I disagree with Sir Paul's views on marriage, and hopefully he won't get so much 'free' publicity for them once he has vacated the bench.

What else has happened this week? Well, there was P (A Child), upon which I have commented already and the surprise appointment of Simon Hughes as Justice Minister, upon which I didn't really say anything constructive in this post.

As for Twitter, I rather liked the series of legislation that Jack of Kent drafted, all (amazingly) fitting into 140 characters. Here are a couple of samples (I couldn't decide upon my favourite):

and:
I'm particularly looking forward to these being implemented.

Back to family law, the Family Court came a step closer with the publication of The Family Procedure (Amendment No.3) Rules 2013. Everything will change when the new court is established. Well, actually, it won't. For the most part, you will still go to the same building to issue your application, and the faces on the other side of the counter will be strangely familiar. Still, at least the heading of the forms you use will have changed.

And that was about it. OK, a bit thin, but it is the week before Xmas.

On which subject, have a good one.

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.