Tauriel Costume

<< The premiere of The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug is this Friday, and tonight I finished my costume!

Tauriel (as I've explained in my 'Plan' post) is an elf of Mirkwood (aka Greenwood).  She's unique to Peter Jackson's films, as she did not appear in the book - in fact, very few/no female characters appeared in the book, so I guess this is a nod to diversity.

This costume took me about a week to make!  Really worth it - it's not just for the premiere, as my birthday party (1st-2nd Feb) is going to be Tolkein themed.  Hopefully I won't break it between now and then!

Making the Breast-Plate (and other armour)

I decided to make my armour out of papier mâché.  I forgot to take pictures (except of the final product) but here is just about how I did it (this is how I did the breast-plate, but I also used this method to make greaves and bracers).  

1. Put on an old, form fitting T-shirt that you don't mind cutting to bits.

2. Cover yourself in duct tape, the whole area that you want to be 'armour' - it should look like you have duct tape armour at this point.  Don't worry about going too tight, just remember that it will need to fit you when you put the final product on.

3. Get a pair of heavy duty scissors and get a friend to cut you out of your duct tape prison - this should be in a straight line from the top of your back, to the bottom - more or less following your spine downwards.

4. Duct tape the back together again.

5. Stuff your T-shirt with sheets, cushions, etc, until it looks the same shape as you when you're in it

6. Papier mâché the form with old newspaper and a PVA glue/water mix - I did about 50/50 measures, but you could get away with less PVA if you don't have much.  Do about 10 layers, and make sure you do them evenly.  Let it dry.

7.  Cut the back as you did before when trying to remove yourself from it, and peel the T-shirt and duct tape from the inside of the shell.  Don't worry if your first layer of papier mâché catches on it, if you have enough layers, this shouldn't be a problem.

8. Paint!  I wanted mine to look like leather, so used a dark brown acrylic paint, but you could make it look like metal if you wanted.  I added a design to it that I saw on Tauriel's greaves on an official Hobbit toy, as I wasn't convinced that I could copy the design of her breast-plate with the materials I have.  I used the same design on my bracers and greaves to tie it all in together.

9. Once dry, use a stanley knife and a knitting needle to punch through holes for laces.  Your armour will be able to be tied onto you corset-style.

10.  I covered it with another layer of PVA glue to make a more leathery effect.

11.  Add laces/string and enjoy!
 

 Making the Dress:

I can't really talk you through exactly how I went about making my dress, as I forgot to take pictures (sorry), but to sum up, I used tailor's chalk to mark out my template for my dress and left room for seams.  I sewed the different panels of the dress together, using a dark green fabric and dark green thread.  (Sorry again that I can't go into more detail).

Tauriel Costume: Plan

Who is Tauriel?  Well, she's an elf of Mirkwood, and one that didn't appear in Tolkien's the Hobbit.  More importantly, she's ginger and female - making her an ideal character for me to dress up as for the premier of the Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug on Friday 13th!

My costume isn't going to be exact, by any stretch of the imagination - in fact, I'm just using it as an influence on what I'm going to end up with.  Also - on a budget!  Armour will be made of Papier Mâché and not any sort of leather; and the dress will be made of scraps of material that I find around my house. 

Jane Eyre Cake

Last month, I was asked by my English teacher to make a cake for her book club.  She wanted a lemon sponge with a lemon buttercream, to feed 12 people, and she wanted it to look like an open book with pages of a classic book such as Jane Eyre or something by Dickens.

The concept:

The flavour of the cake would be as requested, on a silver board with holly and ivy made out of modelling paste in order to give it a festive feel.  I would have got the pages printed onto icing, but after being quoted £8 per sheet in the shop, and not trusting online sellers, I hand wrote the pages onto rice paper with an edible ink pen.  This took me about 2 hours, but only cost me about £2 total for all of the components!  (Preferable to the £16 that I would have had to pay otherwise).

I made my sponges about a week in advance and froze them.  This had the benefit that they were much easier to carve and buttercream once frozen as crumbs weren't flying everywhere.  I carved it into a book shape, added a liberal amount of buttercream, and then rolled on my ready-to-roll icing sheet (which I had coloured so that it was slightly ivory).

Tada!

Leaf of Lorien

I'm starting my LoTR planning by making myself a Leaf of Lorien.  

I'm using FIMO Effects modelling Clay by #Staedtler in "Glitter Green" 

"Not idly do the leaves of Lorien fall" ~ (Aragorn)

Step One:  I printed out a picture of the leaf of Lorien in the size that I wanted it (I went for 10cm x 6.8cm) and roll thin lengths of clay with your fingers to cover all of the veins of the leaf, making the ends of each bit taper off to a point, as it creates a more realistic effect.  I used a round glass mat to work on, but you could easily just cover a book with clingfilm - just make sure that it's not something that your clay will stick on.

Step Two: I did the same, but with longer lengths of clay, building the outline of the leaf.

Step Three:  I put the 'veins' to one side and worked on the body of the leaf next.  I rolled out the clay to about 1mm deep and enough to cover the template.

Step Four:  I used a cocktail stick to engrave the outline of the template into the clay.

Step Five: I cut out the leaf outline (I used a standard kitchen knife, but a craft knife would be a lot easier).

Step Six: Here is where I found my glass plate particularly useful - I flipped the glass over and used it to place the veins on top of the body of the leaf.  Because I could see through the glass, I was able to match them up more or less perfectly.  Without a glass plate, I'd recommend doing it the other way and placing the leaf on the veins, apply a little pressure to get them to stick to each other, and then peel the leaf off of your working surface.

Step Seven:  I added the "stem" and "vines."  These will be painted silver later.

Step Eight: Using a cocktail stick, I added texture to the leaf.

Step Nine: I flipped the leaf and placed a needle on the back, securing it with some more clay.  (This is so that I can add a brooch attachment later.)

Step Ten: Bake!  I put mine in the oven at 110 degrees centigrade for 20 minutes.  Depending on how thick you have rolled your clay, it may take longer - but not more than 30 minutes.

Step Eleven: Paint!  I used green and white acrylic paint (I would have used silver instead of white, but I didn't have any).  

Step 12: I coated the whole brooch with clear nail varnish to give it an enamel sheen.

Et voila!

LoTR Party!

I've started a new project - I'm having a Tolkein themed party for my 18th 

(the party will be on the weekend of the 1st - 2nd of February).

I'm working on all of the props, invitations, recipes, and will bring you along with me!

We're going on an Adventure!

Gap Year Plans

While I'm writing this post, I'm sat in a picturesque location of the Lakeland fells.  I'm in Blencathra Field Centre, completing my Gold Duke of Edinburgh residential, at the moment I'm waiting for everybody else to arrive (which they will do at 3.30pm).

I decided about 2 weeks before results came out that I'd really like to complete a Gap Year before going to University.  Law is a really intense course, and career, to go into, so I've decided that if I want to go travelling, I'm only really going to have this one opportunity to do so.

So, I'm going to talk you through a few of my plans. 

Firstly, next year, for a few months the title of this blog is going to change.  I'm planning on walking all 214 of Arthur Wainwright's fells in just over 2 months, wild camping and B&Bing my way around the beautiful Lake District.  And, every week or so, I'll be logging on and talking about the routes I've taken, the weather, the views, etc.  I can promise some stunning scenery!

This is all training.  By the end of the year, I'm hoping to have completed the 3 peaks challenge; have gone to Sicily with my sister to climb Mount Etna; and train up my school's teams for the Ten Tors Challenge.  Maybe I could have another go at the Gold challenge if they need a reserve.

Other things I'm planning on doing are learning to play the violin (something I've wanted to do for years, but have never got around to) and getting shed-loads of work experience.  The ideal would to get a 3 or 6 month contract for a firm, and do basic secretarial tasks (and get paid) but that's so incredibly unlikely to happen.  So, work experience in the day, and a part time job in the evenings to fund the rest of the challenges that I take on.

That's more or less everything I have at the moment :)  Lots more to think about, and I need to get some of these plans finalised.  Most importantly, I'm going to be keeping September 2014 free in order to complete my University application and LNAT.  Excited!

Extended Project: Primary Research

Another post about my extended project.  You might be bored of it, but I need somewhere to go through my ideas, so here is where I'm doing it!

Tonight I've taken on the challenge of looking for primary research.  To get the top marks, I need to feature quite a lot of research that I haven't just lifted out of books and off of the internet, and I've decided that I really want to contact people that I really care about the opinion of.  So, I've been contacting all of the people that might be teaching me in the years to come that specialise in Criminal Law.

My current title, if you didn't know, is 'to what extent should violent crimes be subject to contrasting legal consequences in the English Legal System if it can be proven that there was no intent to cause harm?'

It's slowly becoming more and more specific.  It began life just considering intent, and then I was told that there was a word limit.  Not impressed.  My supervisor had told me that I could write as much as I liked, but when I had to be signed off by my Head of Year (in order to be allowed to finish for Summer), I was told that I was allowed a maximum of 5,200 words.  Maybe this might have been good information before having written a 2000 word introduction, but now I'm having to cut down massively.

I'm covering Manslaughter, Self-Defense, Euthanasia, Crimes of Passion, and what I'm calling 'Passionate Crimes.'  This includes my favourite piece of case law that I've found so far, which you can find in my earlier post 'What is meant by intent?'  I'm probably going to need to cut it down substantially, but I really don't know which bit to cut out.  Crimes of Passion is a possibility, but Euthanasia is going to be the most removed section.  I've two options really, if it goes massively over the word count:
(1) Not talk about Euthanasia at all
(2) Write about Euthanasia for fun and post it here for you to read...

Depends on how much effort it takes really, and if you let me know whether you're interested in reading my findings (that's a cheeky request for you to comment about your thoughts, by the way).

I've been talking about collecting primary research, and commenting, so I'm going to give you something to comment about.  Could you please let me know your thoughts about the following points (could be one, two, or all, it doesn't matter to me) and let me know how you're 'qualified' - this might mean that you're a 'prospective law student from Sheffield' or a 'law lecturer from Dundee' or 'a past magistrate' or even 'just a guy/girl who's interested in reading your blog'  I'm genuinely really interested to hear your thoughts, whether by private message or in the comment box below.

Thank you for reading, once again, and hope to hear from you soon!

Criminal Intent Survey

Hello Readers!

I'm powering along with my extended project and have created a short 5 question survey to gain some feedback about how far people think that intentions matter in varying situations.

You can find it here! >> http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GMJW97D

Please give me a hand and lend me 5 minutes of your time - if you'd be so kind.

"I'd rather kill myself"

This is just a quick one, as I'm mid-Extended-Project at the moment.

I heard on the news this morning that a man is appealing against his extradition to America by saying that he'd "rather kill himself than be extradited."  It's ridiculous.  If everyone could get out of things by threatening suicide, then we'd have murderers running rampant in the streets.  Nobody would pay taxes, because they'd "rather kill themselves."

"I'd rather kill myself than go to school."

"I'd rather kill myself than tidy my room."

"I'd rather kill myself than not win the lottery."

If we all got what we wanted by threatening to kill ourselves, then we'd all be very rich, very lazy, and very spoiled.  Lock him up with nothing to kill himself with, and then there'll be nothing to worry about.  A precedent cannot be set that says that if a criminal starts making threats against their own life, they'd receive a lesser sentence.

The Life Sentence

With the "whole-life" sentences being questioned in the news at the moment, I was actually quite shocked to read that only 50 people in the whole of the British prison system actually have these whole-life sentences.  It's probably because I'm a little sceptical about the nature of human beings, I'm unconvinced that people are intrinsically good - and I'm blatantly surprised that it's a mere 50 people that have committed crimes worthy of this whole-life sentence.

This week (if you've been under a rock and haven't seen it in the news), three men who have been given this sentence have made appeals to the European Court of Human Rights, that the sentence they've been given is "inhumane and degrading."

Let's take Jeremy Bamber.  He killed 5 people to gain his sentence of "at least 25 years" - his two step-parents, his sister and her two 6 year old sons.  The next appellant is Peter Moore, in the early 1990s, Mr Moore killed 4 men, reportedly "for fun."  The final man (at least mentioned by the newspapers) was Douglas Vinter who was sentenced to a life sentence for killing his work mate and then killed his wife upon his release.

Personally, I would rather that these people were never released.  The British penal system has three strands:
(1) Rehabilitation and Reform
(2) Protection of Society
(3) Punishment

If these men are 'beyond reform' - as I'd argue, at the very least, Douglas Vinter is (after all, the life sentence didn't do much to reform him last time, did it?) then there shouldn't be any opportunity for release.  For me, release without reform is, frankly, irresponsible and too much of a risk to society.  By this, I'm not saying that the penal system is good in every case, for petty crimes, there are often better options than prison - as community service often has a better track record with keeping criminals from reoffending than locking them up (where they can interact and learn from worse criminals...)  What I'm saying, is that it is in the best interest of society to keep them where they cannot cause further harm.

But apparently, the European Court of Human Rights doesn't agree with me.  Or, at least, that's the view that many newspapers are portraying.  What the ECtHR have said is that there should be an opportunity for review, and that this does not have to lead to release.  So, nobody is telling us that they have to be released.  What they're saying is, that without the incentive to reform, they won't - which is true - and that the only incentive to reform when given an indefinite sentence, is the opportunity for release.  I don't know how many hoops they'd have to jump through to gain their release, but I can't imagine the British government would make it easy for them.  And besides, despite my incredulity, there are only 50 people that this would apply to.  In theory, I'm happy with them getting the opportunity to appeal their sentence every once in a while, but somehow I question whether I'd be as happy if I thought they'd actually succeed...

So, should there be an appeals system?  Does "good-behaviour" in prison really matter if they might be faking reform just for release?  Do you, even, believe that it would be cheaper, easier and more humane to bring back the death penalty?  Your thoughts are very welcome :)

What is Consent?

Definition Round Three!  So, consent, Google dictionary says "Permission for something to happen or agreement to do something."

 Unfortunately, it's not that simple.  There are a whole plethora of complications when it comes to the application of consent, and sometimes although you "actually" consent, you "legally" do not.  The example I'm going to use for this is the example that was used at the Cambridge Open Day in the Law sample lecture.

I have £1, and you need to borrow it from me.  I know that you always play the lottery on a Friday (and in this hypothetical situation, it is Friday) and I also know that you left your wallet at home.  I can gather that you're ashamed that you're playing the lottery with my money, so I'm still happy to give you my pound coin even though you told me that you needed to buy a birthday card for your mum.  I feel that I'm consenting to you using my money to buy the lottery ticket, even though you're currently lying to me.  In fact, by giving you the £1 despite knowing that you're lying, I'm making you a thief - as there was an attempt to mislead me, and I was "cheated" out of my money.

In fact, I'd be doing you more of a favour if I randomly gifted you my money.  The premise of borrowing makes matters even worse.  It would be seen as stealing if you didn't give me that exact pound coin back, as the law doesn't allow for  exchange of similar or equivalent property.  The intrinsic value of the money is superfluous, as I had specific ownership over that exact £1, and the law would expect for me to receive it back. 

This makes sense, if you think about it.  If you were to lend me your car, and I brought back a different car of the same value, you wouldn't be too happy, would you?  (Let's presume this is a particularly unattractive car).  So, for the law to protect your rights over your property, it has to count for the small things as well as the big things.

And even then, when does consent count in the first place?  You might consent to me chopping your arm off for no reason, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to be prosecuted for it.  There is some area where the law protects us from things that we may have given consent to.  This idea is about a paternalistic government is condemned by those of a liberalist standpoint, as the restriction of freedom should be avoided in all circumstances.  This would mean then, that the condemnation of sado-masochistic activities would be seen as wrong, although by mainly liberalists.

Despite this, consent is still questioned or challenged in court every day.  Yes, the old man with dementia did give "consent" to the blonde money-grabber to empty his bank account - but should that have been allowed to happen?  Consent only matters if it was informed and non-destructive, I can gather - but should the government ever have a right to interfere in your choices, or claim that you were incapable of making them?

Your thoughts please :) 

What is meant by intent?

 According to the Google Dictionary, "intent" means "intention".  When a dictionary describes a word using the word itself, you know it's something that is going to have a variety of interpretations.

So, "intention," apparently it's the "act of intending."  Wow.  Enlightening.  I'll have a look at the alternative definition, let's see... "an aim or a plan."  Now at least I have something to work with - if when committing a crime, you have an aim or a plan, that suggests pre-meditation; so if there is no pre-meditation, can there still be intent?

I think so.  Intent is all about wanting to do something.  So, I walk into the kitchen, see an apple, cross the room "intending to eat it" and then eat it.  Not much pre-meditation occurred, but I cannot honestly say that I didn't not want to eat the apple.  In which case, I might argue that intention is about not being forced to do something: it might have been a spur of the moment decision - eating the apple - but I did it, and even if I regret it, I cannot say that it wasn't a conscious choice.

But when the lines of choice become blurred, when there is pressure involved, a hard decision where you have to pick between two things - choose the lesser of two evils, as it were - does the choice to commit a crime still have intent if you didn't necessarily want to do it?  In the same vein, does intention count when the intention is not to commit the crime, but to benefit from the result?  And why does committing that crime matter if it hurts nobody but yourself and somebody else who consents?  I've probably talked about it before on this blog, but my favourite case to discuss when taking this line of attack is of a man and a woman who, in favour of getting a tattoo, shaped a metal coat-hanger into each others' initials, and branded it into each others' skin.  They intended to do it; they didn't want to hurt each other, but they mutually benefitted from the mark of love left behind by the 'abuse.'  So, if accused of abuse, what is their defence?  That they wanted to show their love for each other?  Many abusers and abuse victims might argue the same, but in this case they were acquitted.  Why is that?  Because there was no enjoyment or pleasure in the actual hurting of one another, and if there was, it would be an entirely different issue.  In the same way that the self-defence plea is used, the person did not derive any pleasure or benefit beyond the immediate protection of their life.

So, clearly, to me at least, intention is more than simply wanting to do something.  Intention can be present even if no pleasure was derived from committing the act - so the full interpretation of what intention is about includes the intricate reasoning behind why a person chose to do something.  Yes, yes I did it, because...

And thus concludes this post, comments appreciated :)

GCHQ Data-Tapping

Before you read this, I'm just going to say that I'm going to play Devil's Advocate - meaning that I'm arguing a point of view that isn't necessarily my own.  If you agree or don't agree with what I'm writing here, I'd really welcome comments explaining your reasoning in the nature of an honest debate (abusive comments will be deleted if I can work out how to do that).

If you've got nothing to hide, why would you mind about who's reading what you're writing or listening to what you're saying?  GCHQ might be a branch of the "corrupt and obviously untrustworthy" Government, but weren't they trying to protect us?

We're protected by a freedom of speech, so in all fairness we can say whatever we like publicly, and we can't be prosecuted for it (as long as we're not being racist, sexist, terrorist, homophobic, etc).  And I really doubt that the government cares that you're texting your mum about the fact you need more shampoo - what they care about is if your next door neighbour is planning a terrorist attack on a nearby primary school.

In this case, you could probably call yourself collateral damage - yes, it's a shame that the government has been looking through your dubious internet history, but if - as a result of doing this to everybody - they catch a few would-be-mass-murderers, then I can't see why there should be a massive problem.

Public opinion is that this is something that is inherently wrong, and that the government has no right to access the personal data that they have been - but I'd argue in this case that if you're doing something that somebody bound by confidentiality shouldn't see, you probably shouldn't be doing it.  You can be outraged all you like about the Government sticking their noses into your business, but it was perfectly legal when it was done, and it was done in the public interest.

Like I said, please comment with your thoughts and ideas about the issue below - thanks for reading!

Intentions vs Actions (Extended Project)

I've had my first meeting with my Extended Project Supervisor, and I went in with about 7 potential titles for my project - and now I have a really good idea of exactly what I'm going to write about.

The focus is going to be whether the intention that a person has when committing a crime should make them exempt from the consequences of that action, and what factors might be taken into consideration with sentencing.  For me, it's an endlessly fascinating subject, and I really like the idea of being able to explore issues such as the manslaughter and murder debate, and also perhaps even look into whether the punishment ever really fits the crime.

Something else that I'd really like to explore, perhaps not as the major focus, but instead as a factor, is the Euthanasia debate.  This is particularly poignant as the Tony Nicklinson case particularly caught my intention when it broke out in the news over the past three or so years, and it had been something that I was following as it progressed.

Personally, I think that Euthanasia, particularly "assisted suicide," is not an inherently bad idea, but something that I question is whether it would ever be able to implemented in society without some vulnerable people being put in danger.  Not something for my essay perhaps, but it would be particularly interesting to explore what safe-guards and systems could be put in place to protect the greater society.

The main distinction that I'm going to have to make is what exactly "intention" means.  I question whether pre-meditation should be taken into account, and whether perhaps some cases of pre-meditated murder may also be classed as self-defence, and whether killing a person may sometimes be the better of two evils (e.g. Euthanasia).  There are even some cases where I want to explore whether the law has a right to interfere if people do not want or feel that they need protecting each other: this is particularly poignant in cases of sado-masochism, etc.

Similarly, the "anti-spanking movement" and the legislation which means that parents can no longer physically punish their children, families not only have a Right to Family Life, but - at least I found from when I was growing up - it was actually quite a good way of keeping me in line.  I don't think I'm any less of a person, any more repressed than anyone else, and I think in some cases I literally gave my parents no other choice.  But like I said, that's just my case - and I wouldn't presume to say that all children are safe from their parents - but I would perhaps argue that a blanket ban is not the answer.  And besides, looking at my extended project title, the line between spanking children for punishment and abuse is that the intention is a loving one - parents want their children to learn from their mistakes, and be the best they can be.  Perhaps this would take up some part of my Project, but I'll need to do a bit more research into the specific law.

Feel free to comment, in fact I encourage it - thank you for reading :)

First Job!

Yes!  You read it!  I got my first job about a week ago, and it's fantastic!  No, it's not the dream job, but it's pretty dreamy for a 17 year old with no money.  The main thing that I'm having to learn is social skills when I first meet and work with people, the nerves get to me...  I was serving a German couple and you could literally hear the plates shaking - I was so embarrassed, but they were lovely about it.  Similarly when I was  silver serving bread, I just couldn't pick it up!  Practise makes perfect though, if nothing else, this is going to help an awful lot with perseverance, it seems impossible at the moment.

My colleagues are great, a real laugh, and I can't think of any better place to work at my age - a perfect distance from home; not an overbearing amount of responsibility; and the possibility of learning a huge number of skills, especially as it's a rather fancy hotel.  I'm really glad I decided to go out and get some independence, and it'll be really nice to be able to buy things for myself without having to have my parents lend me money.

I'm Katie Woolnough, and at the moment, I'm a waitress/dishwasher/aspiring-solicitor-barrister.

Extended Project

I woke up this morning, and my dad came downstairs with a cup of tea for me (yes!) and we had a talk about what I could do for my extended project.  At the moment, I have about three ideas.

The first is looking at the legal system's treatment of rape victims; for example, the recent Oxford case, as I read an article that talked about the fact that each victim was being cross examined by about 14 different defence barristers, and it was a horrible experience.  I'd look into the possible need for a reformation of the system and the human rights of these victims.

Second, I was thinking about when the intention of a law and the specific wording of a law collide - this has particularly interested me since I read a book called "What About Law" by a number of Cambridge lecturers, and it discussed two cases where the same laws (against harming another person) conflicted as a result of intent.  I'm tempted to develop a couple of examples where currently there is some dispute, as a result of intent, including Euthanasia laws - perhaps developing a few case studies?

Third, I'm shamelessly researching the people who may one day be my lecturers (if I'm lucky enough to get the grades) and am going to read into the subjects that they specialise in to see what if there's anything that really gets me interested.  In an ideal world, I'd have loved to have done something in Constitutional Law, having studied it in Politics - but because I've looked at it in one of my courses, I'm not allowed to complete my project on it.  I really enjoy looking at the powers of the Judiciary and the fluctuating powers that the Government has as a result of laws passed involving the UK's uncodified and un-entrenched constitution, and I'd have loved to have had a look into the changing nature of the constitution.

Speaking of, as I haven't out-right studied it in Politics beyond the fleeting mention as an example, do you think I'd be allowed to look into the implications of a British Bill of Rights on the judiciary, and the success of the Human Rights Act previous to this?  Maybe, maybe not, but I'll ask when I go back to school...

Ciao!  Comments and suggestions would be much appreciated!

Exams Nearly Over! Extended Project

I'm nearly finished, so I'm not as stressed as I was, say, about a week ago - yes, I was awake at 1.45am this morning making flashcards for my Politics and Critical Thinking exams... but only one more to go until it's all over!  C2 maths in the morning, and then freedom until Results day, and probably some more stress in-between.

I've started thinking about life after exams, and what I'm going to be doing over the next few weeks: my new pet project is going to be my Extended Project.  I really want to have a legal theme, but don't really know what do beyond that - I think a little bit of research is in order.  I'd quite like to write to the Ministry of Justice and lecturers from various Universities, but obviously I'll need to have a really good theme sorted out first: I might have a look into what some Cambridge lecturers specialise in for inspiration, it'd be a brilliant way to really get a grip on what the top lecturers are researching.

I'll report back with some ideas soon...

"Muslim Appearance" and the "Islamist Threat"

It's a pet hate.  I watch the news: a crime has been committed; it looks like they might be terrorists; they are of Middle-Eastern appearance.  "Muslim appearance."

To be of the Islamic faith is not the same as being a terrorist, nor does it mean that you automatically look like a terrorist either; it might not even mean that you're from the Middle-East.  So going around on the news talking about these "Muslims" going around chopping people up in London does nothing except make some sectors of society have an increasingly deep seated dislike of Islamic people.

The same thing can be said for "Islamist threats."  Yes, they may be Islamic people, and yes, they may be a threat, but they're not a threat because they're Islamic.  They're a threat because they're terrorists!

BBC, I'm taking to you.  And anybody else who goes around saying either of these things.

Thank you and goodnight.

Supporting a Claim: No Shorter Sentences for Single Parents!

It happened again!  Life is getting on top of everything at the moment, I apologise.  The last week has been really eventful, I now have a beautiful baby cousin called Thomas and he's an absolute sweetheart.    Additionally, I'm training hard for Ten Tors which is happening this weekend - I have been made "Squad Leader" and joint "Team Leader" which is a whole load of responsibility, but I'm really excited to complete the challenge!

Last Tuesday, I also attended a brilliant presentation from two solicitors from Michelmores (from Exeter) which talked about where the business of soliciting in general was going over the next decade or two.  I'll probably return to what I learned in another post.  But one bonus was the fact that I got a bag of free merchandise: a bottle, a pen, booklets, etc.  Probably the most significant thing I got from them though was a possibility of some work experience!  Only a couple of days, but should be fantastic.

So, today I went to a meeting at lunch regarding Critical Thinking Mock results, and I received another Further Argument back that I'd given in as homework (full marks: 12/12).  I'd written it having been inspired by a talk given by Gill Riley at the Nottingham Law 2013 conference.

Picture from http://en.lpj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/prison.jpg

"Criminals should not receive reduced sentences on account of being a single parent"

Support this conclusion

(CAs) Many people would assert that reduced sentences for prisoners should be allowed if they are a single parent  (CR1) as it would mean that the children would not have to be put into care for as long and (Pr) children should be raised by their own parents.  (R1) However, it stands to reason that the children are protected from the potentially negative influence of a destructive parent, and (Exp) often children find safe and stable homes through the adoption or foster systems.  (IC1) It should be considered that separating these children from their parents is likely in their best interest (Exp) as they would be taken outside of the influence of their parent.  (R2) Moreover, reducing these sentences may allow dangerous people back onto the streets to reoffend.  (Ex1) For example, in the case of Maria Miller in 1997, (couldn't find a specific case, so I made one up - I only had 15 minutes to write this argument!) she was released on account of having a three year old son and went on to commit further drug offences.

(R3) Furthermore, this system could be easily abused (HR) as if women are facing criminal charges, then they could get pregnant in the hopes of reducing their sentence.  (R4) Also, the system could arguably provide some gender discrimination (Ev) as a 2009 survey by the NSPCC showed that 78% of single parents are single mothers (couldn't find this statistic either, the thought that counts) (Exp) meaning that women are likely the ones to benefit from this policy (Pr) and besides, the punishment should fit the crime (IC2) and justice should not be interfered with by factors outside of the crime (Exp) as having a child is not likely to make a person more likely to commit murder.  (HR) If it is merely because a child is dependent on their parent that causes a 'need' to reduce prison sentences, then the emotional attachment between human and pet should be equally regarded.  (Ac) However, we do generally accept that the owning of a pet should in no way effect sentencing, so neither should the having of a child.  (MC)  Therefore, criminals should not receive reduced sentences on account of being a single parent.

Challenging a Claim: House of Lords Reform

I take an AS level subject called Critical Thinking which is basically about writing arguments.  Last week, the homework was to write an argument against a claim of my choice, and I got 12/12 !  I decided to use what I've learned in Politics to support my argument - and I've decided to share it with you as a 'sorry' for not updating last week - I've been really busy with Ten Tors training (walked 49 miles at the weekend!) - though I know that's no excuse.

Challenging the Assertion: "The House of Lords should have further reforms"

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9314627/Dont-empty-the-Lords-of-its-scientists.html

After the 2001 election, many changes were made to the House of Lords including reducing the number of hereditary peers to 92 from 750, and introducing appointed peers.  Many people argue that these reforms did not go far enough as an elected second chamber would grant further legitimacy and the public would be able to hold them account for their own actions.  

However, further reform would create an overly politicised House of Lords as peers would have to toe the Party Line when elected according to their parties, and may not challenge the Commons so effectively.  Moreover, radically changing the House of Lords may cause a huge number of traditions to be lost and, besides, the House of Lords is very effective in scrutinising legislation as it is.  In the Parliamentary session between 1999 and 2000, over 10,000 amendments were made to government legislation.  Also, the 92 hereditary peers bring a huge amount of life experience and business accumen which gives them a good reason to have a place in the Lords.  So, if peers in the Lords were elected - as proposed - then the Lords would lose any sense of neutrality that it may currently have.  

Proposals for House of Lord elections should be dropped as an elected House would have equal legitimacy to the Commons and therefore could create an adversary system which could prevent any laws being passed.  Moreover, in 2012 it was proposed that 80% of the Lords be elected by PR (proportional representation), and this was widely disagreed with and shelved.  Statistics from the Office of the Chief Whip (I made this statistic up!  Don't sue me...) show that 73% of MPs voted against this legislation.  And, if our politicians - who we elect to represent us - voted against it, then it is more likely that there are huge problems with reform; especially as politicians should be better informed on political issues than everyday people.  We should trust our politicians' judgement.  Therefore, it should be accepted that the House of Lords does not need any further reform.

Controversial Figures and the Press

The last fortnight has brought the death of a very controversial figure in UK politics.  The death of Baroness Margaret Thatcher has been plastered over the front page of every newspaper - and some headlines really made me feel a little ill:  thanks to the @SocialistWorker for the headline "Rejoice!" it's nice to know that newspapers remain incredibly tasteful.

Photo taken from http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/papers-mark-thatchers-death/

Newspapers seem to be allowed to print whatever they like without regulation.  I understand the need for free press, but sometimes newspapers step over a line and I question why they should be able to provide any sort of biased view on particular issues.  And even so - who should regulate them?  Should they be trusted to do this themselves?

The reaction of the media to the death of Thatcher is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to either the extreme nature of the press, or its ability to find out things that it shouldn't really know.  The McCaans, Hugh Grant, Charlotte Church, and a huge number of others all brought this to particular attention in bringing the Leveson inquiry to light.  The press are being trusted to self-regulate, but who will decide when a line is crossed?  There is a need for the press to be independent and not interfered with by government - after all, we're a democratic country - yet in the same way that you can't go around spouting racist nonsense, you shouldn't be allowed to print offensive stories, even if they're not based on race.  Personally, I'd put an end to it and have one single neutral newspaper for the entire country that gave descriptions of things that happened without any journalistic flair.  It would be remarkably less interesting, but would also ensure that offensive rubbish does not make it onto every day newstands.

Today in the News: Legal Aid Cuts

I've been looking in the news a lot lately, and especially after my trip to Nottingham, I've been a lot more aware of the need for legal aid and the effect that it has on people in the legal profession.  Particularly, it is Criminal lawyers (both Solicitors and Barristers) that are largely effected by recent cuts, as it is no longer a particularly lucrative profession to go into.

When I was little, I really liked the look of being a Criminal Barrister - now the dream is different, ideally I'd like to be a Senior Partner in Slaughter and May (Commercial Law, mostly) by the time I'm 50.  There are three reasons for the career change:

1) mild stage fright (not particularly good for standing up in court 24/7)

2) I realised I like talking and interacting with people (I want a more client based career)

3) money.  I can earn about four times as much by working in Commercial Law than Criminal Law.

And it's not getting any better.  This week, legal aid is being cut by £350million which means that people who are in trouble with the law are faced with less choice if they don't qualify for aid.  They have to scrape together the funds for legal representation, or they have to represent themself.  As a person with a little stage fright, I can sympathise with these people: I don't know how a person can be expected to represent themself with no legal knowledge whatsoever, under the immense pressure of knowing that if they lose then they may have to go to prison.  The stakes are too high to have people gambling with their own freedom.

However, I'm not going to start having a go at politicians - everybody is being cut, nobody wants it to be them next - and the legal aid cuts make it so that there is no aid available for people needing advice for
"divorce, child custody, clinical negligence, welfare, employment, immigration, housing, debt, benefit and education" (Guardian) - this means that there is still legal aid available for the majority of criminal matters, though means tested.

So what we have to ask ourselves is what matters more: defending the poorest in society in court, or digging ourselves out of this depression. Practically, morally and as a human being, it's the former - but I can see why politicians feel that there is space for cuts. Maybe these cuts will increase the odds of marriages staying together, as divorce is now a non-legal-aid case? But in the end, it looks like the future is bleak for Criminal Lawyers of any sort - with legal cuts now, it's unlikely that funding will be pumped back into the system. So unless you're particularly moral, and really want to get up and get things done in a courtroom, Criminal law is probably not the best field to go in right now...

Law 2013 at Nottingham Uni

A fascinating and incredibly well put together programme of events at Nottingham University!  There were some late nights (lectures until 11.30pm), and some early-ish mornings (6am in order to beat the queue for breakfast), but all in all a fantastic event.  Plus, there was a bonus of a blanket of snow covering the city!

I had a practise interview: it went quite well, forced me to think on my feet - I was asked whether legal professionals should be able to report each other for incompetence.  So, let's consider it: what do they mean by incompetence?  Does it mean that you lose too many cases?  Or does it mean that you come into work ill one day, and say entirely the wrong thing in court?  The main issue with it, I thought, was that beginning a culture of reporting other professionals may have some major negative impacts upon the legal profession.  To a certain extent, any workplace needs to have a foundation of trust for professionals to work with one another, though it can equally be said that any legal professional needs to be competent in order to represent their clients effectively.  Perhaps the best option would not to have barristers and solicitors reporting one another, but for clients to be able to do so if they believe they were not represented in the best possible fashion.  This would mean that the client could make the judgement, and lawyers would not have to watch their back against potentially power-hungry colleagues who want their job.

Beyond the interview, there were many other legal questions that we had to ask ourselves.  We considered euthanasia, lowering the drinking age, and many more specific cases where we had to decide upon sentencing or guilt.  Amongst hilarious lectures from barristers, focussed talks from Solicitors, and an informative insight from a Detective Inspector, we heard a lecture from Ben Wilson, a representative from the Supreme Court, and it showed a whole new line of work that I may consider in the future - I quite like the sound of Lady Justice Woolnough, don't you?