LivetLetLive_86

 
 

 





Scientology isn't recognised as a religion in Britain.  Let's keep it that way.




 

For a long time now I've whinged about john terry - i've always thought he was overrated, and since I read a piece on the internet about him a few months ago, my opinion has been growing that he, and chelsea as a whole, get away with too much.

First of all, did anyone see Jon Obi Mikel getting sent off at the weekend again? Man Utd must be laughing all the way to the bank, he's been absolutely rotten for Chelsea, as well as getting sent off and proving himself to be a complete lunatic time and again. (4 times he's been sent off now for chelsea, and do we remember him going mental when he got sent off against reading?)

But Mikel's indiscipline is just the tip of the iceberg as far as Chelsea are concerned. Four times in the past 2 seasons they've been charged with failing to control players: in the carling cup final; against middlesbrough; against man utd; and in april 2006 against west brom. Yet each time, the FA metes out the same punishment of a fine and warning - surely the punishments should get incrementally worse, resulting in something more severe than fines?

So - What is the cause for the indiscipline? Well I think it has to do with the manner and attitude which chelsea now have. Having won the title 2 seaons running, they picked up this mentality that everything has to go their way and when it doesnt, they go in a strop. This is an attitude which has been augmented by the carte-blanche john terry is given to challenge referees by virtue of him being England captain.

Most recently, at the weekend against west ham, we saw luis boa morte challenge cudicini for a completely 50-50 ball. When cudicini went down, terry was first over shoving boa morte in the face/neck. This should have been a red card in itself (raising hands to an opponent?). Later in the game, when Obi Mikel was sent off, Terry (and the rest of chelsea players) ran at the referee, hounding him and forcing him backwards.

Rewind a few weeks to chelsea v man utd. When Obi Mikel was sent off there, terry hounded the referee (mike dean i think) and even pulled the red card out of his hand. Was any follow-up action taken by the FA? No.

Rewind even further to tottenham v chelsea, john terry accused graham poll (publicly in an interview) of changing his mind about why terry was sent off, essentially criticising poll's integrity. Terry received a fine, but escaped a ban or any further punishment. Compare this with many other examples of players bringing the game into disrepute by making statements in newspapers/books/interviews, one of the main examples being roy keane's 5 match ban, and £150,000 ban for the comments in his book about tackling alf inge haaland. The two punishments don't compare, whilst in my opinion admitting deliberately injuring a player isn't much (if at all) worse than publicly criticising a referee.

So what is my point? Well I think chelsea have got a massive discipline problem, which is bred from john terry (as their captain) downwards. This is fed by their own attitude and egos having pretty much got their own way for 2 seasons, and further helped (worsened?) by the FA's leniency towards Terry in his position as England captain.

I have, over the last few years, as I'm sure many others have, been watching the tensions between the "western world" and "middle east" with a great deal of worry.  It is evident that these tensions have contributed to the rise in global terrorism, with both feeding off each other (a sort of chicken and egg type of quandary).

Over the last 3/4 days, therefore, I have been following the events of the Sudanese-based UK teacher Gillian Gibbons, her arrest, and subsequent conviction for insulting religion by calling a teddy bear "muhammad", with great interest.  Finding myself becoming more liberal over recent years, towards many areas of political and social life, my thoughts were that, whilst it did seem harsh to imprison someone for 15 days because of a cultural mishap, she should pay consequences for the naivety, and perhaps recklessness, of her actions.  Stories of 40 lashes and 6 months in prison frightened me, so when I heard yesterday that she had been sentenced to 15 days I was slightly relieved (although still with thoughts that it was a bit harsh) that some sort of cultural compromise may have been found.

Fast-forward to today, and I find on the BBC website the one thing which I think many people could have predicted - riots by sections of the Muslim community at a "western conspiracy."  I was disgusted to see the calls for her to be killed, and that it was part of a larger western conspiracy to "slag off" or "bring down" islam.  Now before anyone accuses me of cultural indifference, I will try to mitigate what I am describing.  Firstly, I realise that this is not representative of the entire Muslim community, and that many (if not all) of the Muslim community in the UK have been behind Ms Gibbons.  It is, however, a large group of people choosing to protest this decision, described by the BBC as "thousands."  I have always been of the opinion that if the cultural differences which threaten to rip the world apart are to be solved, it will need a great deal of work by both sides.  And this time, I truly thought we had it cracked - on the basis of todays protests though, it seems not.

Lets rewind slightly and look at other "inflamed" situations.  These are situations, I believe, of extreme overreaction (even whilst I admit and realise the offence to the culture caused):

Earlier this year, protestors in India burned effigies and called for richard gere to be killed over the kissing Shilpa Shetty incident.

2005/2006 saw the massive fallout from the danish cartoon publishing.  The protests I could understand, but the burning of flags, burning of buildings, attacking of embassies, looting of stores, burning of effagies etc I could not.

Similarly, after the pope quoted from a medieval emperor, people were calling for him to be killed.

One of the only conclusions I can reach from these continued events is that, until these reactionary, over-the-top protests are condemned and stopped (and bear in mind I am referring to the burning etc, not normal, peaceful protesting), then it devalues and counters any good work that other cultures around the world may undertake.

 Picture this scenario:

There is a cave.  It has only one (front) entrance.  A owns the piece of the cave closest to the entrance, while B owns the piece of the cave at the back of the cave.  Therefore, to get to his part of the cave, B has to effectively traverse A's land.

First question: Can A charge B for walking on A's land to get to B's land?

I would have thought (from Bow. v Ken.) that B has a right, flowing from ownership, of access to his property.  And even if this weren't the case, there would most likely be a servitude right of access across A's property to B's.  I would therefore have thought that A could not charge B.

Potential Issues:  Would the answer to that question be different if A was able to, for example, drill a hole down through the top of the cave to access straight onto his property.  So essentially what I'm asking is that does the right of access have to be reasonable?  As I wouldn't have thought that drilling down through the top of a cave would be a reasonably easy step to take to access your property.

Any agreeing/disagreeing opinions?

p.s. a correct answer to this will help clear up an argument between an "eminent professor" and I

When I first took out a student loan, I was told by almost everyone that the interest rate would be "negligible" or "the same as inflation."  I therefore did.  And have put some into shares/savings etc whilst spending some of the rest.  Four years on, I find myself oweing currently 8grand to the SLC.  Manageable I thought, especially as I have a fair amount of it stashed away.  Imagine my surprise though when I receive a phone call from my friend SF telling me to check the small print on the back of my yearly SLC statement.  Sure enough, the interest rate for this year has doubled to 4.8%.  This will result in me paying approx £500 next year in interest alone to the SLC.

Upon closer investigation, we found that the interest rate on student loans are not in fact linked to inflation (which is currently 1.8%) but the RPI (retail price index) which was a hefty 4.8%.  Therefore, for the next year, at least, I will be paying 4.8% interest on my student loan.  This having gone up from 2.4% last year.

Anyway, this isn't a tale of sorrow, or a cry for sympathy, because in a few years time I will be in a better position (hopefully) to pay most of it off.  It is, however, a cautionary tale to those of you who rely on your student loans to pay fees, buy books, pay diploma fees (ahem law students), and generally live.  Check the RPI when you take out your loan - whatever it is in March of that year will be what you pay for the following year.  It's not all it's cracked up to be.

PS, the title is a reference to the fact that, despite the graduate endowment being scrapped, I will potentially be paying much the same amount in interest over the next 4/5 years!

Well today was my first day back at uni, for an honours "induction seminar."  Much scaring and "your life depends on this" chat from cyrus, then a brief chat with gareth from the library who ran over all the new online materials etc we have, then the careers woman came.

To the real meat:
I picked my classes too.  Obligations with John Blackie, and Computer Law with Konstantinos Komaitis, for 1st semester.  Quite looking forward to both, although with slight trepidation towards obligations. Still, Prof Blackie is extremely thorough and has already informed that there will be 4 unjustified enrichment seminars this year, instead of the usual 3.
- Any past/present strathy hons students (i know you're there!) got any thoughts on these?

Also, as a follow up to an earlier post+poll on here, I have decided on forum shopping&the EU as my dissertation topic, to be supervised by barry rodger.

Must admit, on a personal note Im quite glad to be back into the busy lifestyle of university and studying. And i'm also looking forward to seeing what seminars are properly like.

Well, a highly eventful and fun summer is over.  Few highlights:

Spending a nice week in italy; being on placement at the scottish law comission; scotland beating france; returning to matalan after summer placements; blue peter defrauding loads of kids (in both their programme and annual) by creating socks; etc etc

yes its back, by popular demand....



The raging torrent that is the 'stenhouse river.' Out the back of the stenhouse building. to the right you can see what is now the new 'java cafe' in the conservatory. in the background is the masterful livi tower.

Well that's it, my third year over.A quick recap:

First Sem
IPL1 - A resounding success for me, came out with good marks and good banter with barry rodger. also enjoyed the subject more than others
Labour 1 - Another success. enjoyed the class and came out with good marks. thought jenifer ross was a really good lecturer, if a little scatty.
Tax - Well i'm never a fan of 100% exams, i generally tend not to do so well in them. but i did ok. phil was a good lecturer, great laugh and really spiced up an otherwise fairly dry class.

Second Sem
IPL2 - loved the class, thought dr carruthers was immense but I think i may have failed my first exam ever. exam was really difficult, not to mention its 100% of marks. any other lecturer I think I'd have done enough to pass, but not her.
PIL -  found the logistics of this difficult, cos i had class at the same time as planning, so could only attend half the classes.  therese was good but the lectures were really hard to follow, being the first year that the class was in 1 semester. assignment (mock SC meeting) was really interesting, although lots of work. between that and exam think i've done enough to pass
Labour 2 - jenifer was good again, although this was more difficult than the partner class in 1st sem. think i've done just enough to pass though.
Evidence - yuk, boring. couldn't get into this class at all. i find donald N's theory+pyscological+socioligcal theory stuff incredibly hard to follow. although it was great to have JB back - he's a leg! think i've managed to pass this one too.
Planning - Was difficult because the classes were at same time as PIL (see above), but another class I enjoyed. mark poustie is a quality prof, I think he'll do a great job as new HoD. Have to admit though I'm disappointed its taken 2months and the essay marks still aren't back.

What Now?
Honours next year. My timetable is as follow:
Obligations. Really lookin forward to this class, gettin back to doin things I kinda enjoyed. and it'l be mad havin guest lecturers and stuff in.only regret is that norrie won't be there to do his usual birth class.
Computer Law: What am i thinkin?  well its 50-50 assignments and apparently enjoyable.

Environmental Law: Couldn't turn down poustie's charm :)
Legislation with singeon bates, or international trade with jenny hamilton: undecided yet

My Rant:  the fact that strathclyde has cut more than 5 classes at hons level in the last 2 years.  there's really not a lot of options left, short of going to glasgow for hons. sinking ship? i truly,truly hope not (cut me+i bleed strath)

Poor beastie.  At least the child still has its dad to look after it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6619983.stm

Yes ladies and gentlemen, its that time of year again..
The Scottish Legal Awards 2007.

http://www.firmmagazine.com/members/feature.php?id=307

And for the first time ever, there is a "law lecturer of the year" category.
Strathclyde, of course, dominates the nominations, which are below:

Professor Robert Black
Edinburgh University

Professor George Gretton
Edinburgh University

Mr David Lessels
University of Aberdeen

Professor Tom Mullen
University of Glasgow

Professor Kenneth Norrie
Universtity of Strathclyde

Professor Roderick Paisley
University of Aberdeen

Professor Barry Rodger
University of Strathclyde

Professor Peter Robson
University of Strathclyde

So folks, cast your votes wisely and do your alma mater proud!

My only beef is: where is dot reid!!!

Thanks to Howie for this.  He really doesnt have a clue in this clip.

Saturday
sat started with me working from 11-5. a till shift. went pretty quickly cos i was kepy fairly busy.  i also bought a couple of shirts which i thought were nice.(one of which i would later return).
then i was through to riddrie for my g/f claire's 21st party.  was a good attendance and a good laugh, and i had a few drinks too. enough to dance once( although forced).
shared much banter with the strathy massif too (watch out bowery boys, the strathy massif are comin).
night finished with stayin up late with claires family and havin a lot of whisky. (with jelly beans in).

Sunday
I arose, slightly groggy, to cups of tea and stuff. took me a few hours to get up cos i was sleepy, and then i had some pieces and stuff at claires.
i headed into uni mid-afternoon to meet marianne for some PIL.  then i spent a tenner photocopyin reports and dashed to get a train for my big evening in stirling.
but then disaster strucK!  my phone ran out of batter just as i was rushing into queen street. just died a sad, lonely death in my top-left pocket. further disaster - i missed the 15:40 train to larbs.  next train? bloody sunday service - 17:55pm. 
anyway, i couldn't wait so decided to jump, sweating profusely under the layers of clothes+bags, onto the 16:30 train to falkirk high.
when i arrived at falkirk high i pulled out my phone to phone my mum for a lift, and whap! i remembered i had no battery.  by this point i was 3 hours late to meet my pals in stirling. oh dear.
anyway, i ventured into "the bad part of falkirk" around the high station to find a phonebox. i know my way around there pretty well and found an old phonebox which i'd met before. went in+put in a pound. nothing - "insufficient funds" it said. another pound went in. "insufficient funds" it still said. a final, third pound went in and i dialled home. nothing. i hung up, and it promptly ate my 3 pounds. at this stage i cursed the "bad part of falkirk" to hell, and left the phonebox bereft of my 3 pounds.
I made my way back up to the high station, stopping at the wee shop on the way for a bottle of water. (would've been juice but for the searing heat).
Upon arrival at high station I hopped in a taxi and paid the ten quid it cost to get me back to larbert. i listened to some story the taxi driver was tellin me about alopecia and answered the numerous questions he had about why i was doing law. ("they're all crooks arent they?"; "there's too many damn laws these days, and none that protect me"; "bloody criminals get their human rights looked after, but what about me" and the final "we'd all be better off out of europe."  in my battle-weary state i offered no retort.)
i arrived home+charged my phone. had about 6 voicemails from various friends who were getting increasingly angry at my non-replying. i had a shower+quick eat, and made my way back down to the station. hopped on the train to stirling and off to the fubar.
my reason?  well my childhood (and somewhat still) heroes the bluetones were playing. after much slaggin from my pals about my lateness we went in to see them. they were awesome. totally quality. played most of classics too; "slight return"; "if". lovely stuff.
to finish off the night, got chips+cheese and hopped in a taxi with my friends for the journey home. in my euphoric state i offered more fight to this over-zealous, anti-student taxidriver, but gave up when he started talking about the best way to drive to glasgow from stirling.
finished off the night by playing football with my dog in the back garden and falling asleep on the couch.

a truly memorable weekend.

Well, what of my busy weekend?

Friday
All kicked off on Friday with the Strathy Internal Mooting Competition at which I was clerk.  The judge was Lord Slynn, who came up from London + stayed at the millenium hotel (at the cost of the law school of course).  He was nice, although  a bit deaf and impatient, and had some trouble reading the authorities (oh dear).  But apart from that he was very friendly, and i enjoyed quite a bit of banter with him pre, post and during (yes he called me up for a couple of chats during the moot) the moot.
The dinner afterwards was really good fun.  I was sat next to the winners, paul smith and andrew middleton (lovely chaps), andrew upton the president (he cant take his drink, but he can fair jive) and serial trash-tv-watcher and radio4 listener therese o'donnell.(she's one of the staff mooting contacts).
the wine+gin fuelled banter was free-flowing, and i even ate all my roast vegetables. a great part of the evening was spent with us trying to tease therese, barry +jane scoular's age out of therese  - we got enough info to hazard a rough guess.
At the end of dinner kenny miller gave a nice speech and so did new HoD Poustie.  Lord SLynn gave an extremely rousing speech at the end regarding the union and independence and the escalating violence in the middle east.  I can honestly say that I was moved by his words - he had so many genuine words of affection for the union. he also gave me a hug. (yes i hugged a lord).
The evening culminated in us all heading to babitty bousters (sp?) where me+stephen chatted to john blackie about sailing (he never, ever, ever fails to make us laugh!) and I had a discussion with Poustie about whisky. therese+paul finished me off with some gentle ribbing, before i went to get the last train home. i retired, satisfied, to my house, where i found my dog had been sick on the floor.

Hello fervent readers.  I have returned from a short break "up north" with the missus, so excuse my non-posting of late.

Whilst away I received a phonecall from a Ms Susan Sutherland at the Scottish Law Commission offering me a summer placement there in July.  Needless to say I snapped her hand off.  For those who don't know me particularly well, this is a placement which I have been chasing for some time now (a year at the commission is what a crave).  This also means that I am well-placed over the summer for placements at different places.

Today, upon my non-curriculumed return to uni, I spent 5.5 hours in the law clinic printing off court documents for the forthcoming EiP in bishopton, at which the law clinic will play some small part.
For those who aren't aware, it is the first Examination in Public in Scotland for (approx) 25 years.  The Greater Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan is proposed to be amended to include a (currently contaminated) piece of land in bishopton for large residential development.
ANyway, for those who are interested, the EiP is coming soon, and it might be worth a watch -  it has (possibly) wide-ranging implications for scottish planning law procedures.  for the political-minded of you, trish godman and annabel goldie will be in attendance.

Following my 5.5 (fruitless) hours printing off documents in the clinic, i went to the pub to watch the chelsea and man utd games.  ok it was only the press bar, but they had tv's nonetheless.

Currently on the agenda:
- Thurs 5th April: there is an "all day booze" planned for in glasgow/falkirk.  for those who have never experienced an "all day booze" it is basically where you meet at the pub around 1pm, and spend 12hours drinking and sharing banter.  contrary to public belief you do not get wrecked - the steady drinking makes you happy.  and much social politics is shared. please apply for attendance at the ADB within. (n.campbell@strath.ac.uk)

Classic Partridge from the World Cup 94 on "the day today"

Note at the end (for stephen) Christopher Morris, who played Peter Baxendale-Thomas in Watership Alan

What the hell is going on with the rubbish new intro/close of hollyoaks?  i muuuuuuch preferred the old one.

boooo

This week - The quite (un)attractive Stenhouse building, former home of the law school.  This building holds many memories for me, not least because I was born and live in Stenhousemuir.

Anyway, the two people standing talking at the bottom right hand of the frame are myself and stephen. just chatting about law. and stuff.  the driver of the blue car is, in fact, Professor Barry Rodger.  What the picture doesn't convey, however, is that Barry was actually shouting "the halley's sunk!" at us.  Whilst mentioning something about horst hrubesch.

Please also note, the 3 "thinking pods" protruding from the 2nd floor, flanked by the trees.  It is a well-documented fact that the "thinking pods" of the Scottish Parliament are modelled loosely on these ones.

Watched the last episode of the 2nd series of league of gentlemen tonight on bbc4.  ruddy superb!  ive got the first 2 series on video (yes video!) and had forgotten how good they were (hillary bris is brilliant)

Anyway, this leads me on to the point of this post.  I really am most impressed with the quality of bbc comedy recently (new programmes and re-runs).

I was always one of those people who hated the bbc, and felt their programming was getting worse, but now I have completely changed my mind.
I put this down to 2 main things:

1) digital television.  it has allowed bbc to expand and show wider variety of decent programming
2) the fact that itv is nauteously bad these days, and c4 is creating a name for itself as the "xenophobes favourite"

Tonight, between bbc3 + bbc4 i had the pleasure of:
league of gentlement, eastenders, ideal (which ive grown to really like), family guy.

Just waiting on them to start showing the alan partridge re-runs, superB!