Dear Lecturer,

You are not, although you would very much like to be, Che Guevara. As a result I do not particularly appreciate and hour and a half polemic every week. What I do expect is a well rounded lecture possibly featuring some salient legal points that may be of benefit to my continuing legal education.

I appreciate that, despite how hard we try not to, we all have strongly held views and the odd political bias. However, I expect, as a professional, you to keep these to a minimum during the delivery of your lecture.

I am also, none too keen on your continued manipulation of historical facts. The Troubles in Northern Ireland were exactly that, troubles. They were or are not “Troubles”. By wiggling your fingers to indicate inverted commas, you imply that there were or are no troubles. Call me a right-wing reactionary if you must but I consider elements of a civilian population organising themselves into to para-military groups and then randomly killing each other troublesome. By this reasoning I would argue that the period in which this was most prevalent could be described as the Troubles.

I also have a few issues with your apocalyptic predictions of the current financial climate. I suspect, despite your argument, that the kids rioting in Greece are not the advance guard of impending anarchy. I think that if you look throughout history the disgruntled youth regularly riot. Our society is not about to implode. You argue that the average 16 year old in Athens is smashing up shops because they understand that they have been saddled with the debt of their parents. This may be true for a core minority. I argue that the majority are rioting because it’s quite good fun to throw stones at the police and an exciting way of getting a new TV. 

Just a few thoughts.

Love OL xx

Read Full Post »

Legal Academics and Misguided Fools

Last night was my first back at college since the Christmas break. A new term brought a new lecturer and a new acquaintance in the form somebody I had not previously spoken to in my seminar group, more of him later. The personality and mannerisms of this new lecturer gave me cause to reflect on the kind of people who pursue a career in academia, legal academia to be more specific.

The reason I have singled out legal academia is not purely because it is the area I have exposure to. The law, as most people are aware, offers an incredibly lucrative to career to people at the top of their game. I would reason that many, nay most academics consider themselves at the top of their games and have the glittering academic credentials that top law firms/chambers look for. So why are they eking out a living surviving on a diet of books, coffee and French cigarettes?

 I have two explanations. The first is ego. The specific part of ego I think is applicable here is the ‘big fish, small pond’ syndrome. I would argue that many academics have whopping great egos but the legal professions are full of big egos too so their sense of self importance could very easily be swamped. By picking an obscure area of law to research to death they can easily become eminent in their chosen field. Solicitors and barristers are measured pretty much on perfomance, but not the academic. It doesn’t matter if he is right or wrong, mainly because there is nothing to be right or wrong about. All he has to do is come up with a hypothesis, research it into oblivion, convince a law journal to publish it and then be prepared to defend it. Bingo. Job’s a good ‘un. The only minor inconvenience to this fusty world is that he has to lecture students a couple of times a week, but they’re all idiots so it doesn’t really matter. By entering this way of life all your academic has to do is adopt a left wing stance on everything and convince himself, and us, that he has deliberately eschewed the trappings of wealth for intellectual superiority.

The second reason I think people enter academia is due to lack of social skills. Like it or not, and most lawyers probably don’t, your average solicitor/barrister is employed to advise people at some degree. Whether they be the board of a multi-national, one half of a divorcing couple or a soon to be evicted illegal immigrant, there is likely to be human contact. It is human contact the academic is not good at. I have worked in big corporations long enough to realise that business is done primarily on the strength of a relationship. Your academic, let’s call him Johnny McArm-Patches, is much happier with his books and statistics than real people. He knows this. He also knows that during any interview phase his 1st from the Polytechnic of Mid-Glamorgan is going to be over shadowed by his inherrent bad breath and total lack of personality.

Which brings me nicely on to the chap I talked to last night. He didn’t have a hallitosis problem that I noticed but he was lacking something socially. Let’s, for the purpose of anonymity call him Dorothy. Dorothy confided in me that he wants to be a barrister. Super, so do I. The only trouble is that Dorothy cannot string a coherrent sentance together. He’s actually a nice guy and I feel a little guilty writing about him. However I just can’t see him being able to answer the questions in an interview, let alone convince a head of chambers he’s the man they want. Dorothy would make an excellent academic. And this is my second point. Dorothy knows his law, he’s clearly very bright but he has the people skills of a second hand stuffed otter. As a result he will do well academically and get a place at a law school. But is it fair? Now I’m not suggesting I will do well academically or even get an interview but there is at least a reasonable chance of both. Dorothy on the other hand will be allowed to spend a fortune at a law school with literally no chance of success at the other end. Perhaps the next couple of years should be spent nudging Dorothy towards academia. But it is late and I’m starting to lose my thread and my mind.

I would like to add that some people enter legal academia for reasons that are not down to lack of personality or the size of their ego. Some people are interested in the law but don’t want to enter the greasy pole career race. Some people, surprise, surprise like teaching. Others just like the amount of time it allows them to drink rioja.

Read Full Post »

Harry in P-Word Shocka!

So Harry used the P- word. Stop press, hold the front page. Now, I’m not asian or Muslim so Polly Toynbee would reason I am ineligible to comment. Interestingly I happened upon the Humanist Society website today, saw La Toynbee was president and as a result considered conversion to either Chassidic Judaism or the Pentecostal Church of the Screaming Loony. Anyhoo, Harry used the P-word and our friends at the News of the Screws saw it as their civic duty to tell us all. Lucky us. Well lucky them actually. Lucky them that this time they did their research. It turns out that this time the video was real, Harry has apologised to prove it is real. As opposed to the last time they had an army expose which they felt it was their obligation to inform us of – remember the fake Iraq pictures? The ones with the ‘Iraqi’ with a sandbag on his head? The pictures who everybody with a jot of military knowledge knew were fake? I remember them every time  I see Piers Morgan’s smiling face on whatever reality TV show he is selling his soul on this week. Morgan, you have blood on your hands.

So Harry said the P-word. Yep, it’s not big, it’s not clever and it’s not acceptable in polite society. But that’s it, he isn’t in polite society. To quote George Orwell: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” Harry is in the army and people in the army have very rude nicknames for each other. It has been said that if Napoleon’s army marched on its stomach then the British army marches on its sense of humour. Watching the video you can clearly see he is joking. The orders part where he is seen on the phone saying “love to the corgies, ya, ya, God save you grandma” is actually very funny. This guy is trying to be normal in a very surreal world. His mother and her memory have turned in to a circus, go to Harrods and look at the memorial if you are in any doubt. Add to this that he will never be king like his older brother. He is trying to make a life for himself in the army for real, unlike his uncles and father. He sneaked himself to Afghanistan for Pete’s sake.

Yes, he should set an example. Or should he? As I said, he’s never going to be king. He hasn’t asked to be there like our footballers or other slebs. His grandfather has turned insulting foreigners into a cult practice. I’m not excusing racism, I don’t condone the use of racist language, I just think this needs to be taken in context. He’s a young guy, in the army – a world the screws clearly have no understanding of. He’s trying to turn his freak show of a life into something worth while. Let’s do him a favour and lay off the kid eh? So he gets kicked out the army or is forced to resign his commission, what now? The royal circuit of engagements and more drunken nights at Whisky Mist. Excellent.

Read Full Post »

New Head of Military Prosecutions

It was with interest recently that I read about the appointment of Bruce Houlder QC as the Director of Service Prosecutions. In this post he will preside over the new joint services courts martial system which is expected to finally be operational in October 2009. Mr Houlder is, I believe, the first non military lawyer in recent times to take over the task of prosecuting soldiers, sailors and airmen.

My first reaction was that the MOD had gone all out to find and persuade a top lawyer from Rue Civvi to act as their Witchfinder General. Following the most expensive courts martial in British military history and the acquittal of all the soldiers involved (one was prosecuted for a lesser offence which he admitted to), I was concerned the MOD would be putting conviction rates and figures above all else. However, in an interview with the Times Mr Houlder is keen to point out that this isn’t the case, pointing out that his job is:

“…not to protect individuals from prosecution, nor to second-guess an honest decision made in the circumstances of an armed conflict for good reason that turns out to be wrong when looked at in the cold light of day…”

There is no doubt he has a difficult job to do. His new world is one that operates in ways in which he must still be struggling to come to terms with. I am not necessarily talking about the difficulties of collecting evidence in a war zone, because believe it or not, most military investigations aren’t actually conducted in Afghanistan or Iraq, more the challenges in understanding the military culture. Mr Houlder has been given an ‘intensive induction’, apparently. (I wonder if his involved a top shelfer and dance of the flaming arse holes?) However, in the same Times article he displays some naivety when complaining about soldiers under investigation closing ranks and suffering from “regimental amnesia”.  I’m afraid to say, for better or for worse, the tight regimental bonds are the bonds that make the British Army the best pound for pound army in the world. I am in no way excusing the closing of ranks, just pointing out that is happens and is always going to happen. Soldiers fight not for Queen and country but for each other. It’s a hackneyed expression but a true one.

However, I digress. I am, by nature, suspicious of those who placed Mr Houlder in his new role. He reports to the Attorney General but who else? He is certainly no fool, far from it. As a former chairman of the criminal bar he knows a thing or two about how things ought to be. He does, though, need to be certain that he is not used to up conviction rates and ensure investigations end with a good result. The government caught a lot of flack in the aftermath of recent high profile military acquittals but satisfying elements of the media or human rights lobby is in no way conducive with the rule of law.

But…the more I read of Mr Houlder’s interview the more I realised what he could bring to military and the way it does law. The military already experiences excellent conviction rates, over 50% of those pleading not guilty. What he will bring is the professionalism of the independent bar to an organisation crying out for modernisation. He intends to make the process more efficient and increase training for officers involved this is as well as introducing CPS procedures (it’s not all positive!). By making these procedures more robust and by ensuring that investigations are as thorough as they can possibly be, Mr Houlder can bring an element of respectability to the courts martial process.

With one side clamouring for convictions and the other insisting protection for troops, Mr Houlder is no doubt walking a tight-rope. He needs to be very sure he is steering not only a middle course but a fair one. He has the tools to do the job, the skills to pay the bills, he needs to use them carefully. Although vastly experienced with the criminal bar, this is something beyond simply ensuring a guilty man is punished. National pride, that double edged sword, is on the line and things could get political very quickly.

Read Full Post »