Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March 27th, 2009

Few people get a chance to interview an unelected serving Prime Minister and I am no different. So… I made an  interview up.  Here is an imaginary podcast with the Prime Minister.  I may have to get my coat – but it is Friday night and I was at a loose end with, possibly, too much Argentinian Malbec at my disposal.

Listen to the imaginary interview with Gordon Brown

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Rome fiddles while Nero burns?
The country is going through the deepest recession since the Second World War, the G20 countries are to meet shortly but it would appear that some people have other things on their minds.

Objection! Judges reject new robes
The Independent: High Court judiciary say Betty Jackson designs make them look like characters from ‘Star Trek’

The Queen also appears to have matters of State on her mind. Ian Parker-Joseph, leader of The Libertarian Party UK asks if The Queen is thinking of dissolving Parliament following recent trips to The Palace by The Governor of The Bank of England and The Chief of The Defence Staff.  Are we to have a ‘Very British Junta?” Charon QC considers the matter.

More fiddling while Rome burns occurred yesterday when a matter of national and pressing importance resulted in Parliament having to discuss this today – The Independent reports: “Royal succession rules may be reformed. Royal succession rules may be reformed. Buckingham Palace and PM in talks to give women equal rights to throne”

I cannot really understand why this matter, hardly one of the great issues of our day, has to be resolved now given that The Queen is likely to live for another 20 years and celebrate her 100th birthday and there is no immediate sign of the wayward Princes wishing to marry nice catholic girls…. or is there? The issue has been tabled by Lib-Dem MP Evan Harris, to end the “uniquely discriminatory” rules laid down by the 1701 Act of Settlement. Res ipsa loquitur.

Too young to retire at 70? We should work our judges until they are at least 75…
In 1916 the Earl of Halsbury heard a case on the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords at 92. The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 now provides that judges must retire at 70. The Times: is pre-occupied this morning with the thought that Supreme Court judges should work until they are 75.

The news, law reports, an update to blogs and the daily news podcast is now up on Insite Law

Read Full Post »

Advertisements