But… there is still a problem… how are they to be referred to in the papers, on television? As Joshua Rozenberg pointed out in the Law Society Gazette this week… calling them ‘Justice’ is either a bit too American and could lead to confusion with our most senior judges being on a lower level in title terms than a High Court judge (Mr Justice or Mrs Justice ) or the Court of Appeal judge ( Lord Justice or Lady Justice). Rozenberg suggests that Justice of the Supreme Court Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony is just not going to fit in the television captions or, I would add, be capable of being remembered by the average television autocue based presenter/interviewer.
I opened a bottle of Rioja and imagined a conversation between two men who meet in the pub quite a lot. I shall call them Man in a Hat and Man in a Cap.
Man in hat: You do know that the Law Lords stopped being Law Lords today don’t you?
Man in cap: Stopped being Law Lords…? what sort of Lords are they going to be then?
Man in hat: Well.. they’re still going to be Law… Lords… as in Lords who do Law… but they won’t be Law Lords… The House of Lords… or part of it… … see… has changed into the Supreme Court….
Man in a cap: Yeah… I read about that in The Telegraph… they’ve got a new building an all…. an expensive new building…. 65 million quid it was… did you see that? And.. I also read that new judges to this Chicken Supreme Court aren’t going to be Lords at all…. just law judges… so won’t they feel a bit left out… what with all the others being Time Lords who aren’t any longer… and that?
Man in hat: Yes… I saw that in The Mail. Disgraceful… you’d have thought a man or woman who works all his or her life for his or her country and goes to our highest court of law would get a Lordship wouldn’t you? … especially since all the other lords who do law but aren’t law lords any longer have got lordships.
Man in cap: So if a new judge is appointed to this Supreme Court aren’t going to be Lords what will they be? Sirs? Dames? ….
Man in hat: Well… they will probably be Sir or Dame already because of being a High Court judge.
Man in cap: But that is a bit confusing…. I read that a judge … if a bloke… goes to the High Court… the Queen gets her sword out and he becomes a Sir and then everyone calls him My Lord. But… he is a ‘Sir’, gets called My Lord and he is called Mr Justice in the newspapers and on the telly…. what’s that all about then? I’ve got a Scottish mate… he says it is even more confusing up in Scotland. There… he says… judges of the Court of Session don’t get Lordships but are called Lord and when they go from the Outer House to the Inner House…First or Second Division… some of them who are already called Lord… get real Lordships in the House of Lords….. and can call themselves Lord…even though they already have been calling themselves Lord… even though they aren’t Lords…. .. but they can’t call themselves Lord Lord.…
Man in hat and Man in cap sip their drinks… both in a reflective mood…
Man in cap… continues: And what about the geezer who isn’t a Lord or a Sir when he leapfrogs straight from his Chambermaid or from his law firm or university to the Supreme Court… as is allowed… I saw that in The Telegraph… by the new laws…. does he get a Sir en route before calling himself Lord like the Scots judges ?…. and if not, why not…?
Man in hat: Fuck it… I can’t cope… fancy another?
Man in cap: Don’t mind if I do My Lord….. perhaps the new judges will be called The Supremes…..?
about law on his blog is a rarity. A man after my own heart – and always a pleasure to read – including his comments on my Lord Falconer podcast (which have, predictably, absolutely nothing to do with the podcast) where he engages with Jimmy Bastard (or Sir James, as I know him from our fortnightly lunches at the Langham). Jimmy Bastard’s 
Mind The Bollix
pleasures of exploration are also to be enjoyed on James Higham’s blog – his blogrolls, his categories – a mine of information and non-law blogging pleasure. Today.. James is, in fact, Squadron Leader James Bigglesworth Higham. Tomorrow he could well be James Robespiere-Higham. One just does not know.
Fancy a political kick in the balls? Then… over to 
On the day when the Law Lords bade farewell to the House of Lords and sit as Justices of the Supreme Court of the United kingdom at the new Supreme Court in October, they gave judgment on one of the emotive issues of our times in 
clarifying the position for those, Like Ms Purdy who wish to end their lives knowing that their loved ones will not be prosecuted if they assist.
While our own legal history has a grim and primitive past; with trial by ordeal and combat being replaced by rough justice and the penalties of death by hanging, drawing, quatering et al – and the Americans and other supposedly civilised jurisdictions around the world continue to exact the penalty of death – we do have the right as commentators to say that this and other cruel punishments are plain wrong, just as we have the right to observe in this country when bad laws are made and bad judgments are handed down.
not rest until the whole world knuckled under to Islam and even darker thoughts about moving to France where they have an extremely sensible attitude to SECULARISM. I have been reading the work of Christopher Hitchens but I shall resist the temptation to write a peroration on the theme of atheism and the ills religion has caused the world in the last 2000 years.
I have almost completed the structural upgrade to Insite Law. Each weekday morning, and once over the weekend, Insite Law will be updated with editorial, Editor’s pick and all the important latest legal news from The Times, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, Ministry of Justice, Bar Council and The Law Society. the Law reports will also be updated daily.
isolation on his side of the table – in the centre; his wife positioned opposite like counsel. The waiter has just delivered the skeleton argument containing details of the meal. The judge asks his wife to put her submissions on what points she is likely to take in terms of the food set out in the schedule. The judge listens patiently, nodding approvingly when his wife makes a particularly interesting selection, calls the waiter as an expert witness to clarify some particularly troublesome evidence in French, and satisfied with the veracity of the evidence, places his papers on the table, turns to the waiter and gives judgment. The judge speaks slowly to ensure that the order is reported accurately to Chef in the kitchens.
‘after my health’ in later life or worse, shuffling me off to Green Lawns Hall for the demented and gaga and advising me about my cigarette and alcohol consumption while consulting a Wills & Probate textbook and clutching a power of attorney form. But if you do have a young family and decide to holiday in rain soaked Britain then you may find a trip to the cinema useful. I did my 
Geeklawyer and Scott Greenfield of Simple Justice were mentioned. After the podcast Dan was telling me about his friend 
I haven’t seen it – but I have read about it and Dan describes it thus… ” In the film, we meet a determined and spiritual woman who is surprised to learn that she has inherited just one thing from her dead businessman husband: a run-down old house in Georgia, and the turbulent foster family living in it. Taken from the story Mrs. Hobbes’ House, 
are being touched up and screened by French Immigration and Health officials (apparently). It is curious how the French over react to everything and then make a complete hash of things – but they do do making a hash of things with style and elegance… Trafalgar, Waterloo, Maginot Line etc…
course, be back later in the day to blog. Now I must scour the horizon for U-Boats… and, as Gordon Brown ponders his future after the ludicrous result in the Norfolk by-election where a Labour majority of 5000 was turned into a Tory majority of 7000 – I shall have some breakfast.
Although readers may not notice any change in substance on my blog, I am quite happy at James Higham’s suggestion to promote and support 
Charon QC 