Society launches campaign to fight legal aid cuts
In an attempt to improve the economy, the Coalition government has once again introduced 'cuts' and this time it is for legal aid. As you may all know already, legal aid essentially provides financial assistanace for people who cannot afford legal representation. Not only is it worrying that cuts are being introduced in so many sectors and departments of the economy, but these cuts are being done to the detriment of the less privileged people in society. In my opinion, this clearly demonstrates how much the less fortunate people of this country suffer and will continue to suffer under the current government. Times are very hard.
The new proposed cuts will also bring revised requirements for those who can qualify for such a right. However, Chancery Lane has warned, it would only mean that the most unprivileged would benefit.
The proposed cuts will also have a negative impact on the judicial system as a whole since as many as 550,000 cases would be lost due to a lack of funding and even more disturbing, is the fact that lawyer's fees would reduce by 10%.
Clearly, action needs to be taken and the Law Society should be applauded for taking such a proactive approach in trying to rectify the situation. In tackling the issue both at a community as well as national level (especially as a campaign will be run for Parliament) there is no doubt that their voices will be heard. We can only hope that this would be enough for the Coalition government to have a change of heart. Ultimately, we can only imagine that it is an inevitability that the government would seek to introduce cuts elsewhere in the legal environment. The question is, where next?
For more information please log onto;
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/society-launches-campaign-fight-legal-aid-cuts
Saturday 20 November 2010
Thursday 18 November 2010
Inequality in the legal environment of England and Wales
One of the beauties of becoming a Barrister or lawyer is the fact that you have a whole wealth of knowledge at your finger tips which ordinary lay men would not have. This inevitably puts someone in a position of power. As we have progressed swiftly into the 21st century, sex discrimination at work has become something of a myth. Unfortunately, I am saddened to admit that this does not seem to be the case in the legal environment of England and Wales. http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/research-reveals-diversity-concerns
In three reports published by the Law Society this week, it was concluded that female lawyers working in the legal field in England and Wales are facing numerous challenges. Even more worrying is the fact that such difficulties are being faced by females from ethnic minority backgrounds as well as homosexual males and females.
In order to establish why there is a problem in the first place, it is vital that one analyses the source of it. It has been alleged from one of the research papers that one of the key reasons why female lawyers face difficulties in the work place is due to the working environment of law firms. In essence, law firms are dominated by males who have an unfavourable business culture which renders women laywers to feel inferior. This is best illustrated by the fact that female lawyers are unable to work long hours due to family commitments. As women are often fairly new and in the minority in these firms, there is only so much they can to express their discontentment. After all, if a law firm has a particular work ethic which has been in place for generations, who are you as a 'newbie' to question this? Especially as a woman. This you may think, is a violation of EU sex discrimination law and this is correct. Even more worrying, it is a violation of the Human Rights Act 1998 but why is nothing being done about this?
Therefore, it is clear that discrimination exists in the legal environment of this country. Discrimination takes place in many forms; direct and indirect. The Law Gazette stresses that direct discrimination seems to be more of a problem for women since they are often ridiculed or called names if they try to embrace male behaviour rather than a more docile approach in their work. How can the Law Society allow this?
Unfortunately the problem does not end here. Another research by the Law Society revealed that women of minority backgrounds are forced to take cases that were poorly paid (for example, legal aid and immigration). However, white females were taking higher paid cases in the commercial field. This is, clearly, racism at it's best.
With regards to homosexuals, the problem is not as adverse as it is for women of ethnic minorities. Although some relatively older firms have embraced gays and lesbians in their workforce, this does not mean that they are not discriminated against. Clients of such reputable firms are investing a lot of money in order to get the highest standard of service and with that, they have the discretion to refuse a gay or a lesbian working on their case. As unfair as it may seem, I cannot help but wonder whether such a behaviour is more acceptable just because such clients are 'indespensible' to such legal firms. So, my thought is, where does one draw line between acceptable discrimination or unacceptable discrimination? Is there such a thing? Does money really dictate this and if so, is the power of money and status more than that of the law? Clearly, according to s.1 of Race Relations Act 1976, ss 4, 6 and 10 of the Employment (Sex Discrimination) Act 2000 and Article 141 EC, the disadvantaged women have a right to seek legal action. However, will they go through such lengths to fight the 'unfair' system in placeand put their careers and reputation in jeopardy or just accept it? Ultimately, the fact that the Law Society has recognised that such problems exist we can rest assured that something will be done to improve the situation. However, despite the laws that are already in place to prevent such problems from arising I am somewhat apprehensive on what the Law Society will propose to do to eliminate discrimination in the legal world. If you think of it, if the existing laws were effective, such issues would not be a challenge for women and homosexuals in the legal world. Time will tell.
For more information please log onto;
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/discriminationonthegroundsofsexualorientation.htm
http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l0850001.htm
In three reports published by the Law Society this week, it was concluded that female lawyers working in the legal field in England and Wales are facing numerous challenges. Even more worrying is the fact that such difficulties are being faced by females from ethnic minority backgrounds as well as homosexual males and females.
In order to establish why there is a problem in the first place, it is vital that one analyses the source of it. It has been alleged from one of the research papers that one of the key reasons why female lawyers face difficulties in the work place is due to the working environment of law firms. In essence, law firms are dominated by males who have an unfavourable business culture which renders women laywers to feel inferior. This is best illustrated by the fact that female lawyers are unable to work long hours due to family commitments. As women are often fairly new and in the minority in these firms, there is only so much they can to express their discontentment. After all, if a law firm has a particular work ethic which has been in place for generations, who are you as a 'newbie' to question this? Especially as a woman. This you may think, is a violation of EU sex discrimination law and this is correct. Even more worrying, it is a violation of the Human Rights Act 1998 but why is nothing being done about this?
Therefore, it is clear that discrimination exists in the legal environment of this country. Discrimination takes place in many forms; direct and indirect. The Law Gazette stresses that direct discrimination seems to be more of a problem for women since they are often ridiculed or called names if they try to embrace male behaviour rather than a more docile approach in their work. How can the Law Society allow this?
Unfortunately the problem does not end here. Another research by the Law Society revealed that women of minority backgrounds are forced to take cases that were poorly paid (for example, legal aid and immigration). However, white females were taking higher paid cases in the commercial field. This is, clearly, racism at it's best.
With regards to homosexuals, the problem is not as adverse as it is for women of ethnic minorities. Although some relatively older firms have embraced gays and lesbians in their workforce, this does not mean that they are not discriminated against. Clients of such reputable firms are investing a lot of money in order to get the highest standard of service and with that, they have the discretion to refuse a gay or a lesbian working on their case. As unfair as it may seem, I cannot help but wonder whether such a behaviour is more acceptable just because such clients are 'indespensible' to such legal firms. So, my thought is, where does one draw line between acceptable discrimination or unacceptable discrimination? Is there such a thing? Does money really dictate this and if so, is the power of money and status more than that of the law? Clearly, according to s.1 of Race Relations Act 1976, ss 4, 6 and 10 of the Employment (Sex Discrimination) Act 2000 and Article 141 EC, the disadvantaged women have a right to seek legal action. However, will they go through such lengths to fight the 'unfair' system in placeand put their careers and reputation in jeopardy or just accept it? Ultimately, the fact that the Law Society has recognised that such problems exist we can rest assured that something will be done to improve the situation. However, despite the laws that are already in place to prevent such problems from arising I am somewhat apprehensive on what the Law Society will propose to do to eliminate discrimination in the legal world. If you think of it, if the existing laws were effective, such issues would not be a challenge for women and homosexuals in the legal world. Time will tell.
For more information please log onto;
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/definitions/discriminationonthegroundsofsexualorientation.htm
http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l0850001.htm
Tuesday 16 November 2010
The complexities of Seychelles' legal environment
Generally, it is easy to determine what kind of legal system a country has. For example, most Commonwealth countries follow the common law system of England and Wales while others for example French tend to follow a civil law system.
However, regarding my home country, the Seychelles, the legal system has proven to be quite different. The Seychelles is one of the unique island states that employs a mixture of both common and civil law jurisdiction. Interestingly enough, this is so because the Seychelles was firstly a colony of France and later became a state under English rule. The sources of the law is therefore quite diverse. Firstly, there is the French Napoleanic Code in which the Civil Code was derived then there is common law which only seems to be applicable to criminal law. Even though the most powerful source of law in the Seychelles is through a body called the National Assembly, domestic case law can be used as precedent.
Clearly, with such a complex legal structure, it can be argued that there are many issues that have arisen in the past. For example, the fact that most Barristers or Attorney at Law (as we call them in the Seychelles) can qualify to practice law once they have a law degree and sat the BPTC exam in England and Wales, France or neighbouring Mauritius. However, this does not apply to other countries. Therefore, one is limited in terms of choice.
Personally, I am of the belief that perhaps it is of an advantage to Seychelles as lawyers who have practised in the aforementioned countries have a higher standing in society and have proved to be sharp minded individuals oozing in confidence with their exceptional advocacy skills. Hence, even with the critics that may exist, limiting places of study essentially works in favour of maintaining excellence in the judiciary. The same may be argued for the Courts but there is undoubtedly a need for new lawyers. Hopefully,Seychelles will see a surge of 'new blood' in the juduciary soon.
However, regarding my home country, the Seychelles, the legal system has proven to be quite different. The Seychelles is one of the unique island states that employs a mixture of both common and civil law jurisdiction. Interestingly enough, this is so because the Seychelles was firstly a colony of France and later became a state under English rule. The sources of the law is therefore quite diverse. Firstly, there is the French Napoleanic Code in which the Civil Code was derived then there is common law which only seems to be applicable to criminal law. Even though the most powerful source of law in the Seychelles is through a body called the National Assembly, domestic case law can be used as precedent.
Clearly, with such a complex legal structure, it can be argued that there are many issues that have arisen in the past. For example, the fact that most Barristers or Attorney at Law (as we call them in the Seychelles) can qualify to practice law once they have a law degree and sat the BPTC exam in England and Wales, France or neighbouring Mauritius. However, this does not apply to other countries. Therefore, one is limited in terms of choice.
Personally, I am of the belief that perhaps it is of an advantage to Seychelles as lawyers who have practised in the aforementioned countries have a higher standing in society and have proved to be sharp minded individuals oozing in confidence with their exceptional advocacy skills. Hence, even with the critics that may exist, limiting places of study essentially works in favour of maintaining excellence in the judiciary. The same may be argued for the Courts but there is undoubtedly a need for new lawyers. Hopefully,Seychelles will see a surge of 'new blood' in the juduciary soon.
Monday 15 November 2010
Facebook and Intellectual Property Rights
Facebook is a social networking site that is well known to almost everyone in the world. Not so long ago, I took the liberty of going to watch the 'Social Network' movie. I must say, it was one of the most entertaining and educational movies I have ever seen. Not only was the movie based on the drama surrounding the birth of the amazing phenomenon we all (well most of us) affiliate ourselves with, but it was full of litigation. I apologise for ruining the movie for those who have not watched it as of yet, but I do urge all of you to watch it. It is very relevant for all us LLM students especially those enrolled onto the Intellectual Property Rights module. There were several cases surrounding Mark Zuckberg (creator of facebook) but the most striking would be the Intellectual Property Rights case. I can safely say that after the second week onto Block two and studying Intellectual Property Rights, the movie has made copyright infringement so much clearer to me. I hope it does the same for you all.
Thursday 11 November 2010
Violence could have been avoided....
In view of yesterday's blog, I would like to continue today on stating that violence surrounding the protests
in London could have been avoided. Apparently, at least a month ago, facebook groups were set up by anarchists discussing the need to use violence at the SU protests. If you consider the power of facebook as a tool of communication, it is clear that such information was probably known to many people including those in the Police force, MI5 and the like. So, my question is, why were the police officers not better equipped or prepared to face the violent protestors yesterday? Why did they act passive? Does it make sense that the police force have to make such a (I dare say) lame excuse (the whole G20 summit issue) for not having done anything to limit the actions of the violent protestors? Of course not. Even if the protestors were just 'kids' they are young adults and understand completely the risks that come with public protests. A young adult benefiting from various rights such as ; the right to vote and the right to freedom of speach bears responsibilities as well.
I am of the opinion that the police should have acknowledged their mistake stating they should have been more proactive and perhaps, been more organised tackling the incident. After all, I would imagine this is a matter of national security and MI5 or CID should at least be monitoring all facebook forums for any potential unrest, right? I the matter was not taken as seriously as it shold have been...
For more info please log onto;
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Student-Protest-Violence-Discussed-On-Internet-Ahead-Of-London-Riots-Sky-News-Discovers/Article/201011215800468?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15800468_Student_Protest_Violence_Discussed_On_Internet_Ahead_Of_London_Riots%2C_Sky_News_Discovers
in London could have been avoided. Apparently, at least a month ago, facebook groups were set up by anarchists discussing the need to use violence at the SU protests. If you consider the power of facebook as a tool of communication, it is clear that such information was probably known to many people including those in the Police force, MI5 and the like. So, my question is, why were the police officers not better equipped or prepared to face the violent protestors yesterday? Why did they act passive? Does it make sense that the police force have to make such a (I dare say) lame excuse (the whole G20 summit issue) for not having done anything to limit the actions of the violent protestors? Of course not. Even if the protestors were just 'kids' they are young adults and understand completely the risks that come with public protests. A young adult benefiting from various rights such as ; the right to vote and the right to freedom of speach bears responsibilities as well.
I am of the opinion that the police should have acknowledged their mistake stating they should have been more proactive and perhaps, been more organised tackling the incident. After all, I would imagine this is a matter of national security and MI5 or CID should at least be monitoring all facebook forums for any potential unrest, right? I the matter was not taken as seriously as it shold have been...
For more info please log onto;
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Student-Protest-Violence-Discussed-On-Internet-Ahead-Of-London-Riots-Sky-News-Discovers/Article/201011215800468?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15800468_Student_Protest_Violence_Discussed_On_Internet_Ahead_Of_London_Riots%2C_Sky_News_Discovers
Wednesday 10 November 2010
Is violence the ONLY way forward?
Today's breaking news on Sky, 'Hijackers Undermined Student Fee Demo'. A historical moment for the country, up to 50,000 students marched to London near the MI5 building and all hell broke loose at the Tory Headquaters as the place was attacked in protest of the rising university fees.*_http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Thousands-Of-Students-Protest-In-London-Against-Tuition-Fees-And-Smash-Windows-And-Start-Fires/Article/201011215798223?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15798223_Thousands_Of_Students_Protest_In_London_Against_Tuition_Fees_And_Smash_Windows_And_Start_Fires_
The protests were initially meant to be peaceful but it has been reported that some extremists or anachists got wind of the whole incident and turned it into a violent display of anger. The situation got so out of hand that a fire extinguisher as well as missiles were said to have been thrown on top of the Milliband building. According to the Guardian, over 14 people were hospitalised and 35 were arrested. *http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/10/student-fees-protest-conservative-hq
The President of the NUS has publicly disapproved of the way the protest turned out. In my opinion this was a good move on his part despite the fact that he was in charge of the whole protest. Therefore, blame automatically shifts onto him. However, one cannot help but wonder, surely violence must have been of reasonable foresight. For example, if you consider what happened earlier this month, when students of London School of Economics protested against Chris Huhne's (Energy Secretary) visit there, it is clear that violence would be an inevitability. *http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11675502
So why were no extra precautions taken for this? Even more worrying, does the fact that Nick Clegg is being challenged during the PMQ's this week undermine the whole essence of his party? http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Deputy-Prime-Minister-Nick-Clegg-Under-Fire-In-PMQs-Over-Liberal-Democrat-U-Turn-On-Student-Fees/Article/201011215799277?lpos=Politics_Carousel_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15799277_Deputy_Prime_Minister_Nick_Clegg_Under_Fire_In_PMQs_Over_Liberal_Democrat_U-Turn_On_Student_Fees
False promises made for votes? Another thought, was it only too convenient that the protests took place at at time when the PM himself was away on work mission in China?
As an International student, having studied in this country for 5 years, I can now say that now all the home students realise how much money myself and every other international student has to pay in order to acquire a decent qualification to our name. Have we ever complained? Sure we have. Has anybody listened? Of course not. If anybody did listen, the fees we are paying every year would not be increasing by a £1000 would they? Sure this is unfair for us and more so for home students but was violence really necessary today?
My thought is perhaps violence was the only way, (but not the most ethical) for students' to have their voices heard. I imagine there will be more violence on its way unless the coalition government can scrap this proposal altogether otherwise a catastrophe is sure to follow. Hopefully the coalition government can take this as a real eye opener (especially the Lib Dems) and ensure they keep to their promises after elections. Ultimately one thing is for sure, in today's world, the only way one can get their voices heard is through violence. Sad and yet true. Who would have thought, a 1st World country like Great Britain had to resort to such uncivilised acts in the name of change?
For further information you may also wish to log onto;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11677862
The protests were initially meant to be peaceful but it has been reported that some extremists or anachists got wind of the whole incident and turned it into a violent display of anger. The situation got so out of hand that a fire extinguisher as well as missiles were said to have been thrown on top of the Milliband building. According to the Guardian, over 14 people were hospitalised and 35 were arrested. *http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/10/student-fees-protest-conservative-hq
The President of the NUS has publicly disapproved of the way the protest turned out. In my opinion this was a good move on his part despite the fact that he was in charge of the whole protest. Therefore, blame automatically shifts onto him. However, one cannot help but wonder, surely violence must have been of reasonable foresight. For example, if you consider what happened earlier this month, when students of London School of Economics protested against Chris Huhne's (Energy Secretary) visit there, it is clear that violence would be an inevitability. *http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11675502
So why were no extra precautions taken for this? Even more worrying, does the fact that Nick Clegg is being challenged during the PMQ's this week undermine the whole essence of his party? http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Deputy-Prime-Minister-Nick-Clegg-Under-Fire-In-PMQs-Over-Liberal-Democrat-U-Turn-On-Student-Fees/Article/201011215799277?lpos=Politics_Carousel_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15799277_Deputy_Prime_Minister_Nick_Clegg_Under_Fire_In_PMQs_Over_Liberal_Democrat_U-Turn_On_Student_Fees
False promises made for votes? Another thought, was it only too convenient that the protests took place at at time when the PM himself was away on work mission in China?
As an International student, having studied in this country for 5 years, I can now say that now all the home students realise how much money myself and every other international student has to pay in order to acquire a decent qualification to our name. Have we ever complained? Sure we have. Has anybody listened? Of course not. If anybody did listen, the fees we are paying every year would not be increasing by a £1000 would they? Sure this is unfair for us and more so for home students but was violence really necessary today?
My thought is perhaps violence was the only way, (but not the most ethical) for students' to have their voices heard. I imagine there will be more violence on its way unless the coalition government can scrap this proposal altogether otherwise a catastrophe is sure to follow. Hopefully the coalition government can take this as a real eye opener (especially the Lib Dems) and ensure they keep to their promises after elections. Ultimately one thing is for sure, in today's world, the only way one can get their voices heard is through violence. Sad and yet true. Who would have thought, a 1st World country like Great Britain had to resort to such uncivilised acts in the name of change?
For further information you may also wish to log onto;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11677862
Tuesday 9 November 2010
Why is becoming a Barrister so difficult?
I have recently noticed there are many students working on Inns of Court and BPTC applications. After speaking to a few of them, it suddenly dawned on me how much preparation has to go into these applications. So, my question is, does the Bar Standards Board (BSB) aim to discourage prospective Barristers to achieve their dreams with all the paper work involved? Perhaps, as an optimist, I should think not. However, recent developments has made me question their intentions.
According to the BSB, after a pilot aptitude test was carried earlier this year, it has been decided that such a test is to become mandatory on all prospective applicants to the BPTC programme. This became evident because of the Wood Report of 2008. This brought to light several issues such as; the lack of pupillages available for existing Barristers as well as potential ones, a rise in the pass marks, re-naming the course to what it is today (BPTC) and language proficiency.
Despite criticisms by the Office of Fair Trade that it is not competive at all, it could potentially be working in favour of students. This is because it will provide a sufficient means of regulating the number of intakes on the BPTC programme and in doing so, ensuring that they are of the right 'calibre' to enroll on the course and pass the first time. If you think about it, an international student like myself is paying thousands of pounds to be able to get the ESQ title like anyone else, so why make all that hard earned money go to waste? We all want value for our money and what better way to do this by introducing an aptitude test. My only thought is that hopefully, if one were to fail and give up on the BPTC programme, a money back guarantee would be a way to seek recourse.
On the other hand, it may be argued that an aptitude test for the BPTC may not be advantageous after all. For one, it would possibly act as a means of discouraging prospective BPTC students who are not from an English speaking background. The fear of failure is only too much to bear.
Secondly, the proposed aptitude test has 2 elements to it; to test analytical and critical reasoning and English. The Wood Report suggested this should be carried out in a form multiple choice. After years of schooling, I am of the view that multiple choice exams are not exactly the best means of testing someone's knowledge. In fact, it would probably help the struggling potential BPTC candidates pass on a lucky streak. Therefore, when they move further onto the course, they will be struggling and probably tend to drag their classes behind. Thirdly, the fact that the test has been proposed to be available only twice a year online is a further detriment as access is limited. However, having said this, the fact that prospective BPTC students can have as many re-takes as possible to the aptitude test makes it less of an issue. This will obviously seperate the true and determined barristers from those that do not want to embark on that path. Therefore, if anything, it would help candidates decide whether they really want to persue a career in law or not.
To conclude, I would say that I am not necessarily in support of the idea of having an aptitude test for the BPTC because it could potentially go against you if you were to fail a few times then successfully enrol on the course. I may be wrong but I am of the view that certain institutions may hold it against a student for failing and therefore, not give them the necessary attention they need and instead focus on the more intellectually sound students. This is what has been happening in the past and I am sure the aptitude test will make matters worse in this respect. Ultimately, the fact that applications are so tedious to get completed would also suggest that a further pre-requisite to the BPTC would mean that more money would be spent in addition to the tuition fees one would pay for the programme. Hence, is the BSB making students' lives difficult in introducing all these costly applications and aptitude tests? Is it all worth it? Could we be sure that after the aptitude test we would pass the BPTC course the first time? Nothing is for certain but one thing is for sure; the road to becoming a Barrister is long, challenging one, filled with blood, sweat and tears. Are you ready for it?
For more info please log onto:
http://www.thelawyer.com/bptc-pilot-test-to-be-made-compulsory/1005439.article
http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/assets/documents/BVC%20Report%20with%20annexes.pdf
http://l2b.thelawyer.com/law-soc-calls-for-lpc-entrance-test/1005503.article
According to the BSB, after a pilot aptitude test was carried earlier this year, it has been decided that such a test is to become mandatory on all prospective applicants to the BPTC programme. This became evident because of the Wood Report of 2008. This brought to light several issues such as; the lack of pupillages available for existing Barristers as well as potential ones, a rise in the pass marks, re-naming the course to what it is today (BPTC) and language proficiency.
Despite criticisms by the Office of Fair Trade that it is not competive at all, it could potentially be working in favour of students. This is because it will provide a sufficient means of regulating the number of intakes on the BPTC programme and in doing so, ensuring that they are of the right 'calibre' to enroll on the course and pass the first time. If you think about it, an international student like myself is paying thousands of pounds to be able to get the ESQ title like anyone else, so why make all that hard earned money go to waste? We all want value for our money and what better way to do this by introducing an aptitude test. My only thought is that hopefully, if one were to fail and give up on the BPTC programme, a money back guarantee would be a way to seek recourse.
On the other hand, it may be argued that an aptitude test for the BPTC may not be advantageous after all. For one, it would possibly act as a means of discouraging prospective BPTC students who are not from an English speaking background. The fear of failure is only too much to bear.
Secondly, the proposed aptitude test has 2 elements to it; to test analytical and critical reasoning and English. The Wood Report suggested this should be carried out in a form multiple choice. After years of schooling, I am of the view that multiple choice exams are not exactly the best means of testing someone's knowledge. In fact, it would probably help the struggling potential BPTC candidates pass on a lucky streak. Therefore, when they move further onto the course, they will be struggling and probably tend to drag their classes behind. Thirdly, the fact that the test has been proposed to be available only twice a year online is a further detriment as access is limited. However, having said this, the fact that prospective BPTC students can have as many re-takes as possible to the aptitude test makes it less of an issue. This will obviously seperate the true and determined barristers from those that do not want to embark on that path. Therefore, if anything, it would help candidates decide whether they really want to persue a career in law or not.
To conclude, I would say that I am not necessarily in support of the idea of having an aptitude test for the BPTC because it could potentially go against you if you were to fail a few times then successfully enrol on the course. I may be wrong but I am of the view that certain institutions may hold it against a student for failing and therefore, not give them the necessary attention they need and instead focus on the more intellectually sound students. This is what has been happening in the past and I am sure the aptitude test will make matters worse in this respect. Ultimately, the fact that applications are so tedious to get completed would also suggest that a further pre-requisite to the BPTC would mean that more money would be spent in addition to the tuition fees one would pay for the programme. Hence, is the BSB making students' lives difficult in introducing all these costly applications and aptitude tests? Is it all worth it? Could we be sure that after the aptitude test we would pass the BPTC course the first time? Nothing is for certain but one thing is for sure; the road to becoming a Barrister is long, challenging one, filled with blood, sweat and tears. Are you ready for it?
For more info please log onto:
http://www.thelawyer.com/bptc-pilot-test-to-be-made-compulsory/1005439.article
http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/assets/documents/BVC%20Report%20with%20annexes.pdf
http://l2b.thelawyer.com/law-soc-calls-for-lpc-entrance-test/1005503.article
Monday 8 November 2010
UK needs its foreign lawyers
UK needs its foreign lawyers
In order to limit immigration levels in the country, the government recently imposed immigration restrictions in July 2010. The negative impact of such a procedure cannot be stressed enough. Not only has it meant that, from a business perspective, there will be a 'brain drain' but this also extends to the legal sector. This is so because it has essentially meant that there is a lack of non-European Economic lawyers in law firms of England and Wales.
In essence, I am of the view that this is something that the government should re-consider if they are to ensure that the legal firms of the country will thrive and forge as many international links as possible. For example, the gazette highlights the fact that large and small legal firms have flexible structures in order to enable its' workers' to commute freely overseas. This ensures that legal firms are able to benefit from enhanced legal experiences as a result of increased international exposure from workers' commuting to and from different countries (these may not necessarily be EU countries).
Therefore, I agree totally with Lord Justice Sedley's judgement in the case of Pankina that perhaps for regulation purposes and a lack of irratic and scattered decision making on the part of the government, the rules governing immigration may perhaps be subjected to parliamentary discussions.
If the government does not address this issue, I dare say that in the years to come, the legal industry in this country will grow stagnant. In fact, this brings to mind another thought; if any legal scholar is planning on working in England and Wales, everything they would have been working so hard for may all have been in vain as career growth would be limited. However, having said this, it is also worth noting that perhaps an advantage to this would be the fact that there would be more positions available in law firms for home students as well as international students. The overall situation of non-recruitment in legal firms may be resolved after all. What are your views?
For more information please log onto:
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/opinion/comment/uk-needs-its-foreign-lawyers
In order to limit immigration levels in the country, the government recently imposed immigration restrictions in July 2010. The negative impact of such a procedure cannot be stressed enough. Not only has it meant that, from a business perspective, there will be a 'brain drain' but this also extends to the legal sector. This is so because it has essentially meant that there is a lack of non-European Economic lawyers in law firms of England and Wales.
In essence, I am of the view that this is something that the government should re-consider if they are to ensure that the legal firms of the country will thrive and forge as many international links as possible. For example, the gazette highlights the fact that large and small legal firms have flexible structures in order to enable its' workers' to commute freely overseas. This ensures that legal firms are able to benefit from enhanced legal experiences as a result of increased international exposure from workers' commuting to and from different countries (these may not necessarily be EU countries).
Therefore, I agree totally with Lord Justice Sedley's judgement in the case of Pankina that perhaps for regulation purposes and a lack of irratic and scattered decision making on the part of the government, the rules governing immigration may perhaps be subjected to parliamentary discussions.
If the government does not address this issue, I dare say that in the years to come, the legal industry in this country will grow stagnant. In fact, this brings to mind another thought; if any legal scholar is planning on working in England and Wales, everything they would have been working so hard for may all have been in vain as career growth would be limited. However, having said this, it is also worth noting that perhaps an advantage to this would be the fact that there would be more positions available in law firms for home students as well as international students. The overall situation of non-recruitment in legal firms may be resolved after all. What are your views?
For more information please log onto:
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/opinion/comment/uk-needs-its-foreign-lawyers
Thursday 4 November 2010
Law Society criticises jury trial proposals as 'entirely wrong'
Law Society criticises jury trial proposals as 'entirely wrong'
Should trial by jury be limited in only certain circumstances?
Britain, like the rest of the world, is facing hard times. The government is imposing major cuts in key sectors of the economy and it is even proposing to do so in the Judiciary. The BBC reported yesterday that there are proposals by the government to limit trial by jury for lesser offences. The key objective of this proposal would be to save money in the judicial system of England and Wales. In order to analyse whether this proposal will be effective or not, it is worth discussing the issues surrounging trial by jury and trial in a Magistrates' court.
First and foremost, a citizen's right to trial by jury is one of the main constitutional rights of England and Wales. In fact, it has been in existence since the days of the Magna Carta back in 1215. Therefore, if the government were to restrict this right, it would essentially be a clear breach of a constitutional right of England and Wales.
Secondly, the right to trial by jury comes as an option to an alleged offender. He or she has a choice of opting for a trial by jury or a trial in the magistrates' court. The offence here, as you may already know, must be one that falls within the category of an 'either way offence' . This would include offences such as: theft, bigamy, offences of deception and sexual activity with a child under the age of 16. However, according to the BBC and the late judge Lord Devlin, most people are bound to opt for the trial by jury. There are many reasons for this and the most significant or appealling in my opinion, is the fact that it is believed that Magistrates are unable to act as a true representation of a community. Even so, I am of the belief that, since Magistrates are sharp minded, intellectually brilliant individuals, could mean that impartiality is probably an issue and therefore, the right to a 'fair trial' is limited. Moreover, trial by juries enable police officers' evidence to be challenged and thus, allows a more favourable verdict to be reached for the alleged offender. Such an advantage is not available in trial by magistrate's court.
However, it must not be forgotten that critics have argued for a very long time that trial by jury is not an efficient means of ensuring justice is served as in most cases, the 'lay men' are unable to fully fathom the complexities of legal issues in question and thus, end up making the wrong decisions in agreeing to a final verdict.
On the other hand, in support of the proposals, it may be argued that limiting trial by jury may play a vital role in saving money in the legal system of England and Wales. Accordingly, Ms. Louise Casey (The Victims' Commissioner) has stated that such a proposal is bound to save as much as £30 million since cases would be be heard in the Magistrates' Court instead. The Commissioner has also stated that even if 80% of cases were sent to trial by Magistrates' court, as many as 50,000 cases sent to the Crown courts cost the Crown Prosecution Service £15 million. These cases proved to be a waste of time and money.
Although it is evident that there is undoubtedly a need for some sort of reform or proposal to re-structure the judicial system, there is a key disadvantage present. The fact that the Commissioner has acknowledged that trial by jury should not be allowed in either way offences is already signalling a recipe for disaster. After reading the Law Society Gazette, I fully support their views in that such a proposal is bound to have detrimental effects on a citizen's career and their life as a whole. If you are like me, an optimist, and you give a potential criminal, the benefit of the doubt, then the role of the jury is paramount in ensuring that justice is served properly. Juries are powerful and the importance of their roles cannot be stressed enough. They are normal individuals who do not have strong legal backgrounds (although some may do) but they ensure that there is transparency in the justice system and in doing so, promote the rule of law and commitment to the criminal justice system of the land.
Therefore, is it really worth imposing such a stringent reform to limit the right to trial by jury, at the expense of breaching a fundamental, key constitutional right? Is the state of the economy in England and Wales so dire that such a drastic proposal need to be implemented? Is it morally, legally and ethically correct to send cases to the Magistrates' Courts, Courts often criticized for exercising 'second class justice'? Will increasing sentencing powers for the Magistrates' going to solve the problem of limiting border line cases being sent to the Crown Court? Can't the Commissioner just be satisfied in imposing sanctions against guilty pleas to help with cost cutting? Perhaps no.
Nevertheless, it is clear that a proposal to limit trial by jury has been brought forward without proper thought as to the negative implications it would bring. Ultimately, I am of the view that the proposal should not be implemented and I fully agree with the Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson, that ‘...it is a dangerous attempt to cost cutting and there does not seem to be any' guiding intelligence to safeguard justice'.
For more information please log onto;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11683903
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/law-society-criticises-jury-trial-proposals-039entirely-wrong039
Should trial by jury be limited in only certain circumstances?
Britain, like the rest of the world, is facing hard times. The government is imposing major cuts in key sectors of the economy and it is even proposing to do so in the Judiciary. The BBC reported yesterday that there are proposals by the government to limit trial by jury for lesser offences. The key objective of this proposal would be to save money in the judicial system of England and Wales. In order to analyse whether this proposal will be effective or not, it is worth discussing the issues surrounging trial by jury and trial in a Magistrates' court.
First and foremost, a citizen's right to trial by jury is one of the main constitutional rights of England and Wales. In fact, it has been in existence since the days of the Magna Carta back in 1215. Therefore, if the government were to restrict this right, it would essentially be a clear breach of a constitutional right of England and Wales.
Secondly, the right to trial by jury comes as an option to an alleged offender. He or she has a choice of opting for a trial by jury or a trial in the magistrates' court. The offence here, as you may already know, must be one that falls within the category of an 'either way offence' . This would include offences such as: theft, bigamy, offences of deception and sexual activity with a child under the age of 16. However, according to the BBC and the late judge Lord Devlin, most people are bound to opt for the trial by jury. There are many reasons for this and the most significant or appealling in my opinion, is the fact that it is believed that Magistrates are unable to act as a true representation of a community. Even so, I am of the belief that, since Magistrates are sharp minded, intellectually brilliant individuals, could mean that impartiality is probably an issue and therefore, the right to a 'fair trial' is limited. Moreover, trial by juries enable police officers' evidence to be challenged and thus, allows a more favourable verdict to be reached for the alleged offender. Such an advantage is not available in trial by magistrate's court.
However, it must not be forgotten that critics have argued for a very long time that trial by jury is not an efficient means of ensuring justice is served as in most cases, the 'lay men' are unable to fully fathom the complexities of legal issues in question and thus, end up making the wrong decisions in agreeing to a final verdict.
On the other hand, in support of the proposals, it may be argued that limiting trial by jury may play a vital role in saving money in the legal system of England and Wales. Accordingly, Ms. Louise Casey (The Victims' Commissioner) has stated that such a proposal is bound to save as much as £30 million since cases would be be heard in the Magistrates' Court instead. The Commissioner has also stated that even if 80% of cases were sent to trial by Magistrates' court, as many as 50,000 cases sent to the Crown courts cost the Crown Prosecution Service £15 million. These cases proved to be a waste of time and money.
Although it is evident that there is undoubtedly a need for some sort of reform or proposal to re-structure the judicial system, there is a key disadvantage present. The fact that the Commissioner has acknowledged that trial by jury should not be allowed in either way offences is already signalling a recipe for disaster. After reading the Law Society Gazette, I fully support their views in that such a proposal is bound to have detrimental effects on a citizen's career and their life as a whole. If you are like me, an optimist, and you give a potential criminal, the benefit of the doubt, then the role of the jury is paramount in ensuring that justice is served properly. Juries are powerful and the importance of their roles cannot be stressed enough. They are normal individuals who do not have strong legal backgrounds (although some may do) but they ensure that there is transparency in the justice system and in doing so, promote the rule of law and commitment to the criminal justice system of the land.
Therefore, is it really worth imposing such a stringent reform to limit the right to trial by jury, at the expense of breaching a fundamental, key constitutional right? Is the state of the economy in England and Wales so dire that such a drastic proposal need to be implemented? Is it morally, legally and ethically correct to send cases to the Magistrates' Courts, Courts often criticized for exercising 'second class justice'? Will increasing sentencing powers for the Magistrates' going to solve the problem of limiting border line cases being sent to the Crown Court? Can't the Commissioner just be satisfied in imposing sanctions against guilty pleas to help with cost cutting? Perhaps no.
Nevertheless, it is clear that a proposal to limit trial by jury has been brought forward without proper thought as to the negative implications it would bring. Ultimately, I am of the view that the proposal should not be implemented and I fully agree with the Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson, that ‘...it is a dangerous attempt to cost cutting and there does not seem to be any' guiding intelligence to safeguard justice'.
For more information please log onto;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11683903
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/law-society-criticises-jury-trial-proposals-039entirely-wrong039
Wednesday 3 November 2010
An update on the Yemen cargo bomb post
As I was about to settle down to an early night, I was surprisingly awakened by the sound of my blackberry that an e-mail had come through. Low and behold, someone from newsy.com, was kind enough to email me her thoughts surrounding the Yemen cargo bombs and urged me to watch a video about an update of the current situation.
I hope you all find it helpful in your interest in the current situation as the video is about the different perspectives of news groups today. This includes; MSNBC and Al Jazeera. It's quite suprising to see the different stories main stream media is coming up with. What is most striking to me is the fact that the US authorities were tipped off by a notorious Al Qaeda member. Does this mean that there are a few good men out there and the World can be kept safe from terrorist attacks? Who knows what the real story is and how will this affect international trade and Globalization in the upcoming months? I look forward to reading your comments..
Enjoy the video;
http://www.newsy.com/videos/al-qaeda-helps-uncover-bombs-headed-for-u-s/
I hope you all find it helpful in your interest in the current situation as the video is about the different perspectives of news groups today. This includes; MSNBC and Al Jazeera. It's quite suprising to see the different stories main stream media is coming up with. What is most striking to me is the fact that the US authorities were tipped off by a notorious Al Qaeda member. Does this mean that there are a few good men out there and the World can be kept safe from terrorist attacks? Who knows what the real story is and how will this affect international trade and Globalization in the upcoming months? I look forward to reading your comments..
Enjoy the video;
http://www.newsy.com/videos/al-qaeda-helps-uncover-bombs-headed-for-u-s/
Clarrification
During Workshop 5, it came to light that there was confusion surrounding the US's stance on signing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of The Child of 1989. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that, upon my research that was carried out in preparation for Workshop 5, the US has HAS signed the Convention but has yet to ratify it. The US's signature was marked in 1995. This clearly shows that, not only does the US have no confidence whatsoever in drafting international conventions but it also plays a paramount role in undermining the credibility of it. How is it possible to expect other countries around the world to abide by this Convention and yet the key player in drafting this Convention fails to support it? I can understand why Somalia has delayed signing and ratifying the Convention as the country is in a sad state of affairs with no central government but the US has no excuse. There is clearly something not quite right here.
Critics give several reasons for delaying to ratify the Convention. One of the most striking for me is the fact that the Convention will under mine the rights of American parents. I strongly disagree to this and I find this a total disrespect and an embarrassment for states that have signed the Convention and to children around the world. In my opinion, the US government should be put to task for this if ratification does not come evenutally.
For more information please log onto;
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/11/18/us-ratify-children-s-treaty
Critics give several reasons for delaying to ratify the Convention. One of the most striking for me is the fact that the Convention will under mine the rights of American parents. I strongly disagree to this and I find this a total disrespect and an embarrassment for states that have signed the Convention and to children around the world. In my opinion, the US government should be put to task for this if ratification does not come evenutally.
For more information please log onto;
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/11/18/us-ratify-children-s-treaty
Child labour presentation
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Child labour presentation
View more presentations from Vanessa Gill.
Sex trafficking re-explored ...
After having read Silia's latest post and a comment from a fellow colleague from Thailand, I thought it fitting to put my personal thoughts on the matter in the form of a new post on my blog. I know this is completely off topic from terrorism and international trade but I hope you enjoy this;
Scandinavian countries have proved to be doing their fair share of work and for this, they must be applauded. On the other hand, whilst I was very happy to read about this, there is still heavy human trafficking taking place in the Middle east. Perhaps the media has made me more aware of the Middle East all of a sudden and I do not mean to be judgmental but there are so many Russian and east European prostitutes out there. They are promised jobs over the internet and when they arrive to the country to work, they have their legal credentials such as passports taken away from them and they are foced to succumb to prostitution. The reality is, most countries are making an effort to stop such violation of human rights but there are some, who just refuse to, even if, ironically, it is against their own fate. I apologise if this comment has offended anyone. It was made purely without malice aforethought.
On another note, regarding the previous commentor from Thailand, as I am aware Bangkok is notoriously known for it's vibrant night life of 'SIN CITY', I am unsure as to why the Thai government legalises prostitution in the first place. Isn't this providing a breeding ground for those 'rich' countries to engage in human trafficking and prostitution. I mean, if it's all legal in Thailand, who is to more to blame here? Hmmm.. I agree education means something, but what I gather from the situation is this, if people are educated, work hard, earn money and have a right to spend it on 'enjoyment' in whatever form it may be, then why stop them? I am not defending these people, I am merely saying it's no more their fault than it is the Thai Government for legalising prostitution.
Again, I apologise for offending you or any reader of this post. It is purely my opinion and you are free to comment and disagree if you would like to.
Scandinavian countries have proved to be doing their fair share of work and for this, they must be applauded. On the other hand, whilst I was very happy to read about this, there is still heavy human trafficking taking place in the Middle east. Perhaps the media has made me more aware of the Middle East all of a sudden and I do not mean to be judgmental but there are so many Russian and east European prostitutes out there. They are promised jobs over the internet and when they arrive to the country to work, they have their legal credentials such as passports taken away from them and they are foced to succumb to prostitution. The reality is, most countries are making an effort to stop such violation of human rights but there are some, who just refuse to, even if, ironically, it is against their own fate. I apologise if this comment has offended anyone. It was made purely without malice aforethought.
On another note, regarding the previous commentor from Thailand, as I am aware Bangkok is notoriously known for it's vibrant night life of 'SIN CITY', I am unsure as to why the Thai government legalises prostitution in the first place. Isn't this providing a breeding ground for those 'rich' countries to engage in human trafficking and prostitution. I mean, if it's all legal in Thailand, who is to more to blame here? Hmmm.. I agree education means something, but what I gather from the situation is this, if people are educated, work hard, earn money and have a right to spend it on 'enjoyment' in whatever form it may be, then why stop them? I am not defending these people, I am merely saying it's no more their fault than it is the Thai Government for legalising prostitution.
Again, I apologise for offending you or any reader of this post. It is purely my opinion and you are free to comment and disagree if you would like to.
Tuesday 2 November 2010
Apologies
Dear readers,
I sincerely apologise for putting up such long posts. I hope that you don't find them annoying or boring but engaging and intellectually stimulating. I tend to get very carried away in my thinking hence, it's reflected in my writing. This is something I am working on improving during the course of the LLM programme.
I will aim to write considerably less in my upcoming posts.
Thanks for your understanding.
Keep reading and feel free to comment!
Kind regards,
Vanessa A. Gill
I sincerely apologise for putting up such long posts. I hope that you don't find them annoying or boring but engaging and intellectually stimulating. I tend to get very carried away in my thinking hence, it's reflected in my writing. This is something I am working on improving during the course of the LLM programme.
I will aim to write considerably less in my upcoming posts.
Thanks for your understanding.
Keep reading and feel free to comment!
Kind regards,
Vanessa A. Gill
The world in chaos!
It's already been 2 days since my last post on Sunday about the incident involving Yemen ink cartridge bombs and already bombs seem to be travelling across Europe! From small letter bombs being delivered to Athens, Greece (in Russian and Swiss Embassies) and in Berlin, Germany to the Chancellor; (Angela Merkhel 's) office . All in the while, America is busy engaging in mid term elections, trying hard to decide its fate and does not seem to be doing anything about the the rise of potentional terrorist attacks in Europe.To me this all seems like the perfect time for terrorists to strike
On another note, if memory serves correctly, earlier this week, cargo bombs were being sent via ink cartridges on commercial planes. Now, Britain is taking matters into her own hands and banning ink cartridges (greater than 500 g) cargo parcels and limiting flights from Yemen and Somalia. What does this mean? In my opinion, it simply means that even with the measures imposed, terrorists will try and find other means of trying to infiltrate secuirty systems and may even do so from other countries besides Yemen and Somalia. I am of the hope that the UN can come together and unite all countries in the world to implement a state of the art security to detect such catostrophic, lethal bombs. If anything, I am of the view that there is definetely a need to revise or reform the current law related to terrorism acts.
In the meanwhile, how does this affect international trade as a whole? Clearly, Britain's policies will hinder trade between both Somalia and Yemen but the question is, does this act as a detriment to this nation? I am of the belief that this does not affect any trading relationships between Somalia and Britain (I could be wrong) but it could have a detrimental impact on Yemen. Accordingly, in June 2010, the government of Yemen was implementing policies to improve business relations, investment and thus, overall trading with Britain. However, in light of recent events, it could be argued that as relations between both nations will be inevenitably strained, so will trading and investment. I am not an economist but I know that the world is far from recovering from the recession and if Britain is severing trading ties with countries like Yemen, what will this mean for other countries ? Will terrorism forever dictate the kind of economic and foreign policies each state will implement? Globalisation will continue to evolve and as it does so, it will be clearer that terrorism will forever act as a huge disadvantage to international trading. It is up to us, academics and legal scholars to find a way to improve this situation.
For more information please log onto:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Cargo-Plane-Bomb-Plot-Al-Qaeda-Militant-Jabir-al-Fayfi-Gave-Tip-Off-Cobra-Held-Emergency-Meeting/Article/201011115788938?lpos=World_News_Right_Promo_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15788938_Cargo_Plane_Bomb_Plot%3A_Al_Qaeda_Militant_Jabir_al_Fayfi_Gave_Tip-Off%2C_Cobra_Held_Emergency_Meeting
http://www.moit.gov.ye/moit/node/1056
On another note, if memory serves correctly, earlier this week, cargo bombs were being sent via ink cartridges on commercial planes. Now, Britain is taking matters into her own hands and banning ink cartridges (greater than 500 g) cargo parcels and limiting flights from Yemen and Somalia. What does this mean? In my opinion, it simply means that even with the measures imposed, terrorists will try and find other means of trying to infiltrate secuirty systems and may even do so from other countries besides Yemen and Somalia. I am of the hope that the UN can come together and unite all countries in the world to implement a state of the art security to detect such catostrophic, lethal bombs. If anything, I am of the view that there is definetely a need to revise or reform the current law related to terrorism acts.
In the meanwhile, how does this affect international trade as a whole? Clearly, Britain's policies will hinder trade between both Somalia and Yemen but the question is, does this act as a detriment to this nation? I am of the belief that this does not affect any trading relationships between Somalia and Britain (I could be wrong) but it could have a detrimental impact on Yemen. Accordingly, in June 2010, the government of Yemen was implementing policies to improve business relations, investment and thus, overall trading with Britain. However, in light of recent events, it could be argued that as relations between both nations will be inevenitably strained, so will trading and investment. I am not an economist but I know that the world is far from recovering from the recession and if Britain is severing trading ties with countries like Yemen, what will this mean for other countries ? Will terrorism forever dictate the kind of economic and foreign policies each state will implement? Globalisation will continue to evolve and as it does so, it will be clearer that terrorism will forever act as a huge disadvantage to international trading. It is up to us, academics and legal scholars to find a way to improve this situation.
For more information please log onto:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Cargo-Plane-Bomb-Plot-Al-Qaeda-Militant-Jabir-al-Fayfi-Gave-Tip-Off-Cobra-Held-Emergency-Meeting/Article/201011115788938?lpos=World_News_Right_Promo_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15788938_Cargo_Plane_Bomb_Plot%3A_Al_Qaeda_Militant_Jabir_al_Fayfi_Gave_Tip-Off%2C_Cobra_Held_Emergency_Meeting
http://www.moit.gov.ye/moit/node/1056
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)