I should copyright that

Hi Ladies and Gentlemen ahem just clearing my throat before a small rant. I know its awfully rude of me to only come back here and update you with my wonderful thoughts when I am pushed to the point of furious insanity BUT I have a pet peeve – which is entirely unjustified but nonetheless is there.

My enemy is the statement ‘I should copyright that’ or when people come up with something that they believe is genius… and usually just isn’t and shouts out ‘Copyright!’ thinking that this grants them something OR [this is the actual nemesis of the mind. Like my brain blows up…] when someone is purporting to create a TRADEMARK or LOGO for their business and puts a little C with a circle around it and the year……………

So I know not everyone studies the law, and despite how many text messages I send to David requesting that sex education should be scrapped and law should be implemented into the national curriculum it is yet to happen but I’m going to give everyone a little lesson. Feel free to send it to all of your friends because quite frankly if you are serious about whatever creative medium you have dedicated your life to, a little research will make you sound even more well erm. I don’t know. Serious.

Copyright DOES NOT REQUIRE REGISTRATION (I will only say that once). It basically allows you to say ‘hey that’s my work’ but the work has to be original. 

SO if you come up with a song called ‘Crazy in Hate’ and start singing ‘your hate’s got me looking so crazy right now, your haaate….etc’ then its not really erm original is it? (she doesn't seem to think so)

Original means NOT COPIED FROM ANOTHER WORK.

Your work also have to be one of the following:

Literary, musical. Dramatic, artistic, a film, a sound recording, a broadcast or a typographical arrangement (like the way you lay something out).

How is the work protected- IT IS AUTOMATIC AT THE MOMENT THE WORK IS FIXED IN PERMANENT FORM so if you have a song and you record that… I’ll let you work out the rest.

It lasts for another 70 years after you die so you won’t have to have your grand children roaming the street shouting copyright. The lawyers… as ruthless as we are are actually quite smart – so erm copyright is therefore quite smart too.

Now when it comes to Trademarks and that little TM… I’ll save that for another day. Still have exams to pass!!

Love, hugs and no to jugs xx 

Hi, I'm not supposed to be blogging.

Hi,

I know its been a while hasnt it. I am not going to apologise because too many frequent apologies just means that its not true. Either you cease to act in the way that is causing the apology or you stop apologising (just incase you haven't realised I am choosing the latter)

Okay so I interned... and didn't write about that. It was regulating the porn industry :o. It was a shock to know how many people use porn everyday and the laws around it. But it made me sick to go into my internship and see certain images so I want to forget about that now.

Well. Guys. The reason why I am blogging at this hour of the morning instead of chiselling through a hefty file entitled 'Business Law and Practice' is because I have come to a realisation.

And it is this.

I know.

You are waiting... I really should just get on with it.

Well Lawyers are actually people who have a very very VERY large knowledge base. Since knowledge is power (or so the saying goes), Lawyers have much power.

Ho Hum! you say, nothing new under the sun there. Well no, there is something new. Its the sheer and utter ruthlessness of the legal industry, its the fact that they  we actually are helping ourselves 99% of the time and manage to convince YOU that we are helping YOU. Its ingenious really. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

Power to the lawyer I say.

In the mean time, I am at law school and am blogging less. But please do have a read of my previous bloggings. They are interesting. They'll benefit you.

Promise x

Rapists to remain anonymous

Flicking through my daily selection of coalition government news (I am not obsessed) I came across an interesting David Cameron decision to protect the identities of those who have been accused of AND charged with rape.

I naturally thought, this must be a headline grabber, they couldn't really have cracked their skulls together to come up with this decision, I mean I thoroughly read the main parties manifesto's before I cast the red vote and it didn't mention anything about protecting rapists.

Well no, its true. Of budgets and bicycles and all the great and wonderful changes we will be facing in the next few years, this is one that is very controversial. There are currently no laws that restrict naming of defendants over 18 years old but the plans could potentially grant them anonymity before being charged and also before being sentenced.

This is likely to have an effect on other rape victims coming forward, as if it is not hard enough already. It also suggests that it is more important to protect the statistical minority of falsely accused than it is to encourage other victims to come forward and secure a conviction.

The Ministry of Justice have said "This is a sensitive area and careful analysis of the options and implications will be undertaken" and not much else.

Personally a change such as this will cause more harm than good, while my sentiments are with those that have been wrongly accused of rape (especially the poor wrongly accused celebs who seem to be fuelling the policy behind this love train) it is important to consider the psychological effect it will have on rape victims and even rapists.

Back with a bang

I won't apologise for disappearing for a little bit. I was busy busy busy packing my whole life into the obscenely large number of Ikea bags I've collected over the years. I suppose its an alternative use to this... :/

My new casa makes me smile. I could touch both sides of my old flat with one hand and now I can happily use a satnav to navigate the spacious bounds of my new (humble) abode. more importantly I have my makeshift walk-in wardrobe!!

I've been working incredibly hard in pink polish

I've been filling out training contract applications at the most fruitful and ripe time there has ever been, with the hope of actually securing one. Problem is there will be one or two things on a firms website that put me off and suddenly the 'Why do you want to work at Law McFirmison LLP?' question becomes hard. Then I stop filling it in.

Wearing MAC lipstick that I've forgotten the name of but it was limited edition so you'll never be able to get it anyway.

Getting angry about the business sec Vincy Boy proposing a graduate tax which will be linked to earning meaning that once again one is penalised for attempting to make a little bit more money for themselves... *sigh*. He is trying to manipulate the minds of the nation by saying things like if you are a social worker or teacher, you pay the same amount for your education as a commercial solicitor. Personally if I was a social worker or teacher I would be deeply offended. Is their education of a lower quality. And what about those people who want to study law THEN become teachers??

And once again the coalition government can't make a solid decision about whether to cut fees or increase fees. Its kind of expected when two seemingly opposed parties come together and try to make things work. I wish they would stop playing kiss chase now and just get on with the M&Arriage. I get it Nick, we were duped into thinking you were a democrat, like a liberal one and you're not.

Also a bit shocked by Slaughter & and May imposing a deadline of 30th July, 5pm! Get to CV and Covering lettering guys n gals.

I'll be a legal intern on Monday! Woopty, very exciting news, although I will have to go over the contract one more time before I let you know what it is I will be doing... I can say it does involve some very unorthodox legal regulation.

Finally been pretty disgusted by Ushers top lip too! I mean just why?? He even confesses that he helped play a part styling it. Sad times.

Europe and The Battle of the Budgets

It seems like the politicians of the world have entered into a quiet competition whereby whoever takes the seemingly most drastic approach to controlling their finances wins! I'm still recovering from the outcome of the Emergency Budget (although note I am not as disappointed as I thought I would be) however it seems that Croatia's Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor has outdone our cool coalition couple.

The lady in charge has banned her entire cabinate from making use of their summer holiday allowance in a bid to help with the country's financial straits. Being the country's first female PM, Kosor has been dubbed as the 'Croation Maggie' by the press. Much like our beloved ex-PM, she has recently announced deep cuts in all areas of social spending.

Looking at Europe as a whole, almost all of the nation states have made harsh reductions in state spending in an attempt to contain a financial crisis but this is having a negative effect on stocks and the value of the Euro. European Commission president José Manuel Barroso says there is now “an emergency situation from a financial point of view.” Yesterday as he addressed the European Parliament at its monthly plenary session he added:

“What is at stake is the future of the euro and you could say to some extent the future of our European project”

One can only wonder how interested our government will actually be in maintaining the future of the 'European Project' as most Tory candidates favour either a “fundamental” renegotiation of Britain’s EU membership or outright withdrawal.

Anyhoo thats enough money/politics talk for now... I did this because it looks like the rain is returning and if you are not sun-frolicking then you can read through this!

xx

An Orange Ambush: DutchyDress

Ambush Marketing is when companies that are not the official sponsors of an event try and get attention in another way. They organise some sort of marketing event that makes it seems as though they may be an official sponsor. The thing about marketing is once there's a buzz, there's a buzz. As a company you want people to know about your product or service. Ambushing is not the best way but to some degree it is effective and this is why companies do it.

So where better to Ambush than where people all over the globe can see you. The World Cup. In Holland v Denmark's match a marketing campaign was organised whereby a group of women showed up in a specific short orange dress dubbed 'The DutchyDress'. They had been supplied by a Dutch brewing company and the (mainly) blonde hotties danced around in the tight clothing.

The alleged organisers were arrested and were said to be in direct violation of South Africa's Merchandise Marks Act, however they were released on bail. I do believe that this is because you should be allowed to wear what you want to a football match, ambush or no ambush. In addition it was only about 30 women AND orange is the official colour for the Dutch team.

FIFA however does not take the same opinion and is looking through £-sterling-shaped spectacles at the companies that pay about $1.2 million to be official sponsors. They say:

"The matter is now under criminal investigation"

The sight of 100 girls wearing the same short fluorescent orange dress can be seen at ones leisure by visiting Peckham (outside RISKY), Lewisham (outside RISKY) or Harlesden. Yes just everywhere in Harlesden I'm afraid.


 As for the actual official sponsors, it must all be subliminal because I couldn't think of a single one based on the games I've watched!

Breaking News: Updates

I'm sure many people will be disappointed to know that despite the flirting that happened between international law firms Mayer Brown and Simmons & Simmons (hereby documented), they have announced that they are going to remain just friends. I really thought that they would be next on the marriage scene, I had already bought my dress. :(

In addition I wrote earlier about Naomi Campbells fears of being summoned to court here. Today I am a little saddened to update that the supermodel will indeed be summoned to court to testify at Christopher Taylor's war trial regarding an alleged 'blood diamond' he gave to her.

No need to thank me for choosing a hot dress or following up on my speculations! xx

Lehman Brothers: the fight after the fall

One would have to have been sleeping right the way through, well everything to not know about the collapse of one of the worlds biggest investment banks Lehman Brothers. Any businessmanperson will know that no successful business can operate in isolation and therefore no successful organisation can fall without creating casualties.

It may seem like it has 'nothing' to do with you directly, but most of our banks and pension funds have dealings with Lehman. It will effect global financial markets and also share prices and things like getting a loan or mortgage have inevitably become more difficult.

Organisations affiliated with the bank are going to try and minimise their losses and get as much as they can while Lehman simultaneously attempts to retain as much as they can for their bankrupt estate. I really do hope you are following!

What this means for law firms is lots and lots of litigation (which is just the process of taking a case to court to determine the legal rights of the parties). Firms such as Linklaters, Norton Rose and Simmons & Simmons (yep it’s the firm that Mayer Brown has the hots for!) are all attempting to access money for their clients from the $billion Lehman Brothers International Europe (LBIE) pool.

 

The problem here is that last year the High Court ruled that the LBIE client money pool which should have been segregated when the company went into administration is not accessible by these clients. Obviously access to that pool means more money so the clients want access.

 

So today, all representing different clients, the firms are at the Court of Appeal fighting for what they believe should be theirs.  Allen & Overy are representing GLG Investments who say that the client pool should only be accessed by those whose money was indeed segregated. Baker & McKenzie’s clients do not want this client pool to be topped up with money from Lehman’s general estate.

 

ARRGGH! All too complicated:

 

So I own the biggest shoe store like in the whole world. And loads of people buy shoes from me. Some people even give me money so that when new shoes come out they can be the first to get them without having to pay. Imagine you give me £5000 shoe money and I say I’ll keep it aside for you. 1 million other people have given me different sums to hold shoes (which I throw into one massive shoe box labelled SHOE MONEY).

 

One day I lose faith (no pun intended) and my shoe store crumbles and I owe so many companies money they all want it now they know I am going bust. So you say, listen can I have that £5000 back now that I know I am not getting any shoes. And I say well yeah sure but uhm, I kinda didn’t keep that money aside. Theres only £1million left in SHOE MONEY but I owe £10million to shoe lovers.

 

You say GRRR! Give me my £5000! And I’m like but that’s also shoeloverlover’s £8000. IF I had kept that £5000 aside like I said I would, when I collapsed it would be known as yours, but now it is just in a massive pool of money owed to many shoelovers.

 

The End.

 

Now there are many legal and business concepts that apply to these processes (that will take ages to explain) and it definitely gets more complicated the larger the company is. Lehman Litigation has been continuing for years now and it is likely to continue with many disgruntled "shoelovers" in the end.

What's in a name?

Hi ladies and gentlemen, I apologise profusely for neglecting to update my blog, however I did go away for a little while and had no internet connection other than on my blackberry!

Anyway here is a little story that I found quite hilarious when I read it:

So what's in a name? opportunity apparently! A lady has changed her name to ‘Mrs Lorraine Darla I Hate Thomas Cook And It’s Associates Big Shot Company Treading On The Little Guy Leeks’. She had a little trouble with the company after she booked the tickets for her honeymoon in her married name but then did not have enough time to change the name on her passport. This more than likely happens all the time and it is a little irritating that Thomas Cook would benefit from it in the form of a nifty little charge. (On the flip-side its the nature of the game and one has to get themselves through a recession somehow!) 

She does say that this was a 'crazy moment' as opposed to her lashing out at the company. Something tells me not, she could have just as easily changed her name to: Mrs Lorraine Darla I am Crazy And Am Having A Moment Leeks'

In order for one to change their name they must go through the Legal Deed Poll Service. A Deed Poll legally binds the person who signs it to a particular course of action as detailed on the Deed Poll document. When you get a Deed of Change of Name you are bound by the following rules and should not make silly decisions like this lady has:

You are legally committing yourself to:

• Abandoning the use of your former name;
• Using your new name only at all times;
• Requiring all persons to address you by your new name only.

There are many a name that I could change mine to involving T-Mobile. This is me avoiding defamation charges, I haven't said anything, it's all in your head.

A complaint: Office Shoes

Okay so this is me definitely complaining. What OFFICE has done is not illegal but it sure feels like it should be. Unfortunately they protect themselves by saying that essentially no contract is made between you and them until they post the goods, and you have no other choice but to accept this! Anyhoo let me tell you what happened.


So on 4th June I ordered these shoes from Office online:

Oooh, Aaah, Cute! Yes I felt the same way. They were on sale from £60 to £25 and I felt like after all my hard work I deserved to spend a little! 

1. I get my order confirmation 

2. I wait and wait and wait, since I PAID for 2 - 3 day delivery.

3. I hear nothing from Office and quite frankly did not realise that 6 days had passed.

4. On 10th June My funkyberry vibrates and I pick it up: You've Got Mail

5. I read the following message:

Dear Mr Funke Omisore

This is an automated email to confirm that due to limited stock availability the following item(s) could 'NOT' be dispatched to you from Office Shoes.

JIMINY CRICKET LACE UP - BURG/

This order has been cancelled and your credit / debit card will not be charged or will be refunded for the item(s).

We apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Office Shoes

The Distance Selling Regulations 2000 cover goods or services sold without face-to-face contact. They cover:

• the internet
• television
• mail order, including catalogue shopping
• phone and fax

The regulations say that:

• you must be given clear information about the goods or services before you buy
  
• goods must be delivered within thirty days unless agreed otherwise
• there is a ‘cooling off period’ where you can cancel the contract to buy for any reason

If they had limited stock they really should have a system that does not get ones hopes up in thinking that they have bought shoes when they really have not.


I am most disturbed by the fact that they called me MISTER and this is not the first time I have shopped with them... I have always been a Miss and did not get a sex change. 


I tried to find something in contract law or unfair contract terms (UCTA) to make this work in my favour. All I would get if I did win was money and I really wanted the shoes. SO now I am sad, sad that the shoes that I had already put outfits on reserve for will not be posted to my house.


Please do not buy things from OFFICE online and actually expect them to actually come. In store they have a 'no refund' policy which is another thing I do not like about them. They sell stunning shoes every now and again (if you can get past all the trainers at the door).


Rant over. I'll probably delete this when if rational thought kicks in.

M&Arriage!

It would seem that since David and Nick decided to commit to a shady political marriage, everyone else wants to give it a try. There is definitely some legal love in the air as firm after firm is getting the urge to merge.

What is M&A: If you spend anytime at all around law students and are not one yourself you probably don't like them. They tend to throw around letters like IPO and TC and M&A mid conversation and expect you to know what they are talking about. I, on the other hand would never do such a thing! 

So M&A = Mergers & Acquisitions. It is essentially when two single and ready to mingle firms decide that they have found the one. Much like a relationship (it comes with many of the problems too!)

It is a corporate strategy to combine companies. It can often help a smaller company to grow rapidly in an industry as they join with another company. It is not always so pleasant however as there can be hostile acquisitions. However, today we are on the topic of legal love.

So who are the latest lovebirds on the scene?

1.  Lovells and Hogan & Hartson --> Hogan Lovells. Managing partner David Harris has said: “The new firm will have unrivalled global capability and distinctive strengths in dispute resolution, regulatory, antitrust, corporate, finance, intellectual property and real estate.” As a united firm, they do wish to maintain the culture and values already instilled in each firm.

2. Denton Wilde Sapte and Sonnenschein Nath &Rosenthal --> SNR Denton. The firm will officially become SNR Denton on the 30 September this year, though I wish that Wilde Sapte had kept its maiden name (not to imply that Denton is the woman, nor that there is anything wrong with being the woman *sigh*) there are many positive things about this move. It was a unanimous vote amongst the partners at both firms and allows Denton to stretch its wings to the other side of the pond.

3. Shakespeare Putsman and Needham & James --> Shakespeare Putsman. This Midlands merger sounds like it may be the but of a few badly formed jokes. But the combined firm is no laughing matter. SP will one of the biggest players in the region with a proposed £24m practice.

Mayer brown are apparently looking for some London Love and like what they see over at Simmons. Only time will tell how many more firms will jump into a transatlantic M&Arriage.

Okay so I am going to stop turning serious business into a series of saucy love affairs now!

Oh, I cannot wait to see what their babies look like! :)

I'm Well... Rounded!

So I've heard time and time again that when it comes to being the ideal candidate for employment in a high-flying law firm, one must be 'well rounded' (amongst other things). The thought occurred to my oh-so-normal mind that this is direct discrimination against those who just want to be square. I mean what if you just have an insatiable desire for straight lines and sharp 90 degree angles, don't like the fact that circles never end and want to get straight to the point really?


I have to ask myself what is the actual importance of having other interests, passions and hobbies. So you collect stamps, I guess that commitment will make you the perfect paper pusher? What if... what if I decide that all I will watch on TV is The Good Wife and Kevin Hill, and the only knock knock joke that makes me laugh is the one where the door gets opened and the person is in breach of Article 8 HRA (because all that knocking is really not respect for private family life, home or correspondence!) So my idea of a celebrity is Lord Denning and the last book I really read was 'Commercial Law' by Sealy and Hooley. 


Does it actually matter that my estate agent hates me for reading my tenancy agreement to such a degree that I happened to notice that the "Landlord" has illegally attempted to absolve himself of any legal obligation whatsoever with onerous clause after onerous clause! Yes I recite the Sale of Goods Act to stores that put up 'NO REFUND' signs because it makes me sick. I am allowed a refund. Actually. 


Goods supplied must be as described, and fit for purpose. If they are not, and you take them back to the retailer in a reasonable length of time you are entitled to a refund. Actually. 

So in my spare time I scour Bloomerg, CNN and Legal Week for the sauciest update in political, financial and legal news. So what I don't really have spare time. It doesn't matter if I happen to ask my boyfriend if he intends to establish a fiduciary relationship upon marriage...its only natural right. Threatening to sue T-Mobile for breach of contract is something everyone does (actually going through with it is the fun part though!).




Anyway for the Squares out there, Rectangles and even Oblongs,  I salute you. Be excited about your 18-hour working day in public, brandish your paper cuts battle wounds to your beloved and joyfully write in the 'skills' section of your application forms that you can run for a week on just espresso after espresso. Love law, love it with all some of your heart!


I am not quite with you of course... I like fashion, yes, beauty and pretty things. I have well-rounded friends. I am well rounded and this is my well rounded face.

See no Evil, Hear no Evil, Blog no Evil...

A blogger who has been labelled as 'evil' has managed to avoid a jail sentence despite avoiding numerous court orders.

The 44-year old blogger took it upon herself to attack other people on the net using her blog. She accused her opponents of 'milking cancer' and being a disgusting heroin trafficker'. We have already discussed the limitations that we have on so called freedom of speech when it comes to the internet (here).

The blogs were written on a number of places including Corrupt Camden Council Blogspot. The lady was ordered to take down the blogs and was banned from contacting the 'victims' or posting anything about them on the internet. Obviously, being a blogger on a mean mission, she ignored these orders.

Judge Ian Karsten QC labelled her as 'evil' but did not want to send her to jail. Instead he issued her with a £350 fine and other costs totalling £115!

So this is me saying I told you so. Please be careful what you say about other people online. You could end up losing money, making a very bad reputation for yourself and even have a judge who decides to throw you behind bars.

No fashion weaponed against us...UK Law on Indecent Exposure

The temperatures are rising and I've seen some outstanding summer outfits. I've also seen a few people catching a tan on TFL (Transport for London for my transatlantic readers) in their actual bikini's. I personally think it is entirely inappropriate. Yes, I understand you worked out for the entire year to get that beach body and didn't ever see the beach. But for the four year old who won't stop asking why someone was allowed to colour three hearts on her tummy or the sixteen year old who wonders why her body doesn't look quite like theirs its just not fair. And for the many men who happen to be on public transport with these lovely ladies... I salute you, for this is surely fashion weaponed against you!

Anyway I thought to myself, as I always do when something doesn't quite go my way: there must be a law against it! I rifled through my mental legal library and found it: Indecent Exposure and Outraging Public Decency.

In the UK indecent exposure is defined under the Sexual Offences Act (2003) as exposing genitals with intention and the person must intend that someone will see and be 'caused alarm or distress'.

Outraging public decency is when someone commits an act of such a 'lewd, obscene or disgusting nature as to amount to an outrage to public decency'. For it to be in public, there has to have been a possibility of at least two members of the general public seeing it. Upon conviction, one can be charged up to £5000 or 6 months in prison. 

The only problem with this law is that times change and standards change. A few hundred years ago, walking down the street in your underwear bikini would definitely have been a criminal offence, but nowadays it is unlikely that someone will call the police or that the CPS will see it sufficiently in the public interest to prosecute! (this actually happened to two girls who got arrested for flashing a CCTV camera on the beach)

Ah well, the law won't do anything about it but at least you have learnt something new. My advice chickas is to dress to impress, emphasis on the dress. Have a smidgen of decorum because you never know who you can run into. Imagine you have an interview for your dream job and you find that the partner interviewing you is none other than the mister who you sat next to on the bus in your bikini last week...

Faith has lost faith.

Well almost, the major shoe retailer who we have all grown to love has gone into administration. It seems this recessions main aim was to take all of our favourites away from us (I still tell people to buy things from Woolworths!).

They have been trying to sell up for a few weeks now, but haven't managed to get a solvent deal. They aim to be able to keep the brand afloat and sell to someone who will keep Faith as Faith. I personally think they should have cut their prices a while ago but who am I to make such bold business statements such as that.

Anyhoo lesson time! What does it mean when a business goes into administration. Well first thing you need to know is that it is NOT the end of the road. If a company gets into a situation where their finances are really really not working for them, they cannot stay afloat but they are not quite at the stage where they will go into liquidation, they can carry on trading for a little longer in the hope that they can improve.

Any creditors can now claim money that they are owed from the company, I won't go into which creditors get priority and all that, you may actually fall asleep. Administrators are appointed (by the bank or the courts) to sort through all the little details, and hopefully at the end, there is money left over and the company can kind of start working its way up again.

Their website doesn't even work anymore :( but you can still get concessions and asos faith products. A moment of silence in memory hope for Faith...

The Law According to Haw

Perhaps you have had a pleasant experience strolling down westminster bridge on a summer's day and perusing the perimeters of parliament at the end. Or like myself, running through the hustle and bustle of tourists/protesters to try and get to your exam on time in Westminster Central hall. Even if you've stood Canon at the ready, neck craned and one eye squinted to take  a picture of London's Big Ben, you must have seen anti-war activist Brian Haw and his tents. 

(just incase you haven't it looks something like this)

He has lived in his tents for 9 years and has become somewhat of a celebrity.

Having learned in class that he had been granted legal permission to protest within the otherwise forbidden area around the Houses of Parliament, every time I passed this area I would smile inside and say 'right on mister, you have a law all to yourself!'


However I never considered that fact that others who do not think on those terms would consider him a nuisance or an eyesore. Today it became all too much for the queen to see as she drove past in her car, and fresh calls for mister Haw to be evicted have been cried from within parliament!

But who has the power to decide whether he stays or goes and who's responsibility is it to look after the area?? none other than our now world famous and entirely responsible mayor Boris Johnson. (I love him and everything he stands for just incase you didn't know)


After being accused of dragging his feet (Boris!!!), he sought permission from the High Court to evict Mr Haw and the group who are currently camped with him once and for all.


Westminster council actually want the coalition government to change the law. I'll have to say that again highlighting the important parts... Westminster council actually want the coalition government to change the law.
I shall reserve my comments on the likelihood of this with the hope of preventing myself from facing a defamation claim.


Anyway today Brian Haw gets arrested for causing a ruckus in front of the queen, the irony of the whole situation was captured by human rights group Liberty when the stated: "we are very sad to see that on a day that is supposed to celebrate British democracy, peaceful dissent is also shut down...". The representative continued her speech saying things like 'promises' and 'coalition government' in the same sentence, and I thought since it's my blog, I am not forced to entertain such nonsense. 


Anyhoo lets wait and see if he gets removed. I for one hope not, he always reminds me of my Public Law classes and is a pretty unique gem to have in London.