Great Expectations by James W Monroe

Iraq- Iran- North Korea- and now Syria. The same pattern emerges: a ‘rogue state’ with a madman dictator ruling a repressive, brutal regime. Add human rights abuses, suspicions (founded or not) of WMD, and the regime posing a potential genuine threat to the West. The West shows genuine, deep, moral and political outrage, with impassioned speeches at the UN and similar bodies. Sweeping economic and political sanctions follow, as well as ‘pariah state’ status for the nation in question, in a diplomatic response evocative of Abyssinian and appeasement in the 1930’s.

The story changed, however, with Syria. Mediation efforts have been, to an extent, successful, and, upon evidence of potential use of chemical weapons against Syrians, President Obama gave his stern warning that ‘there would be consequences’ if President Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Such a warning was echoed By William Hague: ‘[Obama] warned of serious consequences and he means it’. While such a stance is admirable, it is regretfully unlikely to be backed up by strong action by either Obama facing up to the Republicans over the fiscal cliff of US debt, or the Conservative front bench dealing with the political fallout from the Autumn Statement and the Leveson report- another inevitability.

Many commentators predicted the main recommendation of the report (statutory regulation underpinned by statute). Cameron’s total endorsement of Leveson in one sentence, but not backing the key recommendation in another, was similarly predictable of Coalition politics. Subsequent actions, such as productive meetings with senior media officials, drafting legislation and starting to devise a new regulatory body are also a hallmark of the Coalition; definite forward progress with one hand, but the other hand giving nothing definitive, swift and far reaching (but once again, admittedly matters are a lot more complicated, making such affirmative action hard to implement). However, with such strong cross party consensus in Parliament, the media anxious to put things right, and a groundswell of public support, the hope is there that mechanisms can be put in place to prevent another comparative phone hacking episode.

Both internationally and domestically, the same old stories emerge, PG Wodehouse style. The difference for both Syrians being killed in Damascus and the victims of phone hacking is that this time there is the potential for a different outcome, turning a Wodehouse story into an unpredictable Saki story (without the dry humour).

James W Monroe
Law Student

BPP University College

The dereliction of the Justice and Security Bill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/25/secret-courts-the-essential-guide

Why after hundreds of years does British law need to be so radically changed to the detriment of its citizens, could it be in the last few decades the citizens have become so criminalised,disloyal or just so lacking in empathy to the state that it needs these powers to keep the residents of these Isles in check or is it that the importing of so many people of disparate cultures that it needs these powers to keep the peace.  What a lot of the immigrants over the last few decades should reflect on is, did you really come here to end up with laws somewhat harsher than the ones you left behind, or are you the cause because you could not leave the venal parts of your culture or religion behind.

It is an immense honor to announce that this year the award for courageousness is being presented by Judge Bowers

Picture from http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d417153ef01774490a825970d-550wi

Theft, defined by section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 creates two variant offences: First variant, a person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict GBH or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it. Second variant, a person is guilty of burglary if, having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building, or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm on any person in the building. If section 9 of the said act lays the law down, rather uncharacteristically of English law, so plainly and simply how is it that a so called “experienced” judge made such a disregardful decision. Judge Bowers is, with his praise for the burglar inviting the temptation of other burglars to run boisterously. Let us wait until this, to use Judge Bowers words, courageous burglar burgles his home and then revisit the situation.