Monday, 23 February 2009


Now I have found this an interesting thought. Admittedly, I find a lot of the course interesting, but in the depths of this 'slightly less than interesting' lesson, I struck gold in the interest stakes.

An Indictment is a document listing all of the offences that a scumbag criminal has carried out.

Coppers arrest a white, 6'2 and dark haired scumbag for dangerous driving and find a silver candlestick in his trouser pocket. 'No, honest officer, I was just pleased to see you'

Back at the nick, a report comes in for a burglary. Plod hot foots it round to the crime scene and take a witness statement. Homeowner came home an hour ago and found a tooled up scumbag climbing out of the bathroom window. Describes him as white, 6'2 and dark hair.

Following a search of the premises, guess whats missing! No, go on, have a guess.

Did you say a silver candlestick? Oooooh, how did you know.

Homeowner attends an id parade. Doesn't pick the white, 6'2 and dark haired scumbag. SOCO doesn't find any dabs on the window frame, or anywhere. Blasted white, 6'2 and dark haired scumbag must have worn gloves.

Now, to the interesting bit, although to be honest, I think all the excitement has been spent on this scenario, the blues and twos and done and dusted, the tooled up white 6'2 dark haired scumbag didn't give the homeowner a kicking, nobody resisted arrest, no guns, and even more scary, no Police dogs. Police interview was exciting, lots of questions from good cop/bad cop returned with 'No comment'

So I have to make a list of offences that the white, 6'2 and dark haired scumbag has committed.

Theft? How do I know? Crappy witness identification. Could have been anyone that is white, 6'2 and dark haired.

Handling? Well, yes, banged to rights, but is he the thieving white, 6'2 and dark haired scumbag? Actually, did he know that the candlestick was stolen? I would look it up if I could be bothered but I suspect that lets him off that charge. Surely walking around in broad daylight with a candlestick in your pocket is quite normal? (OK, I looked it up for the sake of authenticity, and to prevent clever clogs spouting legislation at me. He has to know its stolen to count as handling)

Come on, come on, come on, says the Judge, list his offences properly on the Indictment or we will let him off, and pay him thousands because we falsely arrested him. What to do? Quickly, quickly, Theft or just handling, or nothing?

For now, until I get some suggestions, I will follow the usual procedure and do him for drug dealing, Public Order, and not putting his bins out on the correct day. He will not see the light of day while I am clearing the courts of white, 6'2 and dark haired scumbags.

Send him down.


Monday, 16 February 2009

So what is the BVC all about then?

When I first found blogs, I was desperate to find out what the BVC was all about. I searched and searched and couldn't really find what I was looking for. I knew that everybody said 'Its not like the GDL, its different', but nowhere could I find what it was that made it different.

So, I started this blog with the intention of covering that, yet have been sidetracked, and generally just spout drivel and nonsense, so here goes for an attempt to explain what the course is like.

Lessons are divided into Criminal and Civil. Criminal essentially takes us through the route from meeting your client for the first time, through bail, the various courts, to hopefully being let off rather than convicted and locked up for life for a crime they didn't commit and would have been found innocent of, had their Barrister listened in class and known how to do their job properly.

So in a typical lesson, we have pre-reading to do before the lesson so we should know a little about what the lesson is for. Say we are doing Bail. We have been given a set of papers for a naughty person that has been bad, and been caught. We read the papers, and find reasons why he shouldn't be banged up until his trial comes along, but should be allowed back into society so that he can thieve and beat more people up.

You then stand up in front of the class and make your application. Explain how he has turned over a new leaf since coming out of prison for the 5th time, he has a new baby (From the course I think all villians have new babies) has a new job about to start soon, wasn't there, didn't do it, its a set up, honest guv.

Sit down and look to the rest of the class who are either giggling because they went before you and theirs was better, or are crapping themselves because they go next. Lecturer asks you how you think it went, you criticise your own performance, they then tell you it was actually quite good, or crap, depending on their mood. The rest of the class are invited to comment, and everyone just nods their heads and says 'Good'

In the first quarter of the course there have been no more than 5 cases to know about.

In Civil, we take a client from maybe a road traffic accident, or defective goods bought in a shop, through making an application to the Court, to writing a Particulars of Claim which is essentially their whole story about the unfortunate incident and why they want money from the other side. Then writing a defence, just in case your client is the villain that has sold defective goods, or run someone over.

I can't think of a single case we have had to know, but all the rules and procedures are in a bloody thick book with wafer thin paper. There are about 2500 pages, and then they give you volume 2! You could roll your own ciggies out of the paper.

So it is different from the GDL. Lectures are not 'you listen to me and make notes', it generally is more a discussion, and is all about procedure rather than law.

You need to know some law though to do well. Contract Law, Tort and Criminal really. Negligence, and breach of contract mainly. In criminal, you need to know what the elements of a crime are so that you can see if your client did commit the crime, or at least if you look it up in another Rizla type book you would understand the elements of the crime.

On the whole, I have found it all quite enjoyable and interesting.

One thing is for sure, it is not like the photo at the top of this post, but more like this one:


Wednesday, 11 February 2009

My Dad. What a guy!

Having spent ages working on my 100 word persuasive argument, in steps my dad with the perfect solution.

You have to admire my dad. He only ever had one pair of shoes which had no soles when he was at school, and only ever had an orange and a penny for Christmas, had never seen bananas until he was 12, was evacuated in the war to a coal mine where he did 12 hour shifts, and was beaten black and blue every night by his big brother, yet he is the happiest person to ever walk the earth. His toothless grin brightens any room.

I know all that sounds a bit Monty Python, but I know its true, because he is my dad and would never fib to me.

During the war he was on a midget submarine with his mate, Chalky White, and they blew up the Bismark all on their own. He also captured Hitler, but had to let him go when he was given a new mission to go and find Churchills laptop which had been left on the train. He found Lord Lucan living in Wolverhampton. He taught Bobby Moore how to play football. He has even been to the moon, but isn't allowed to talk about it. He has done loads of things and is very brave and very very clever.

He taught me all the essential things in life too, like how to make a pair of socks last a week, how to drip gravy down my shirt, how to swear to good effect and how to impress the ladies.

Now, to my eternal thanks, he has solved the 100 word riddle. Emailed to me last night and given a higher priority to him than the Soduku he has been working on since last April, he is rightly proud of his work, and I am too.

So to anyone even thinking of applying to this set of Chambers, give up, go home, save your energy, Swiss Tony is there, first place, winner, top place, because his dad has saved his sorry arse yet again.

***** God Does have a sense of humour *****

Consider God’s creation and things he has given us.

Tsunamis, eathquakes, forest fires, and volcanoes, floods and disease.

Nothing funny about those is there? So would you say that God have no sense of humour?

Wait a minute, what about ducks. Have you ever seen a miserable duck? Never. Always a smile. Listen to their laugh, is it a bare ha ha ha, or a real hearty, quack quack quack.

And just when you think they may be rather cute after all they upturn and show you their arse.

Now believe me when I say that God had a sense of humour.

Thanks Dad, you are the bestest.