Its enough to give you a headache

Whats the big difference between studying a subject full time or part time?

Its just clicked. I know it takes me a while for obvious things to sink in, but I have realised this evening what the MAJOR disadvantage is in studying the BVC part time. I was happy go lucky until now.

Three weeks ago I was given a pile of homework to do. Admittedly, by the standards of BPP it was a teensy weensy little pile, but to me it was a mission. Lets not forget that I have a full time job to hold down, and my part time job as a strip-o-gram to fit in.

So Criminal gave us four items. Civil gave us four. Ignoring the weekends, because I don't want to study during them if I can help it, so we have fifteen evenings available.

What I usually do, is apply myself to homework between say 5pm and 7.30. Then I stop for din dins. Sometimes I do more, often I do less. I have always managed to do whats been required, I have seldom been able to do more than is required, but that has been the gist of my academic life throughout. I am desperate to change that, desperate to shine on the BVC, but its just not happening, life keeps getting in the way.

Anyway, three weeks ago I did the first session of homework, read the text books, made some notes, checked on-line a little, thought about it, worked out my plan, and job done.

The next evening I was out, but the following one I did session 2. Etc etc.

Now, the evening before the weekend of lessons, I have looked at the first piece of homework I did, and I can't remember doing it. Not one part of it is familiar, and the reason that I think I wasn't responsible for it, is because it is shite!

As my dad would say, Shite on a stick!

Mum would say that if it looks like shite, it is shite! (My parents have a way with words)

So three weeks ago I knew it, now I don't. Tomorrow I will turn up for classes, and be clueless aver something that I did know, but have forgotton.

Had I been doing this game fulltime, I would have read it tonight, gone to class tomorrow, done the business, been given the next piece to do, and how easily it would have flowed, a steady drip drip of homework and lessons, all intermingling into a simple, straightforward delight.

Biggest scare of all, is what happens at exam time? I have flicked through past work in panic to see if any of it did sink in, but its not looking good.

I have a feeling of impending doom before me.

I have a headache.

Swizzle (on a stick)

Don't like it

I am not sure that I quite like the exercise I am currently working on, and have a feeling of dread in the pit of my stomach. I have a very strong desire to restrict my submission to a single line 'I have nothing to add your honour'

I am representing a young lad who has beaten up a gang rival in a pub fight. The other side want to bring in evidence of him having been previously arrested and convicted for being drunk, and for fighting, and for drunken fighting, and being a general tosser. They think it will convince the jury that he is a bad'un, a naughty boy that has a propensity for getting drunk and fighting.

I am arguing for the poor lad, sticking up for him because nobody else will, but he is a scumbag drunken twat. I know it has to be done, and innocent until proven guilty and all that, but he is soooo guilty that bad character evidence or not, he did it. I can smell the alcohol on his breath and I haven't even met him yet.

Give me five minutes with him in a cell, and he won't be drinking anything except through a straw, M'lud.

Criminal Law is just not for me i am afraid. Any areas of law that involve pressing pretty wild flowers and making daisy chains?

I just don't like it.

Buggered if I know what to do!

Further to my previous posting about persuading someone to my point of view in 100 words, I have been set a new challenge.

What part of legislation or area of law would I change in 750 words.

Blimey, where to begin!

There is so much that makes me angry. So many things that reduce me to a state of apoplexy. People should avoid me when I even think about some of the stoopid rules that govern this fine and beautiful land.

Trouble is that as this is for a pupillage application, and I just don’t think getting up on my soapbox, or punching people is the way forward, once again the problem becomes harder to deal with.

It needs to be well thought through, considered and eloquent. Not something I have ever been famed for doing. It also needs to be something that I am not that bothered about changing, because when I tried writing about the main antagonising issues that create a red mist across my eyes, I end up bashing the keyboard so hard the letters go all wrong.

So the real question is, what area of law am I not that bothered about, don’t give a flying fig about, but can manage to write a couple of pages about without getting too angry or shouting about.

That excludes ASBO’s. To be honest I quite like them. Mine is hanging in a frame behind my desk. It excludes the death penalty which I would introduce, especially for drivers using the phone on roundabouts. It excludes anything related to driving actually. Parking in disabled spaces is the thing that REALLY makes me mad. Speed cameras… ooh, I am getting annoyed again.

It excludes most laws that we have, but not anything in Blackstones, which are all proper laws and don’t annoy me whatsoever. Ah, so that’s where I need to begin my search. The Big Book of Law. Normal laws, find something with an edge to it, and then write about how I would change it.

Nothing too off the wall because I don’t want the pupillage committee thinking I am a nutcase. Let them find that out once they select me, but not at the interview. This needs some cunning and strategy. It needs thought, and that, I am afraid, is where I fall down.

Crickey Moses, this pupillage lark is a real nuisance.

Dining

As part of the system of qualifying as a Barrister, you have to get hold of 12 dining sessions. Its obviously vitally important to ensure that anyone that makes it to the ultimate golden towers of pupillage, knows how to eat. So over the duration of your course, one year full time, or two years part time, you have to attend the Temple and prove that you can eat.

In the scheme of things then, when compared with some of the more demanding features of the course, like standing up in front of your class and making a fool of yourself because you haven't got a clue how to present your clients best interests properly., or messing up any of the writing skills because you cannot grasp the fundamentals of Contract Law, Tort or Criminal Law, proving that you can eat is relatively simple.

12 points are required. You get one for the call night, which is the final hurdle, when you are actually made a Barrister and called to the bar. So you only need 11. Attending educational things tend to give you points, so in theory you haven't got to prove the ability to eat, but its so easy anything else seems like hard work in comparison.

You would imagine that marks would be lost for getting gravy down your shirt, or knocking over your wine glass, but its so simple to dine that just turning up, eating and leaving is all thats required. Its a cracking part of the course.

So, Swiss Tony turned up looking pretty darn smart in his best suit, shiny shoes and white shirt, tie strategically placed to hide the previous gravy stains. Hair brushed, teeth shining, healthy glow to his boyish good looks. (I know, quite a catch actually)

All students require a gown. There were racks with hundreds to choose from. Swiss spent a while looking through them and selected a nice black full length number, and became only slightly dissapointed that it clashed with every other student.

Into the big posh room for an apperatif. I didn't find any of those, but had a glass of wine instead. And catch this, waiters walking about with more wine topping you up as they go. (This actually became a problem as the evening wore on!)

Making small talk with other students, or their mums and dads, friends, wifes and husbands, civil partners, and anyone else they chose to invite, and then GOOOOONNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGG, 'Dinner is served' I looked across to where I thought a strapping semi naked man wielding a huge hammer had whacked a massive gong, and was only slightly dissapointed to see a waitress with a cow bell and a drum stick. I know times are hard, but hadn't realised that the credit crunch had reached this far.

Into the big hall. To describe it isn't easy, but its a hall, and its big.

Sit anywhere you like. This is the tricky bit. Do you head towards the good looking girlie students that will make the evening pass with an attractive edge to it, but realising that good looking students often tend to be nerdy, vacant, clueless, pretentious, idiots, or head towards the less good looking students, that often tend to be nerdy, vacant, clueless, pretentious, idiots.

(Swiss Tony would like to make it very clear at this point that all of his blogging friends do not fit into this category, although as he has never met any of them, its a moot point)

One lesson Swiss did learn, was do not sit next to groups of students from the same establishment. They will not allow you into their conversation. Admittedly, you wouldn't want to get into their conversation, and you will spend the evening thanking your lucky stars that you didn't go where they attend.

Best bit is to either sit at the end of a table so there is only a risk of sititng next to one nerdy, vacant, clueless, pretentious, idiotic student, or find someones parent to sit next to, because they at least will be nice to you. Probably thinking that you are a judge or something important.

The eating part is actually quite easy. Waiters bring you the food, you eat it, they bring you the next course, and before you know it, you have the qualifying session under your belt, in Swiss's case it joined the gravy stains.

As BarMaid found, and reported previously, the gown does enable you to swish. Best is to walk past someone and swish, or walk through a doorway, turn left, and notice that your gown is following in the slipstream so you depart the room before your presence has left with a resounding SWISH.

Dining is great, and if you take a guest its even better.

Swish Tony (See, I said that the bottomless wine glass had an effect!)

Indictments

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.

Scenario:
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.

Swizz

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:

Swizz

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.

Swizz