Dusting off the cobwebs

Well, it's been a long time and I all I have are rather poor excuses about the combined load of work and study. Anyway, while the tumbleweed has been blowing through here (although bizarrely feedburner reports that the number of subscribers has gone up quite a bit during January - welcome you poor deluded newcomers) I have realised that I a) need to make more of an effort and b) nope, just that.

I was going to do a rather potted summary of some of the most interesting developments during the hiatus, but to be honest I'm sure that somebody somewhere has already covered everything, so I'll leave it at that for now.

This year will mark the tenth anniversaries of the Human Rights Act and devolution (Scotland Act and Government of Wales Act). More on both of these over the course of the year. I also have a new project in the pipeline which might be of interest/use for some people, which I'll write more about later.

Page 3 Law Reporting

Publawyer promised to try and tackle some of the more misinformed reports of law and from yesterday's London Lite came this gem: "Theme Park's ad for a Fat Controller banned". I can't find the original online, but the Daily Mail version is here. If you actually take the time to read the article, which most of the commenters don't appear to have done, then you discover that the advertisement wasn't 'banned' at all. Instead Drusillas Park simply received legal advice that they might have to interview a thin man if one applied. Now the advert states that candidates "must look and act the part". Hmm, big fat difference. Ok, it's hardly the worst example of law in the press, but the whole manner of it irked me, not least in the way that the advice of an unnamed lawyer (a human resources adviser according to the Telegraph) is in fact the Law, without any effort to back this up with any authorities.

Just a random couple of other accounts here and here.

"Something is happening here, but you don't know what is, do you, Mister Jones?"