Well the original reason why I started up the blog, is to start writing out my thoughts on what I was learning at law school. However, life goes on and now I wish to keep my domain and I have yet to think of a good reason for dumping the website. While I may consider switching where I maintain the website, I’m enjoying the ease of wordpress, though it means that my friends beyond the great firewall are unable to view it.
I’ve realised that I have still yet to answer why I have the website still, I mean the domain is mine and the email is run separately to this (if you need help doing this yourself, then shoot me a message). It’s currently an odd concept that is running through my mind. I guess it’s to take a break from social media and just focus on what I think; even if it’s just something stupid. I want to write more poetry, but I have never been big on publishing it. Thus, I can use it as a launching pad into the unknown. I don’t why I fear sharing them, I guess it’s because my poems are usually a personal matter. I doubt that will change for the time being, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
I’ll probably write more about politics here, than on other platforms. Mainly as I can’t be asked to deal with the backlash, but more importantly I prefer the long-read style that one presumes with a blog rather than a quip that other platforms would not work well with.
Might also post some reviews of random things. From my own cooking (oh shit, I could start a vegetarian food blog!), movies, football, coffee…etc. You get the point. Got an idea, shoot me a message via the contact page.
In terms of how frequent? Not sure, I’ll aim to write more than once a week for now; but we’ll see how that goes. Might post picture or two as well, the site needs a bit of sprucing up.
Anything else? Not that I can think about now.
Remember; Don’t Panic, it’s Hanik
Title: Apparently We Are All Monotone
This shall be a test. Saying my story, to you. Each Five words, lines, stanzas. To bore and educate you. I am just a cog.
I got BA, MSc, GDL. Well fingers crossed for one. Rejection from bars and shops. Am I overly qualified now? Maybe, I still dream PhD.
Though my true dream: PM. You heard that right: PM. The nickname the Osho’s say. The ideal after Formula One. Changing Britain can’t be easy.
We all have one shot. Concerns about the past: waste. Haters, liars and the scared. Only going to hold back. Jump into the unknown: flourish.
Enemies stand in my way. They will search me: Trident. They will aggressively spy: Prevent. Have to believe in myself. Am I just a cog?
Lecture and tutorial for Criminal Law where cancelled today. I’ll do a term review next week.
Another early morning start today. I ended up arriving at University at 08:20 and have been regretting it all day.
Today in criminal law we finished off gross negligent manslaughter and then moved onto non-fatal offences. Honestly nothing exciting or jaw-dropping at this point, however, I have noticed that issue of causality and intention still pay a more significant role than I expected before coming onto the course. This is seen in the break-up of the differences in the types of crime, depending on their mens rea [while the types are actus reas].
Afterwards had a lecture in Contract Law (which is also my next coursework piece). We just went over a question regarding promissory estoppel and had a brief chat about the course ahead. Nothing to note.
Finally, I had public law tutorial. I mentioned it earlier in the week and the amount of work I was putting into it. I do not think I ended up with a strong argument. Instead, I came up with a line of reasoning relating to visa laws and regulations, which if we even assume that my terrible case is correct, the point of the exercise was not really about the argument that I presented. It was more about how the class worked as the group, before and during. I would say that we royally failed on this account. It’s not because we didn’t try, there was some effort on our half, it was the fact that nothing followed through. Messaged each other that we need to meet up, but nothing really substantial came from this. The class was a mid-tier according to tutor. I’ll take it for now, but it shows that there is a lack of time to doing anything on the course that is not studying and fitting a bit of pro-bono work, let alone do some group of work that fits in everyone’s timetable
Another bizarre day.
Today my land law lecture has been rescheduled for next week. So doubling up on Wednesday and Thursday.
So, all I had was a lecture in EU law at the end of the day. Hence, I have no intention to strech out what I have gone through today [Action for Annulment]. The topic is quite technical and my understanding of it (at the moment) is not good enough to simplfiy the topic in my own words.
Things to note, is that to bring action against the EU by yourself, you need to prove to the courts that your case either effects you or a closed group (a group that cannot change in personal, no matter how convaluted in the future), that you don’t take your time (within two months) and make it clear where there is a matter of injustice (though that should a general rule when going to court).
Otherwise, the best advise is to read the treaties, because….puts on record player…the treaties matter.
European Law in the United Kingdom
UKAEL Annual Lecture by Sir Jonathan Faull
Thursday 14 December 2017 at 6pm
Great Hall, King’s College London, Strand Campus
Followed by a Drinks Reception
Free to UKAEL members and students
Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org to book your place
European Law in the United Kingdom – Sir Jonathan Faull KCMG
“My purpose is not to lament, reminisce, engage in wishful thinking or consider paths not taken. It is rather to celebrate the British contribution to a work of great beauty, European Union law. The metaphor of architecture is often used to describe the structures of the EU and some of the designers and builders are in this room. The process will continue without us but will always have a major impact on life in this country, so our engagement is not at an end. The study and practice of EU law will continue to be of great importance in and for this country. It may become a foreign law, but I think it will be less foreign than any other, including that of common law countries with which we share a rich legal tradition and many business, professional, academic and personal ties. Why do I say that with such confidence? Because EU law is the organising principle of our continent. It was our law for decades and its terminology and concepts are now embedded in many parts of our domestic law and will remain so for a long time, whatever repeals and amendments follow our departure from the EU.”
Sir Jonathan Faull has spent 38 years at the European Commission where he worked for many years in the Directorate General of Competition. From 1989 to 1992 he worked in the cabinet (private office) of the competition Commissioner (Leon Brittan). He was the Commission’s Spokesman and Director General of Press and Communication (1999-2003), Director General of Justice and Home Affairs (2003-2010), Director General of Internal Market and Services (2010-2015) and Director General of the Task Force on the British referendum on membership of the EU (2015-2016). He is Chair of European Public Affairs at the Brunswick Group and the author of many articles on European law and policy; co-editor of a leading work on European Competition Law; Visiting Professor, King’s College London and College of Europe, Bruges; Emeritus Professor, Vrije Universiteit Brussel; Member of the Advisory Boards of the Centre for European Reform and the Institut Jacques Delors Notre Europe. He was knighted in the Queen’s Birthday Honours in June 2017.
Wow, it’s been 25 whole days. Five weeks. That’s seems far longer than it feels. Honestly, it’s a bit of a wake up for how short this course is. It’s what John (course admin) said to me; it’s just a nine month blast through hell. Now that’s a pretty accurate statement.
Now today started off with Criminal Law, which was about finishing off Strict Liability and then starting Homicide (discussing it, not practicing). Criminal law was my first piece of coursework (on strict liability), it was quite helpful as the main focus of the essay was on causation, which is the first part of examining homicide. This meant that I didn’t have to write down as many cases compared to some of the people next to me.
Afterwards I had contract law and thankfully I have been spending some extra time on it this week. Nothing extraordinary happened other than going through the questions. The good thing is that the lecturer doesn’t try to show off their extra knowledge. Just get to the point. This does not mean that we don’t spend time on the questions, but rather we delve into a question in all the possibilities, but with no tangents.
Finally I had public law tutorial, which was split into two parts. Firstly we had to create a mini presentation in class about the first set of readings, in this case the scope of law and the scope of democracy. Luckily I had brought my laptop and was able to lift some of my old essays on democracy; which helped out the group. The second half of the class was more traditional going over the Liversidge case. Lord Atkins had used an example of Humpty Dumpty from Alice in the looking glass to dessent. I’ve already seen it from Hillary Pitman in analytical philosophy at Essex and to be honest with you ,I’m kicking myself for not realising this in class! Hopefully I will next time.
Now I’m on my way home from the England game and typed this on my phone. So I am sorry if there are spelling or grammar mistakes, which are normally not seen in my blog.
I’m not going to write a full blog today. Just came back from Wembley.
Tottenham Hotspur 3 – 1 Real Madrid.
I’ll just write a longer post tomorrow.
Sal Mubarak everyone, I am wishing you all a wonderful year ahead.
The first thing to note is that I shall be on my reading week next week and therefore there is no plan to blog anything. However, as the work load is adding up, I’ll be actually working on my coursework and shall be preparing more cases to stay on top of my work.
Back to today, it started off with a criminal law lecture and it was was just a continuation of causation. If we can consider interventions (or lack of interventions) by victim part of the breakage of causation. Nothing spectacular.
This was followed by contract law which was just going over question set.
I ended the academic day with public law, where we examined the possibility of Parliament binding itself and the Diceyan Orthodoxy. What made this interesting was the notion of entrenchment and how this is implemented. I think that the case of Northern Ireland fits well here, as the Northern Irish Assembly is still in disarray and Westminster is using direct rule. While there is a procedurally possibility of this situation going away, due to the conflict between the two main parties this makes it more of a substantial entrenchment situation. Given the lack of word space I’ll try and cover this in more detail next week.
Otherwise, thank you for your support.