My uncle Dr Bashir Mallal LL.D of Singapore didn't attend university as he was too poor. He worked in a legal office and went on to publish the Malay Law Journal which covered courts in Malaya, Singapore and Brunei. He was awarded an honouray doctorate of laws by NSU for services to the legal community and was considered highly knowledgeable in legal matters.
Law school is not enough to be a competent well versed lawyer anymore. Just as with anything in life, life experience trumps raw knowledge. The combination of the two can be unstoppable if utilized in the right way. Great lecture by this faculty member. Thank you.
A good debate, but I think four important points were missed. 1. Academic law and what might be called 'vocational law' are fundamentally different endeavours, involving very different skills. Lawyers often like to flatter themselves by analogising their qualifications with the medical profession. Actually a better analogy would be with accountancy. Nobody expects an accountant to hold a degree in accountancy, and though some do, most don't. I think it likely that the very top chartered accountants have hardly studied accountancy at all in any academic sense. They do not require such knowledge. They are not academic researchers in accounting, they are business people. They are not interested in the philosophic 'whys' of accountancy. Conversely, technical accountancy knowledge is a minimal skill level, and only a necessary first step for a chartered accountant. Generally-speaking, you don't hear the top accountancy firms boast that they know all about accountancy. That's taken as a given. Their clients pay them handsomely for their sound judgement and commercial acumen. Law is not the same of course, and the analogy is not perfect. However I do think a broadly similar observation applies to lawyers, especially commercial ones, but really in any legal discipline. You don't generally hear lawyers boast about their legal knowledge per se. Practising law isn't quite like that. They are being paid for something more than just being able to recite what they know (though this is still important). 2. I said in 1 above that my analogy with accountancy isn't perfect, and that's due to the nature of the subject-matter in law. While I agree to an extent with Lord Sumption's observation that what a typical professional lawyer needs to know about the law isn't very extensive, it doesn't follow that having an extensive knowledge of the law at the expense of other subjects is detrimental. And as I think Professor Virgo mentioned, there is no reason why law degrees and higher education cannot be reformed to take account of some of the valid concerns that Lord Sumption raises. There is an old saying: 'A law degree sharpens the mind, and narrows it'. I think there is some truth in this. It's a degree that results in a more logical brain, but at the same time, I also feel ignorant of a lot of important subjects in classics, science and the humanities that a more general education that would have given me. On the other hand, we only have so much time and can only learn so many subjects. And if you want to be a lawyer, why not study law? 3. An academic law degree is not meant to be a preparation for practice. It can help, but just like any other academic degree, it is a preparation for membership of an academic community. Law faculties are not trade schools: at least, not the elite ones like Cambridge Thus the proposition posed in the debate could be seen as misplaced. Nobody told me that my law degree was a preparation for practice, at least nobody that I would have taken seriously. I knew that in order to practice, I would need to take professional exams, which is to be expected when joining a profession. A law degree is just that: a degree. It is not a qualification to go out and start giving advice. 4. My final point is that I think too much emphasis is being placed on university education. I think the debate reflects this bias in two respects: first, in an assumption implicit in the debate, that prospective lawyers need a university education at all; and second, in the view put by Lord Sumption that a university education (or a 'universal' education, as he might put it) is of value in its own right. I would question these. As Lord Sumption rightly stated, the law can be learnt on the job, (and that used to be how most lawyers trained, including the most eminent ones), but Lord Sumption fails to mention that an advanced level of formal education is not necessitous for someone to train and practice successfully as a lawyer. As an aside, I am also curious as to what Lord Sumption's argument is here for 'education'. He doesn't really explain. What is the philosophical basis for this perspective that education is a good thing in its own right? Utilitarianism? Or what? Does a universal education, i.e. university attendance on a broad-based degree, make you happier? Will knowing more about ancient Greek philosophers or understanding the intricacies of quantum physics or the Pareto curve make me a more contented person? I would like to suggest that this is a misplaced perspective when applied generally. Some people will be happier as they become more educated because what they will learn will make them more generous in spirit and more liberal-minded, and the study habits they develop will perhaps make them more intelligent. However, for others, the route to happiness could be to learn a skill that makes the person useful and productive and gives them prestige in the community. Such a person might be completely ignorant when it comes to philosophy or medieval political thought or Anglo-Saxon history or ancient languages or higher mathematics - but if they are content and productive, what is the problem? For these reasons, my answer to the proposition put in the debate: 'Those Who Wish to Practise Law Should Not Study Law at University', would be that those who wish to practise law should study whatever they want at university, or preferably, not attend university at all. On the face of it, that makes it look like I am siding mostly with Lord Sumption. I am a little, but far from entirely. I think he made some very good points, but many of his other points about the law and some of his arguments 'against' a law degree are a little too sweeping or simplified for my liking. Just to pick out one example: Sumption claims that law is easy and the really complicated thing is understanding facts and applying the law to these. There is something in this, of course, and most lawyers would recognise what he is saying, but the law isn't easy. It is conceptually difficult and takes time to learn and master. As Professor Virgo said, law is a learned subject that deserves to be pursued in its own right. I think regarding educational preparation for lawyers, there is a middle course here: study law for its own sake, or study electronics or home economics, or golf course management, or mathematics, or chemistry, or media studies or psychology....or whatever you want to study. Or go travelling, or learn a trade. Just do what you want. Any of those endeavours, and more, can make you a 'good lawyer' eventually, from one perspective or other.
Thanks for the comment. It does depend which jurisdiction you wish to qualify in and which branch of the legal profession you wish to enter. My comments here are regarding England & Wales. For solicitors, it has always been the case, and remains so, that a degree of any kind is not needed and is not mandatory for admission, though the vast majority of candidates today do hold a degree. As I understand things, it used to be that the majority of trainee solicitors (then known as articled clerks) had no university degree at all and entered the profession by training on the job while taking classes part-time in preparation for professional exams - very similar to the way a lot of chartered accountants still train today, which is yet another reason why accountancy provides us with an apt analogy to the legal profession, certainly the solicitor branch. Barristers also used to train in the same way, by working while studying. This is because they were strictly advocates and separate from the more distinguished 'Doctors of Law' (now a defunct branch of the profession), who had completed formal degrees. That was all a very long time ago and it would now probably be considered an antiquated practice in most legal specialisms at the Bar to allow barristers to train in chambers and by visiting Inns and testing their skills in court. Probably a case could be made today that entrants to the Bar (or at least direct entrants) should always hold an academic degree. But I think this idea that generally you need to go to university to join a profession is quite strange. Except for the medical and veterinary professions, and maybe today's barristers, I can't readily think of a profession for which a university background should be considered necessary.
LearnLoads Necessitous is correctly used here. You're clearly not familiar with all the usages of the word, which is rather embarrassing given that you purport to be 'correcting' me. Having said that, I have changed it to 'necessary', as I agree that reads better. Not that it matters.
A great debate, thanks to Prof Virgo and Lord Sumption and of course to those who uploaded it; it very much illuminated my evening. As an aspiring barrister who first studied theology and languages before entering into law degree, I can confirm that my first degree helped enhance my horizon in understanding how law works. Unlike many students, in my first and second year, I largely read the case law and I acquired as much the general culture to analyse the facts from case law as I had read my non-law related discipline. Therefore I say, if you want to be an excellent lawyer, you want to have a non-legal foundation, be it a professional life or other degree subjects, before studying law. PS: Prof Virgo’s Equity and Trusts textbook was such an excellent source of understanding complex topics in Equity. On behalf of my cohort, thanks very much.
I vote for Lord Sumption but in a qualified sense if I understand his position correctly. I still believe that law school is needed. I agree that as an undergraduate you should not study law in preparation for law school. That is what the questioner at 46:00 is asking at. Here in the U.S. the ABA (America Bar Association)has stated that those who want to go on to law school should not major in pre- law or any other narrow specialization fields. Lord Sumption is correct that a lawyer needs a good broad based liberal arts education. One that requires the student to pursue studies in civilizational history, philosophy, with strong emphasis in ethics/logic/metaphysics and linguistic theory, philosophy, language studies, either classical or modern, literature, natural sciences, etc, etc. A lawyer must be able to think abstractly and theoretically about the law. Only by thinking broadly can the lawyer think correctly in a concrete fashion and apply the law. Its sad that there are students who cant see this. However Lord Sumpton is absolutely correct that its because they have a very inaccurate view of the purpose of the university. They see it as vocational training rather than education.
Thanks for posting this great debate. And many thanks to the two speakers. Special thanks must go to Lord Sumption for arguing his position at the Cambridge Law Faculty. It is fair to say everyone present (all the law students) has a bias in agreeing with Professor Graham Virgo's arguments. So even changing a few minds is an achievement.
I have to admit, Law School is lacking enough central focus on philosophy, equity and common law. All it usually teaches is legislation with dribbles of common law. Equity (the true and supreme core) is virtually left out - which is odd considering equity is the foundation of all law and legal philosophical principles.
In a free transparent and democratic society, the law in general should be taught to all our children at school. The very fact that our system of justice is administered by a private occult society begs further scrutiny. It can be argued that the degradation of our society is primarily down to the apathy and corruption of our judiciary. We see it now with the arbitrary criminalization of the common man and the most important crimes go unhindered. Question: at what point to the public have the jurisdiction to violate the rights of the private individual?
At ~18:00 he references a joke and everyone in the room laughs too early and are silent at the punch line. The joke implied that chemistry is more rigorous than banking whereas the audience laughed as though the joke implied that banking was more rigorous than being a lawyer. The entire auditorium got the joke completely wrong.... Does anyone else notice this?
+Matthew Alexander Well spotted. As great a legal mind as Lord Sumption QC is, I think he should have looked at a few standup DVDs to perfect his technique. Jim Davidson and Peter Kay spring to mind...
+Matthew Alexander One could also interpret the joke as referring to Chemistry --> law (and not having to refer to banking which sat in the middle of the two). The second comment about it being a problem only to move in the opposite direction could be taken to be a general statement and not referring to his transition from banker to lawyer as you interpreted it.
+Kx7pl 5 The audience clearly understood the joke as intending that Neuberger thought Chemistry was more rigorous than Law. That is a debatable assertion.
Matthew Alexander it cud have been understood either given the tripartite relationship used amongst chem. bank and law...so they weren't wrong as u have limited ur appreciation to just that one portion
Great arguments!!! As a scientist, it's hard to comprehend why 2+2 does not always equal 4 in legal profession. In law, many times, 2+2 could be anything other than 4, as long as one can twist the facts, or non facts for that matter. This is just one argument which, in my eyes, would make law an unfulfilling profession. It's not a scientific thinking process, it's a simply and undisputed fact that 2+2 is always 4, not when it's convenient to be.
This is a really interesting take, and comes from an insightful position. If we see law as presenting itself as science, or at least 'science-lite', a reasonable perspective given the popularity of the term 'legal science', it's an abysmal failure. You are absolutely correct that law seems often seems to be rather relative and inconsistent. However, if we see law as a humanities subject, perhaps in the same vein as politics or the philosophy of ethics, then explaining its inconsistency is quite straightforward. It goes like this: legal reasoning will depend ultimately on value-judgements; 'correct' value-judgements change with society, and indeed with each person; and accordingly law is going to be as inconsistent as our own moral beliefs. Unless one wishes morality to be as regular as science (which is another question altogether), then it is to be expected that law will be imperfect, unpredictable, and 'irrational.'
The thing is in the olden days when those Lords and Reputable Judges went to school, law were indirectly incorporated into all their specific subjects they have studied. Every olden days studies had law embedded in them. The Law of motion, the law of gravity, community and social rules were all parts of those subjects. The Standard 6 Qualification holder (in the 1950s or early years) is equivalent to the Master degree of this contemporary world of today. I am proud of my Mum and Dad. They were respected teachers and Chemists.
True. You can't compare the practice of Law with the practice of Medicine. Although I would agree with Prof Virgo that Law is a learned profession, with law it is still entirely possible for someone who has no formal training to be reasonably competent in managing a case - even if it is only their own. Pro se litigants abound, as do McKenzie friends who represent others. Furthermore, the law relies heavily upon lay practitioners to act as judges, e.g., magistrates. So the profession concedes entirely to the notion that 'anyone without formal training could, theoretically, practice law if they have an idea of how the legal system works and can grasp what a fact is and what makes evidence admissible. Take a jury too, they too must examine the facts of a case - without any prior training - to convict or acquit. There are no medical lay practitioners though (unless you count witch doctors). Those who aren't trained are just viewed as quasi medics or non medics. Medicine relies upon the knowledge and application of science. Without a good grounding in Chemistry and Human Biology you would never be able to become a doctor. Without surgical training of many years you could not be a surgeon either. There are no lay surgeons and no lay doctors on prestigous Medical Boards. Medicine is about life and death - literally, Law is about how society's rules fit to an individual's set of circumstances.
Was all very interesting during the first speaker and his role speaks, and quite rightly so in a roundabout way saying One must understand the world or at least something, in order to deliberate on it. But speaker 2 i shall address as a typical student that went pro student as it were. With no experience of life outside the book and the non-desire to desire to want. The constant reasoning as to the reason we need rules and the "law" in its black and white form as if he were reading from the book of purest law would lay fair tail from the reality that Law is something every child has been learning continuously up until adulthood and beyond. He is a clear example of all that is wrong in our courts as it clearly moves away from Law. To explain what i must start from the beginning. The Law is a way of life as we implement it. and is occasionally wrong as society changes and requires a different Law. When i say society i clearly don't mean the Law society as it’s known but rather the wider population that is not part of the known Law society but should actually be if it weren't so lacking. But the second speaker gives appraisal to he who knows above he who does not. It’s as it were that it must be a confined club, that the study of equity was equality in the face of it. Hence legal academics does not form part of the legal profession as the Law has always been and the Legal Professions role is to seek it. He speaks of great judges and respect for the profession as if it were to worship the profession. And he says that no man can properly practice or apply the Law. this remark is quietly so very disturbing indeed. True scholarship as he quaintly puts it is for the want of a better word brainwashed and bewitched. And he goes on the make the remark of the century saying it requires deep study and imagination as near the twain shall meet. Does he not know that straight A students work for C & D students!. whom am i as an ignorant man to interfere with his creative thinking. Clearly a life of studying Law proves the ignorance of it!. To understand your subject one must first understand the foundation of Law!. His study leaves him in mere speculation with no foundation and an imposition on change itself. If i may spell it out, The Law every man lives by every day. Even the man that does wrong knows that he has done so. In fact the Law couldn't be more simple except for the fact the legal academics continue to interfere in it. No academic invented thy shall not kill!. nor any Law in fact, All the Laws come from God no-matter the religion you practice, so everyone practices it. Kings interfered with it. Every trial has an injured party or two. And each man in a trial is entitled to a Jury trial because God says you shall not be judged by one man. He says if you must go before a man-made court let you sit 12 people of lessor standing in the community to sit and judge you and God will sit with them to make the right decision. And the very definition of the word Jury says you are entitled to it on injury = in jury. The reason is all the other Laws man-made are based on fraud and deception. for example the land was fought for, and blood was spilt and no matter how far you go back someone else owned it. so it was acquired by the sword. the sword was forged with steel meaning the sword steels land and forged paper’s claiming it as its own. All the Laws are already there, and man-made Laws try to limit your rights to the Law being enacted and most always where it benefits the State for some reason, which is pretty much the better part of it in fact. Learning history or maths gives a man insight to the reality of man itself as a subject as being Lawful as opposed to being subject. One most definitely needs to study the Nuremberg Trials or read about the abolishing of slavery. Indeed id argue slavery was reinvented and the slaves today go by the name servant! But it’s like the story of animal farm all-over, and the slave now trying to over throw by ruling the master with some quick wit!. The servants even pretend to pay tax so to look like a master, but in fact the master is actually paying it all and the servants tax and wage and pension and expenses and bonus and car space is only the masters tax anyway with a bit of tomfoolery taught up by that wonderful servant called a political wonder-boy or woman that supposedly gets economy’s back to work! God forbid we would need C & D students for that that dropped out of school got a job and/or started up a business to pay for everything!. The only reason it takes an economy so long to recover is because of the A students complex approach to issues like requiring people to pay 50% tax on their income when in fact they don't actually pay nor need to! in a bid to persuade the actual master to pay more so the A student can get more without directly asking for it. leaving the private sector actually paying 175% believe it or not, i believe you believe it not unless you were the first speaker so who knows what you believe. As King James put it when he printed his own version of the Bible that being the word of God that which is copyrighted by the intellect no doubt, It’s the King James Bible you worship. Al though it’s the mere version that's the Copying Gods right rather than the Godly right itself. Al though we do like to wear cuffs and collars, and your necks tied with a running knot when heading through the en-trance to attend court!. Bible warns against it and insists you do not mix fabrics i wonder why. It amazes me not, that the intellect thinks the Law was made by man for the good of man and in all civil matters as the in-jury is called, the servant wishes to go against all relevance of Law and its complete existence or reason spouting bizarre reasoning that 12 man can decide on murder rape and treason but not equipped with enough rational to decide if Joe blogs should pay for damaging the car!. Well what can i say, the usual argument is it costs more having a jury!, this i don't believe as I’ve never heard of the jury getting "legally" paid anyway, and surely only requiring a administrator is less expensive than a judge! The other mishap that occasionally happens in order not to disfavour a collouge at times is the lack of understanding of how the court orders are delivered and the role played in the execution of such orders. Let me spell it out. It is at no time the task of a judge when dealing with administrating procedures to make any orders. In fact all he can do is execute an order given usually by way of motion to the court and his task is to decide for the best procedure for the court in its pursuit of justice to arrive at trial in the correct footing, unless to execute ether motion would destruct the fabric of common sense to both sides he decide. otherwise he will favour a motion and order it be done. And in all courts of record both parties should be on the record as to not be on the record, one is not in attendance. This is the very fabric of the justice system, and to falter on this can only lead way to hearsay after hearsay in the courts and is sharply becoming the norm with Bankers at the forefront of exception after exception!. At Law if you are invited on the record to state that what you are claiming to your motion you must have first-hand knowledge of the facts and if the banker is not present no motion can be given in favor and to do so is done so knowingly its not in accordance with due process of Law and you are committing crimes against the state not the man. And when any servant is accused of any crime it is on no part of the government to protect the accused in any shape or form. Any servant that acts in such a way that he be accused has acted out of office whether he be a police officer or council worker or an officer of the court itself, the accused shall be dragged through the courts as an individual alone, and not the agency or office that which he was assigned too. There is no office of abuse. And on no account can any company, a company being a thing, that resides on a piece of paper, be it a bank or an agency corporation, company, state or union. can object to any man’s rights unless it hurts another man. Any corporation that objects in court to a jury trial is impossible as no company has a right to voice apart from the privilege on the license. Any objections made on their behalf is also impossible and those who make such objections cannot make false claims, so do so in their own name and should be sued individually so that justice is even handed on both sides. and both sides attend court in the right license or title. And to clarify the perception out there about people’s rights. The constitution is not your rights, It’s a limit on Governments rights only. you have all the rights in the world given to you from God be it any religion you believe in. this fundamental fact of life is where every man will agree. sobering taught. You don't study Law, You live by it. peterreaney@me.com
Yes, Yes. That might be right for english law... here in any other country we have a very bad time with our teachers qualifying our tests/exams on this "non-strict" discipline
You can already practice in law, at/in court without university. However, to practice at law, in court is a different story.... Either way, you are subject to the court and the suitor's standards and expectations. It really depends on what laws you intend to practice. There is your lawyer answer.
Third part My attention in regards to scum and consequently understanding it the way I do, has enabled me to see the concept of peace in a different way. Within most cases peace indicates to the succession, that is the stopping of any type of animosities between two or more waring parties, and to the highest possible level, that it is, which upon enactment peace takes place. Yet as explained through the writing in regards to scum, peace, that is a state where no direct or indirect physical violent conflict is as happening, is already quite difficult. In fact within most cases, as anyone who lives and has ever lived to continue living will tell you, even show you, peace is almost anything but that, it only manifests itself as plausible structure in moments, often using the most magnificent points of reference in nature, such as the sun, moon, sky, season, river, sea, hill, field, forest and mountain. People with all types of attributes and characteristics are used as well, including humanly built structures among a myriad of other possible combinations. This means, in having as a general existence for anyone in the world, extremely few and very precious moments of peace, then attacking the normal day to day existence which such moments can be deducted off, by, for, from and to ability, talent, luck, faith, intuition, belief, logic etc etc of anyone and in regards to anyone, is an attack beyond peace, meaning there is a lot of work to get to any moment of peace long after the violent confrontation has stopped. Having been thinking about it for a lot of my existence, there is no words in any language to sentence it as a method, except as a direct and indirect deliberate attempt in achieving a state of being where any party involved can not be within a state of being in order of deducting any memorable moments of peace, only to be bypassed by a state of numbing physical state of existence, some sort of growing up a thicked skin and consequently peaceful state of being, only applicable in the regards to the context it is necessarily or unnecessarily induced from and for, a type of victory or symbolic victory, giving one the weird ability to see the beauty of a sunny day from a fighting positional state, thus achieving even more weird states of peaceful numbness having successfully applied some sort of retribution as a right or just measure. Consciousness which is and exists within and throughout everything, does not know what to make of that observation and consequently state of being. Having been triggered to such a state, consciousness has no other choice but to literally pass it, that is integrate it throughout all of physical existence available for none other than the old equilibrium state of being, the one which peace, moments of precious peace can be deducted from and for. Some types and forms of consciousness will reach such equilibrium or at least a form of, one which can be uttilised in many regards as quickly as reaching a flat surface after a steep one. On the other hand, some types and forms of consciousness require a whole ocean, forest, planet,, system, orbit, solar system etc etc. The most important ones, the ones which are not believable and consequently impossible to imagine in order to understand, with such types and forms of consciousness there is no reach of equilibrium. Once triggered the only equilibrium such types and forms of consciousness know by being, is a total jump of degree, order, level and heirarchical ascent or descent, which means everything, making peace a problem, a requirement not applicable, thus completely ignored and not aimed for, as it only exists once a jump is made, having been triggered in none existence at its corresponding state.
Virgo is a more forceful speaker. Australian Aboriginals have their own laws developed over perhaps 60,000 years. It is only after 200 years of occupation and genocide that the Native Title Act was passed after a long struggle and discrimination.
I would be interested to hear, of those learning or studying law, who are reading this, ..... what are your principles? What is most important, what is true or what is profitable,.......doing what you know to be right, or doing that will help your client 'win'? I would appreciate hearing from those that are 'reading' or 'practising' law as to their approach or intent
Interesting debate. (Except for the constant coughing) this debate is very insightful for those who want to study law in university. And my takeaway is that: the study of law in university, the study of other humanities, and life experiences are all equally important in developing legal reasoning and enriching our minds with more sound arguments to develop laws that uplift the people regardless of social and economical standing.
Indeed, "It all depends" be-cause-effect, self-defining Actuality of QM-TIMESPACE In-form-ation substantiation, which is lawfully, a relative-timing here-now-forever, Singularity-point existence. All the rest is Commentary.
May be, you are right. A lecturer's helping you will be timely, if he explains that we should consider law in different contexts. Not only in the buildings of the universities. To practise law, as i see it, means to view it in the various aspects of our life.
There is another point. Most law students study the basics such as eg contract and tort law in their first years at university. By the time they get to do their solicitors or bar finals courses it’s way out of date anyway. Law is constantly changing. In my experience the most successful practitioners came into law after a non-law first degree. Then, when you do the finals, the one year immersion in law is still relatively fresh. As Lord Sumption says, it’s mainly about facts. What do 18 year olds know about the facts of contractual agreements anyway? Apart maybe from a mobile phone, a pint in the pub or Viz at the newsagent.
what was meant by criminals and picking limited pockets? is this a reference to the fact its not about just-us (justice) but rather financial gain or isit about over charging to limit ppl knowing the law when it should be free and taught in schools for free without exception as man that does not know hes rights, has no rights at all!
***** Our rights are fairly few and are largely known to most people; I think incorporating the contents of a law degree into the free education system would be overkill in that regard.
Loving Sumption saying it should be taken as a second degree, as I am taking law as a second degree now lol so I am biased. I don't know how much more depressing my life would've been if my time learning about human achievements in world war 2 and the life of Caesar in my early adulthood were replaced by the million different ways killing someone isn't technically murder and is instead, a million other different crimes.
i am going to start gdl soon. I infact agree that llb is waste because medics and engineers are more analytical ,imaginative and thinking ahead. i have bachelors in computer science engineering and master of?research in biomedical engineering. I cant see a meagre llb student cant have research ability than me
At first I found it hard to understand why Virgo got whoops of appreciation from the audience before he had said a word. I found his arguments weak and specious. Drawing out specific points to make them general, not addressing the points as put to him, this is without mentioning his ad hominems. He is sneering and condescending, really not a generous participant. I didn't enjoy listening to his argument at all, especially when he reiterated the terms of the debate initially, the terms which he himself arranged which presumably thought afforded him the best chance of 'winning'. It became clear to me why he was appreciated by the audience when he played to the gallery and attacked Oxford. He admitted that it was a cheap shot, and I thought, why do it then? Because you're speaking to Cambridge undergraduates. That explains why he made a part of his argument about the cost of studying at university, as if Cambridge law undergraduates haven't, for the most part, just come from fee-paying schools. It isn't Oxford that came off badly in this debate, it is Cambridge and the virgo dude.
I truly believe that law is “over” taught in the school setting. And the principle function of law is at worst a glorified way to be play devils advocate (literally) and at best it’s misguided. Too complicated of a system creates the chaos that it is designed to prevent or eradicate. In reality it’s basically a machine that sorts through our infinite problems. But, only the problems that are put on paper. How can you have a system that works for the overall society when there are literally infinite ways to manipulate the paper system. I feel that law should be passed culturally, organically, tribally. Law should be enforced locally in general. Only commercial transactions should be enforced nationally or globally. Because the only language and principle that is the same across the world and across cultures is numbers. Money. Transaction ledgers. Accounting. Humans should not be treated like numbers unless they ask to be. It’s a soulless existence. In prison they ask for our number EVERY DAY ALL DAY. It’s exhausting. Its like being asked for your social security number 10 times per day and out loud. But it taught me how to quantize this society by seeing a “mini” version of America. Prison became a science experiment. A social canvas. I studied law in prison, and put it and practice to see how it would actually play out in this system that it was designed for. I became very successful in court. But they were always very reluctant to honor their own codes. It was the most bizarre experience I’ve ever had in life. It was hell and demons type of vibe. These people tried to be impervious to the facts and “law.” It took years and multiple trials and appeals to end it all. But ultimately I fell just short of being compensated for my sabbatical in a cell. But the key thing that I learned was the the topic of syllogism. It has no moral prerequisite. It’s a fill in the blank system. Honestly, it’s a little outrageous when I think about it too deeply. The academic study of law is a pure programming. A bending of the logic. If done correctly it should teach one to divide and support both the immoral and moral perspective. This is institutional law. Systematic control that puts in the code to the operating system. Social architects are equivalent to computer programmers. The society that they build is only as moral as the writer of the code. As long as abundant power and money are involved then expect the immoral and greedy to show up. Those are the dark magicians. The ones who want to bend words to do unnatural things in their favor. Call me crazy, but I feel that we could do a better job by governing ourselves in our respective villages and towns. Keep it simple. Keep it concise. The legal system and the “codes” and “high court” is the asset engine to this version of virtual reality. But anyway, I’m a little stoned. God bless
Scire leges, non hoc est verba eorum tenere, sed vim et potestatem. To know the laws, is not to observe their mere words, but their force and power. -Maxim of Law. Non in legendo sed in intelligendo leges consistunt. The laws consist not in being read, but in being understood -Maxim of Law.
@@braddouglas1621 It's a terrible distraction. He apparently doesn't realize that the tie label is sewn in such a way as to permit the small part to be inserted into and held in place behind the front wider part. Or he could invest in a tie tack or tie bar. He didn't tie it correctly either. The narrow part should never extend below the front wider part.
For all of his undeniable wisdom, Mr. Virgo submits a fallacious argument for numerous reasons - please allow me to shed some light on one; the analogy between a one year law conversion course and becoming a GP, which Mr. Virgo moots at roughly 29 mins into his rebuttal, is quite simply factually unsound - a better analogy would have been that of, perhaps, an A&E junior (though they remain the dregs no doubt) - one doesn't simply complete there medical degree and then, subject to not being good enough in order to specialize, become a GP of the batt, so to speak - its a rather arduous process, full of much training - however, the result often, but certainly not all of the time, results in a practitioner who doesn't particularly know much and is reliant upon readily accessible data in way of diagnosis. The best GP's that I have ever met are those that have a wider understanding of things - not matter how that understanding is derived - seldom from Med School though.
No as the Law Society does not allow or Iike peoplebwho know common law which Parliament can not revoke. Statues are the best way to subjugate people. Acts are only allowed if we consent. NO consent no act.
I thought Sumption weaselled out of the argument by merely saying: "lawyers can study non-law too". Each to their own. And what does "vaguely lightweight" mean? Vague lightweight, yes. But vaguely lightweight would simply mean "slightly lightweight".
First part My full attention at this point will be to give a different way, I believe it to be a natural way of seeing scum. I have always been drawn and attention triggered by scum, plus on top of that I have spent much of my existence seriously understanding it, not in a more or less then others type of meaning as I do not wish to brag about any such achievement as a medal, nor I would like anyone to do so in my direction, thus avoiding an awkward confrontational argument as to who it is the one that understands scum more, but a understanding be it simple or complex is what I aim. Scum as an English word has no match in regards to other similar words from other languages, I believe it to be a most underrated word although highly and very often used. In regards to myself if and when I have required a very specific and precise word to singly occupy my entire mind, as a hybrid meditation type of technique, scum and the word scum, has by far been the most successful one. It might not feel so, especially if and when considering the incorrect use of the word scum, but it is the main foundation which supports most, if not all of what I have written, backwards. I believe after I have written in it's regards, to it, as a word and concept, many might use it, and most probably use it exactly as a hybrid meditation type of technique. Scum in regards to empirical terms is a highly physical concentrated concern, solidified, liquified, oilified, through temperature increase and decrease, humidity increase and decrease, wind friction and all its possible directional movement as a, any and all possible combinations of particles, some of which are extremely small, all the way to small, known often and recognised as dust. As a concern giving it direct a consequence, scum can be anywhere the conditions enable and disable it, with the best example being none other than within the very physical existence, one which is inescapable in regards to anyone alive or dead, which in this case being is anyone's nose that is.. In fact anyone's nose is built as physical existence purposely, simply, and as importantly in order to not allow scum reach the immune system, which means to protect ones life from inescapable existence. Based on that, in regards and to all possible technical terms, all matter is a ascending and descending degree and level of density scum. All one has to do in order to have an example, is stick their own finger up their own nose and investigate, that is dig a bit lighter or bit harder, all depending on the quantity and quality of the scum in existence up their own nose, pick some up and pull it out. Upon doing so, a considerable or not, quantity of scum will be right there on their own finger to observe, and knowing myself to have been as a child, even taste it. As a concept supported by and off lateral physical structures, in this case biological structures, while simultaneously keeping as a constant initiation, development, maintenance, and enactment, scum is highly representable through human beings. In terms and regards to human beings scum uses two very distinct yet overlapping categories, one is wholly regarded to direct and indirect illegality, concerning a, any and all possible combinations of legal systems, while the other is wholly regarded to direct and indirect religious, faith, beliefs, ideology and morals representable most likely in the form of sinn or as a sinn. This means that almost all of the instances the criminality of scum is simultaneously the sinful side of scum, making all crime a sinn. It precisely because such a magnificent overall possible structure, the importance to myself, regards my extremely attentive and personal involvement with scum. It a way of learning about law as a side hustle.
My uncle Dr Bashir Mallal LL.D of Singapore didn't attend university as he was too poor. He worked in a legal office and went on to publish the Malay Law Journal which covered courts in Malaya, Singapore and Brunei. He was awarded an honouray doctorate of laws by NSU for services to the legal community and was considered highly knowledgeable in legal matters.
Wow
Law school is not enough to be a competent well versed lawyer anymore. Just as with anything in life, life experience trumps raw knowledge. The combination of the two can be unstoppable if utilized in the right way. Great lecture by this faculty member. Thank you.
Lawyers in Connecticut What a redundant point.
A good debate, but I think four important points were missed.
1. Academic law and what might be called 'vocational law' are fundamentally different endeavours, involving very different skills. Lawyers often like to flatter themselves by analogising their qualifications with the medical profession. Actually a better analogy would be with accountancy.
Nobody expects an accountant to hold a degree in accountancy, and though some do, most don't. I think it likely that the very top chartered accountants have hardly studied accountancy at all in any academic sense. They do not require such knowledge. They are not academic researchers in accounting, they are business people. They are not interested in the philosophic 'whys' of accountancy. Conversely, technical accountancy knowledge is a minimal skill level, and only a necessary first step for a chartered accountant. Generally-speaking, you don't hear the top accountancy firms boast that they know all about accountancy. That's taken as a given. Their clients pay them handsomely for their sound judgement and commercial acumen.
Law is not the same of course, and the analogy is not perfect. However I do think a broadly similar observation applies to lawyers, especially commercial ones, but really in any legal discipline. You don't generally hear lawyers boast about their legal knowledge per se. Practising law isn't quite like that. They are being paid for something more than just being able to recite what they know (though this is still important).
2. I said in 1 above that my analogy with accountancy isn't perfect, and that's due to the nature of the subject-matter in law. While I agree to an extent with Lord Sumption's observation that what a typical professional lawyer needs to know about the law isn't very extensive, it doesn't follow that having an extensive knowledge of the law at the expense of other subjects is detrimental.
And as I think Professor Virgo mentioned, there is no reason why law degrees and higher education cannot be reformed to take account of some of the valid concerns that Lord Sumption raises. There is an old saying: 'A law degree sharpens the mind, and narrows it'. I think there is some truth in this. It's a degree that results in a more logical brain, but at the same time, I also feel ignorant of a lot of important subjects in classics, science and the humanities that a more general education that would have given me. On the other hand, we only have so much time and can only learn so many subjects. And if you want to be a lawyer, why not study law?
3. An academic law degree is not meant to be a preparation for practice. It can help, but just like any other academic degree, it is a preparation for membership of an academic community. Law faculties are not trade schools: at least, not the elite ones like Cambridge Thus the proposition posed in the debate could be seen as misplaced. Nobody told me that my law degree was a preparation for practice, at least nobody that I would have taken seriously. I knew that in order to practice, I would need to take professional exams, which is to be expected when joining a profession. A law degree is just that: a degree. It is not a qualification to go out and start giving advice.
4. My final point is that I think too much emphasis is being placed on university education. I think the debate reflects this bias in two respects: first, in an assumption implicit in the debate, that prospective lawyers need a university education at all; and second, in the view put by Lord Sumption that a university education (or a 'universal' education, as he might put it) is of value in its own right. I would question these. As Lord Sumption rightly stated, the law can be learnt on the job, (and that used to be how most lawyers trained, including the most eminent ones), but Lord Sumption fails to mention that an advanced level of formal education is not necessitous for someone to train and practice successfully as a lawyer.
As an aside, I am also curious as to what Lord Sumption's argument is here for 'education'. He doesn't really explain. What is the philosophical basis for this perspective that education is a good thing in its own right? Utilitarianism? Or what? Does a universal education, i.e. university attendance on a broad-based degree, make you happier? Will knowing more about ancient Greek philosophers or understanding the intricacies of quantum physics or the Pareto curve make me a more contented person? I would like to suggest that this is a misplaced perspective when applied generally. Some people will be happier as they become more educated because what they will learn will make them more generous in spirit and more liberal-minded, and the study habits they develop will perhaps make them more intelligent. However, for others, the route to happiness could be to learn a skill that makes the person useful and productive and gives them prestige in the community. Such a person might be completely ignorant when it comes to philosophy or medieval political thought or Anglo-Saxon history or ancient languages or higher mathematics - but if they are content and productive, what is the problem?
For these reasons, my answer to the proposition put in the debate: 'Those Who Wish to Practise Law Should Not Study Law at University', would be that those who wish to practise law should study whatever they want at university, or preferably, not attend university at all. On the face of it, that makes it look like I am siding mostly with Lord Sumption. I am a little, but far from entirely. I think he made some very good points, but many of his other points about the law and some of his arguments 'against' a law degree are a little too sweeping or simplified for my liking. Just to pick out one example: Sumption claims that law is easy and the really complicated thing is understanding facts and applying the law to these. There is something in this, of course, and most lawyers would recognise what he is saying, but the law isn't easy. It is conceptually difficult and takes time to learn and master. As Professor Virgo said, law is a learned subject that deserves to be pursued in its own right.
I think regarding educational preparation for lawyers, there is a middle course here: study law for its own sake, or study electronics or home economics, or golf course management, or mathematics, or chemistry, or media studies or psychology....or whatever you want to study. Or go travelling, or learn a trade. Just do what you want. Any of those endeavours, and more, can make you a 'good lawyer' eventually, from one perspective or other.
How does one become a lawyer without attending University? I didn't realise it was possible.
Thanks for the comment. It does depend which jurisdiction you wish to qualify in and which branch of the legal profession you wish to enter. My comments here are regarding England & Wales.
For solicitors, it has always been the case, and remains so, that a degree of any kind is not needed and is not mandatory for admission, though the vast majority of candidates today do hold a degree. As I understand things, it used to be that the majority of trainee solicitors (then known as articled clerks) had no university degree at all and entered the profession by training on the job while taking classes part-time in preparation for professional exams - very similar to the way a lot of chartered accountants still train today, which is yet another reason why accountancy provides us with an apt analogy to the legal profession, certainly the solicitor branch.
Barristers also used to train in the same way, by working while studying. This is because they were strictly advocates and separate from the more distinguished 'Doctors of Law' (now a defunct branch of the profession), who had completed formal degrees. That was all a very long time ago and it would now probably be considered an antiquated practice in most legal specialisms at the Bar to allow barristers to train in chambers and by visiting Inns and testing their skills in court. Probably a case could be made today that entrants to the Bar (or at least direct entrants) should always hold an academic degree. But I think this idea that generally you need to go to university to join a profession is quite strange. Except for the medical and veterinary professions, and maybe today's barristers, I can't readily think of a profession for which a university background should be considered necessary.
"necessitous"? I think you mean necessary? (I know what necessitous means.)
LearnLoads Necessitous is correctly used here. You're clearly not familiar with all the usages of the word, which is rather embarrassing given that you purport to be 'correcting' me.
Having said that, I have changed it to 'necessary', as I agree that reads better. Not that it matters.
A great debate, thanks to Prof Virgo and Lord Sumption and of course to those who uploaded it; it very much illuminated my evening. As an aspiring barrister who first studied theology and languages before entering into law degree, I can confirm that my first degree helped enhance my horizon in understanding how law works. Unlike many students, in my first and second year, I largely read the case law and I acquired as much the general culture to analyse the facts from case law as I had read my non-law related discipline. Therefore I say, if you want to be an excellent lawyer, you want to have a non-legal foundation, be it a professional life or other degree subjects, before studying law.
PS: Prof Virgo’s Equity and Trusts textbook was such an excellent source of understanding complex topics in Equity. On behalf of my cohort, thanks very much.
I vote for Lord Sumption but in a qualified sense if I understand his position correctly. I still believe that law school is needed. I agree that as an undergraduate you should not study law in preparation for law school. That is what the questioner at 46:00 is asking at.
Here in the U.S. the ABA (America Bar Association)has stated that those who want to go on to law school should not major in pre- law or any other narrow specialization fields. Lord Sumption is correct that a lawyer needs a good broad based liberal arts education. One that requires the student to pursue studies in civilizational history, philosophy, with strong emphasis in ethics/logic/metaphysics and linguistic theory, philosophy, language studies, either classical or modern, literature, natural sciences, etc, etc.
A lawyer must be able to think abstractly and theoretically about the law. Only by thinking broadly can the lawyer think correctly in a concrete fashion and apply the law. Its sad that there are students who cant see this. However Lord Sumpton is absolutely correct that its because they have a very inaccurate view of the purpose of the university. They see it as vocational training rather than education.
Cannot agree with you more Emmanuel.
Thanks for posting this great debate. And many thanks to the two speakers. Special thanks must go to Lord Sumption for arguing his position at the Cambridge Law Faculty. It is fair to say everyone present (all the law students) has a bias in agreeing with Professor Graham Virgo's arguments. So even changing a few minds is an achievement.
I have to admit, Law School is lacking enough central focus on philosophy, equity and common law. All it usually teaches is legislation with dribbles of common law. Equity (the true and supreme core) is virtually left out - which is odd considering equity is the foundation of all law and legal philosophical principles.
In a free transparent and democratic society, the law in general should be taught to all our children at school. The very fact that our system of justice is administered by a private occult society begs further scrutiny. It can be argued that the degradation of our society is primarily down to the apathy and corruption of our judiciary. We see it now with the arbitrary criminalization of the common man and the most important crimes go unhindered.
Question: at what point to the public have the jurisdiction to violate the rights of the private individual?
At ~18:00 he references a joke and everyone in the room laughs too early and are silent at the punch line.
The joke implied that chemistry is more rigorous than banking whereas the audience laughed as though the joke implied that banking was more rigorous than being a lawyer. The entire auditorium got the joke completely wrong.... Does anyone else notice this?
+Matthew Alexander Well spotted. As great a legal mind as Lord Sumption QC is, I think he should have looked at a few standup DVDs to perfect his technique. Jim Davidson and Peter Kay spring to mind...
+Matthew Alexander One could also interpret the joke as referring to Chemistry --> law (and not having to refer to banking which sat in the middle of the two). The second comment about it being a problem only to move in the opposite direction could be taken to be a general statement and not referring to his transition from banker to lawyer as you interpreted it.
+Kx7pl 5 The audience clearly understood the joke as intending that Neuberger thought Chemistry was more rigorous than Law. That is a debatable assertion.
True, I just meant by that that I found it to be questionable, ie dubious
Matthew Alexander it cud have been understood either given the tripartite relationship used amongst chem. bank and law...so they weren't wrong as u have limited ur appreciation to just that one portion
Great arguments!!! As a scientist, it's hard to comprehend why 2+2 does not always equal 4 in legal profession. In law, many times, 2+2 could be anything other than 4, as long as one can twist the facts, or non facts for that matter. This is just one argument which, in my eyes, would make law an unfulfilling profession. It's not a scientific thinking process, it's a simply and undisputed fact that 2+2 is always 4, not when it's convenient to be.
This is a really interesting take, and comes from an insightful position. If we see law as presenting itself as science, or at least 'science-lite', a reasonable perspective given the popularity of the term 'legal science', it's an abysmal failure. You are absolutely correct that law seems often seems to be rather relative and inconsistent. However, if we see law as a humanities subject, perhaps in the same vein as politics or the philosophy of ethics, then explaining its inconsistency is quite straightforward. It goes like this: legal reasoning will depend ultimately on value-judgements; 'correct' value-judgements change with society, and indeed with each person; and accordingly law is going to be as inconsistent as our own moral beliefs. Unless one wishes morality to be as regular as science (which is another question altogether), then it is to be expected that law will be imperfect, unpredictable, and 'irrational.'
I could read you two discussing this like a book. You both made excellent points and explained it clearly.
@@alecthompson1023 Really good answer, opens up the topic wonderfully!
The thing is in the olden days when those Lords and Reputable Judges went to school, law were indirectly incorporated into all their specific subjects they have studied. Every olden days studies had law embedded in them. The Law of motion, the law of gravity, community and social rules were all parts of those subjects. The Standard 6 Qualification holder (in the 1950s or early years) is equivalent to the Master degree of this contemporary world of today. I am proud of my Mum and Dad. They were respected teachers and Chemists.
Does anyone know the name of Lord Sumption's article that Professor Virgo mentions at 27:43 and if it can be found online?
same, I've been trying to find it
For a law professor graham put forward some pretty weak arguments. Played right into Lord Sumption's hands.
+Electra Heart well, Sumption is the best lol
True. You can't compare the practice of Law with the practice of Medicine. Although I would agree with Prof Virgo that Law is a learned profession, with law it is still entirely possible for someone who has no formal training to be reasonably competent in managing a case - even if it is only their own. Pro se litigants abound, as do McKenzie friends who represent others. Furthermore, the law relies heavily upon lay practitioners to act as judges, e.g., magistrates. So the profession concedes entirely to the notion that 'anyone without formal training could, theoretically, practice law if they have an idea of how the legal system works and can grasp what a fact is and what makes evidence admissible. Take a jury too, they too must examine the facts of a case - without any prior training - to convict or acquit. There are no medical lay practitioners though (unless you count witch doctors). Those who aren't trained are just viewed as quasi medics or non medics. Medicine relies upon the knowledge and application of science. Without a good grounding in Chemistry and Human Biology you would never be able to become a doctor. Without surgical training of many years you could not be a surgeon either. There are no lay surgeons and no lay doctors on prestigous Medical Boards. Medicine is about life and death - literally, Law is about how society's rules fit to an individual's set of circumstances.
@@PotterSpurn1 that is why weird court decisions are more common in Common Law systems rather than Civil Law systems
Lord Simpton*
Was all very interesting during the first speaker and his role speaks, and quite rightly so in a roundabout way saying One must understand the world or at least something, in order to deliberate on it.
But speaker 2 i shall address as a typical student that went pro student as it were. With no experience of life outside the book and the non-desire to desire to want. The constant reasoning as to the reason we need rules and the "law" in its black and white form as if he were reading from the book of purest law would lay fair tail from the reality that Law is something every child has been learning continuously up until adulthood and beyond. He is a clear example of all that is wrong in our courts as it clearly moves away from Law. To explain what i must start from the beginning.
The Law is a way of life as we implement it. and is occasionally wrong as society changes and requires a different Law.
When i say society i clearly don't mean the Law society as it’s known but rather the wider population that is not part of the known Law society but should actually be if it weren't so lacking. But the second speaker gives appraisal to he who knows above he who does not. It’s as it were that it must be a confined club, that the study of equity was equality in the face of it. Hence legal academics does not form part of the legal profession as the Law has always been and the Legal Professions role is to seek it. He speaks of great judges and respect for the profession as if it were to worship the profession. And he says that no man can properly practice or apply the Law. this remark is quietly so very disturbing indeed. True scholarship as he quaintly puts it is for the want of a better word brainwashed and bewitched. And he goes on the make the remark of the century saying it requires deep study and imagination as near the twain shall meet. Does he not know that straight A students work for C & D students!. whom am i as an ignorant man to interfere with his creative thinking. Clearly a life of studying Law proves the ignorance of it!. To understand your subject one must first understand the foundation of Law!. His study leaves him in mere speculation with no foundation and an imposition on change itself. If i may spell it out, The Law every man lives by every day. Even the man that does wrong knows that he has done so. In fact the Law couldn't be more simple except for the fact the legal academics continue to interfere in it. No academic invented thy shall not kill!. nor any Law in fact, All the Laws come from God no-matter the religion you practice, so everyone practices it. Kings interfered with it. Every trial has an injured party or two. And each man in a trial is entitled to a Jury trial because God says you shall not be judged by one man. He says if you must go before a man-made court let you sit 12 people of lessor standing in the community to sit and judge you and God will sit with them to make the right decision. And the very definition of the word Jury says you are entitled to it on injury = in jury. The reason is all the other Laws man-made are based on fraud and deception. for example the land was fought for, and blood was spilt and no matter how far you go back someone else owned it. so it was acquired by the sword. the sword was forged with steel meaning the sword steels land and forged paper’s claiming it as its own. All the Laws are already there, and man-made Laws try to limit your rights to the Law being enacted and most always where it benefits the State for some reason, which is pretty much the better part of it in fact. Learning history or maths gives a man insight to the reality of man itself as a subject as being Lawful as opposed to being subject. One most definitely needs to study the Nuremberg Trials or read about the abolishing of slavery. Indeed id argue slavery was reinvented and the slaves today go by the name servant! But it’s like the story of animal farm all-over, and the slave now trying to over throw by ruling the master with some quick wit!. The servants even pretend to pay tax so to look like a master, but in fact the master is actually paying it all and the servants tax and wage and pension and expenses and bonus and car space is only the masters tax anyway with a bit of tomfoolery taught up by that wonderful servant called a political wonder-boy or woman that supposedly gets economy’s back to work! God forbid we would need C & D students for that that dropped out of school got a job and/or started up a business to pay for everything!. The only reason it takes an economy so long to recover is because of the A students complex approach to issues like requiring people to pay 50% tax on their income when in fact they don't actually pay nor need to! in a bid to persuade the actual master to pay more so the A student can get more without directly asking for it. leaving the private sector actually paying 175% believe it or not, i believe you believe it not unless you were the first speaker so who knows what you believe. As King James put it when he printed his own version of the Bible that being the word of God that which is copyrighted by the intellect no doubt, It’s the King James Bible you worship. Al though it’s the mere version that's the Copying Gods right rather than the Godly right itself. Al though we do like to wear cuffs and collars, and your necks tied with a running knot when heading through the en-trance to attend court!. Bible warns against it and insists you do not mix fabrics i wonder why. It amazes me not, that the intellect thinks the Law was made by man for the good of man and in all civil matters as the in-jury is called, the servant wishes to go against all relevance of Law and its complete existence or reason spouting bizarre reasoning that 12 man can decide on murder rape and treason but not equipped with enough rational to decide if Joe blogs should pay for damaging the car!. Well what can i say, the usual argument is it costs more having a jury!, this i don't believe as I’ve never heard of the jury getting "legally" paid anyway, and surely only requiring a administrator is less expensive than a judge! The other mishap that occasionally happens in order not to disfavour a collouge at times is the lack of understanding of how the court orders are delivered and the role played in the execution of such orders. Let me spell it out. It is at no time the task of a judge when dealing with administrating procedures to make any orders. In fact all he can do is execute an order given usually by way of motion to the court and his task is to decide for the best procedure for the court in its pursuit of justice to arrive at trial in the correct footing, unless to execute ether motion would destruct the fabric of common sense to both sides he decide. otherwise he will favour a motion and order it be done. And in all courts of record both parties should be on the record as to not be on the record, one is not in attendance. This is the very fabric of the justice system, and to falter on this can only lead way to hearsay after hearsay in the courts and is sharply becoming the norm with Bankers at the forefront of exception after exception!. At Law if you are invited on the record to state that what you are claiming to your motion you must have first-hand knowledge of the facts and if the banker is not present no motion can be given in favor and to do so is done so knowingly its not in accordance with due process of Law and you are committing crimes against the state not the man. And when any servant is accused of any crime it is on no part of the government to protect the accused in any shape or form. Any servant that acts in such a way that he be accused has acted out of office whether he be a police officer or council worker or an officer of the court itself, the accused shall be dragged through the courts as an individual alone, and not the agency or office that which he was assigned too. There is no office of abuse. And on no account can any company, a company being a thing, that resides on a piece of paper, be it a bank or an agency corporation, company, state or union. can object to any man’s rights unless it hurts another man. Any corporation that objects in court to a jury trial is impossible as no company has a right to voice apart from the privilege on the license. Any objections made on their behalf is also impossible and those who make such objections cannot make false claims, so do so in their own name and should be sued individually so that justice is even handed on both sides. and both sides attend court in the right license or title. And to clarify the perception out there about people’s rights. The constitution is not your rights, It’s a limit on Governments rights only. you have all the rights in the world given to you from God be it any religion you believe in. this fundamental fact of life is where every man will agree. sobering taught. You don't study Law, You live by it. peterreaney@me.com
***** i dont understand!
Lord Sumption is, to my mind, obviously right.
Yes, Yes. That might be right for english law... here in any other country we have a very bad time with our teachers qualifying our tests/exams on this "non-strict" discipline
Prof Graham taught me Criminal Law many moons back as a lecturer and supervisor-Downing College.
You can already practice in law, at/in court without university. However, to practice at law, in court is a different story....
Either way, you are subject to the court and the suitor's standards and expectations.
It really depends on what laws you intend to practice.
There is your lawyer answer.
DO WHAT THE CORRUPT LAWYERS DO,WHEEL AND DEAL DOWN THE LOCAL PUB
ha ha, are there honest lawyers (liars?) or solicitors (prostitutes?)
Cynical i may sound, experienced i am, sadly!
Third part
My attention in regards to scum and consequently understanding it the way I do, has enabled me to see the concept of peace in a different way.
Within most cases peace indicates to the succession, that is the stopping of any type of animosities between two or more waring parties, and to the highest possible level, that it is, which upon enactment peace takes place. Yet as explained through the writing in regards to scum, peace, that is a state where no direct or indirect physical violent conflict is as happening, is already quite difficult.
In fact within most cases, as anyone who lives and has ever lived to continue living will tell you, even show you, peace is almost anything but that, it only manifests itself as plausible structure in moments, often using the most magnificent points of reference in nature, such as the sun, moon, sky, season, river, sea, hill, field, forest and mountain. People with all types of attributes and characteristics are used as well, including humanly built structures among a myriad of other possible combinations.
This means, in having as a general existence for anyone in the world, extremely few and very precious moments of peace, then attacking the normal day to day existence which such moments can be deducted off, by, for, from and to ability, talent, luck, faith, intuition, belief, logic etc etc of anyone and in regards to anyone, is an attack beyond peace, meaning there is a lot of work to get to any moment of peace long after the violent confrontation has stopped.
Having been thinking about it for a lot of my existence, there is no words in any language to sentence it as a method, except as a direct and indirect deliberate attempt in achieving a state of being where any party involved can not be within a state of being in order of deducting any memorable moments of peace, only to be bypassed by a state of numbing physical state of existence, some sort of growing up a thicked skin and consequently peaceful state of being, only applicable in the regards to the context it is necessarily or unnecessarily induced from and for, a type of victory or symbolic victory, giving one the weird ability to see the beauty of a sunny day from a fighting positional state, thus achieving even more weird states of peaceful numbness having successfully applied some sort of retribution as a right or just measure.
Consciousness which is and exists within and throughout everything, does not know what to make of that observation and consequently state of being. Having been triggered to such a state, consciousness has no other choice but to literally pass it, that is integrate it throughout all of physical existence available for none other than the old equilibrium state of being, the one which peace, moments of precious peace can be deducted from and for.
Some types and forms of consciousness will reach such equilibrium or at least a form of, one which can be uttilised in many regards as quickly as reaching a flat surface after a steep one. On the other hand, some types and forms of consciousness require a whole ocean, forest, planet,, system, orbit, solar system etc etc. The most important ones, the ones which are not believable and consequently impossible to imagine in order to understand, with such types and forms of consciousness there is no reach of equilibrium.
Once triggered the only equilibrium such types and forms of consciousness know by being, is a total jump of degree, order, level and heirarchical ascent or descent, which means everything, making peace a problem, a requirement not applicable, thus completely ignored and not aimed for, as it only exists once a jump is made, having been triggered in none existence at its corresponding state.
Fourth part
In order to see to what I am aiming to refer and describe with words, it's plausible span in a possible measured time, one can use information that of which is known in regards to Egypt's dynasties. Taking such a record of history, then a application in regards to language one can apply to it.
In doing so, one will soon clearly see a very early period where language is a written in stone, stone tablets quite often, a method which was adopted by Mesopotamia, Rome and Greece later. After that, not long, a period where language is a written in papyrus appears simultaneously with the one in stone, and a conflict is there to deliberate.
After that a introduction through conflict arrives from the opposite side of the Mediterranean, introducing a new addition, where language is a written in parchment, simultaneously with the one in stone and papyrus, and a conflict is there to deliberate again.
After that the same introduction where language is a written in parchment which first appears from the opposite of the Mediterranean, is reintroduced from the side of Egypt, through a conflict, and a conflict is there also to deliberate, all the way to actual paper and the digital present.
Throughout all of the example given, including all of inconsequential branches, spaning all of the habitable world, language is passed along, in all methods and forms forced upon or chosen by, and is here now with and within everyone, including very simple and intricate copies with and within a lot of things. Through a one, two, three point reference, stone, papyrus and parchment, which if and when investigated will produce a great number of other one, two, three points. (Never reached and highly probable never to be reached as a consequence of being triggered into reaching that)
The other example regards eating, and is much more complex to see it as that, and especially understand it as that, yet as very existing fact is uttilised precisely as that consciously and unconsciously by anyone, often by most anyone.
One culture has preserved it in the best and most accurate way, and this is the Chinese culture. Almost all of the features of the service, eating and the cooking in Chinese culture make the example to fit perfectly and unnoticed by most, although used by all.
It regards to a feature which if and when applied or noticed as happening is taken as anything but it's intricate complex and unknown triggered moment in history. The feature is the proximity a dish, any dish, which in itself is often a sub dish or only a part of a dish, including the utensils used to eat, is in regards to one's face and mouth. All of this, in regards to one, two or more people, round table, place, while speaking, not speaking, in regards to any occasion, age, sex or time. In order to sense the unknown consciousness with and within it as a happening, one can make use of it themselves, and while doing observe oneself, observe the silence, the joy, the excitement, the wonder etc etc and especially anger or a threatening volatile situation.
Understanding this very simple yet highly complex, intricate and unknown triggered moment in history, one's consciousness completely unaware as a happening, will in most cases see the exact reality to which it is presented with, although it might look and behave completely different to that which it is, giving one an advantage or a disadvantage.
Creating a state of being where it's senses, feelings, behaviour, emotions, incentives, rewards, trigger structures and extremely often actions are equal to that of a conflict, a physically violent conflict state of being, spreading its range to include a ever increasing habitable space throughout the world, has, is and will simultaneously force all possible types and forms of consciousness to nothing more but pass it through it's corresponding consequential equilibrium structure, achieving more and more numbness and consequently inevitable heirarchical jumps.
I am simply pointing to actual existence. One only has to observe anything, be it a plant, creature, stream, element, and see directly that without no direct or indirect physical interaction such existence is already at a fluctuating motion by itself in search for that equilibrium which if and when happening is impossible to not sense it as beautiful. Even a stone, one can take a stone move it, and one has to wait for an eternity to see it as being in it's rightful place. This is the often state of being which is recognised as peace, a peaceful state, yet fluctuation, natural fluctuation is not peaceful, it can be harmful or not, and it is at such a balance where the few moments of peace can be deducted from and for.
Adding the actual, or the plausible intention of introducing physical and mental violence on top of already fluctuating state of being goes beyond peace, and in doing so triggers it's corresponding consciousness form and type. Doing so under the presupposition of this is life's game, or this is how life is, is false, and not true.
This means that while eating and not animal, one is eating and animal. That is how consciousness works, one cannot disguise the opposite of that which is presenting it as, which in the case of eating is eating, and confrontation is confrontation. All what one can do in order to see it, is to become eating itself and observe eating in turn as being that or something else. Which is exactly what confrontation does, by presenting itself as that which it is not, triggering itself on the other, and maintaining its false part within itself.
Moments of peace within a fluctuating state of being are few and beautiful because such moments are difficult to achieve and be with, it requires often an infinite number of everything for such moments to occur, and an equally good infinite number of everything for such moments to be with.
All is often neglected either by a constant introduction of disruptions in regards to the actual fluctuation to begin with, or the fact that everything which has level's of density, it already possess the ability to achieve such states of beautiful peace as itself. One can think how hard it is truly to make something beautiful, and upon doing so how hard it is for such beautiful to be among all other possible beautiful already in existence or to be made.
The difference is simple and categorically important. Conflict relies on the ability of existence to adopt quickly, giving a possibility to use such quick adoption correctly or incorrectly .
Natural fluctuation relies on the ability of existence reaching a equilibrium, as an ascending and descending heirarchical order through different levels and degrees.
I believe the latter one to have more of everything whereas the first one only a uncertain end especially in regards to it as a conflictual quick adoption.
A conflictual be it as existing or as introductory state requires for one to accept it as such and adopt, which in turn maintains it or increases it. That or accept it as something else and adopt, which maintains it, and increases it to a higher intensity.
A fluctuating state is always existing and requires for one to also be existing with it, moving and waiting for that equilibrium in order to recognise it as beautiful, which in turn gives the ability to put it up with all other beautiful things and see where it stands as equilibrium, meaning is it really that.
Regardless of denial science has always worked in two ways which are the known aplicabilities of consciousness, and there is only one country which applies one of such ways as it's rule of law foundation to this day. (With the caveat of a lot of people knowing and considering such state as an evil one).
The ways are...
(1) Being, stated as being, and proof of such state.
(2) Stated as being, being what, and proof of what being.
Logic, philosophy among other insignificant things fallow such a way. In understanding this, it is much easier to see where a conflictual attitude will benefit more than an equilibrium while fluctuating attitude.
One gets you laid, the other everything gets laid.
© EMIR
May 9/2024
Virgo is a more forceful speaker. Australian Aboriginals have their own laws developed over perhaps 60,000 years.
It is only after 200 years of occupation and genocide that the Native Title Act was passed after a long struggle and discrimination.
The sound makes me sad. Why couldn't they have used a clip on??
not the only subject but the teachers will keep it real with ya if u ask
I'm glad Professor Virgo saw Legally Blonde - the film with Reese Witherspoon. That bit about Aristotle was taken directly from the film.
I would be interested to hear, of those learning or studying law, who are reading this, ..... what are your principles? What is most important, what is true or what is profitable,.......doing what you know to be right, or doing that will help your client 'win'?
I would appreciate hearing from those that are 'reading' or 'practising' law as to their approach or intent
Interesting debate. (Except for the constant coughing) this debate is very insightful for those who want to study law in university. And my takeaway is that: the study of law in university, the study of other humanities, and life experiences are all equally important in developing legal reasoning and enriching our minds with more sound arguments to develop laws that uplift the people regardless of social and economical standing.
His medics argument is so terrible, let alone in the country that has the NHS.
I knew the Professor was misrepresenting Lord Sumption
Great points. It made me think of William Jame's article on the social value of the college-bred. Well worth a read
Indeed, "It all depends" be-cause-effect, self-defining Actuality of QM-TIMESPACE In-form-ation substantiation, which is lawfully, a relative-timing here-now-forever, Singularity-point existence.
All the rest is Commentary.
May be, you are right. A lecturer's helping you will be timely, if he explains that we should consider law in different contexts. Not only in the buildings of the universities. To practise law, as i see it, means to view it in the various aspects of our life.
There is another point. Most law students study the basics such as eg contract and tort law in their first years at university. By the time they get to do their solicitors or bar finals courses it’s way out of date anyway. Law is constantly changing. In my experience the most successful practitioners came into law after a non-law first degree. Then, when you do the finals, the one year immersion in law is still relatively fresh. As Lord Sumption says, it’s mainly about facts. What do 18 year olds know about the facts of contractual agreements anyway? Apart maybe from a mobile phone, a pint in the pub or Viz at the newsagent.
Good insight into law. Why not be a barrister then go into chimney sweeping, cough, cough?
Second part
Within both cases, scum is extremely present, this means one can be it, carry it, take it, give it, avoid it, buy it, sell it, steal it, be afraid of it, join it, adopt it as a profesion, as skill, have it as obstacle, addiction, desire, fetish, collect it, clean it, be drawn to it, be disgusted by it, be healed and protected by it, die and develop disease from it, profit from it, suffer and get punished for it, get poisoned by it, get nourished from it.
It can even be as a race, colour, religion, ideology, sex, nationality, education, behaviour and age. It is always at hand to be deployed as a thought, logically wished heart fully, and believed consciously.
It as a name will be directed and undirected through as many other supposedly uncorrelated names, which ultimately state the core underlying structure of scum, be it the direct empirical physical one, or the direct concept as a physical manifestation, nonetheless both cases empirical one.
As it physically can be seen and through the linguistic explanation given and referred here, I, myself, throughout all of my life I have had absolutely no problem with scum as a consequence of its very in the present physical form of being, making it pointless and impossible to have a problem with, be the one as a direct physical form or the concept physical form.
Meaning ....I have been one, often I am one, I know one and one knows me, I have eaten one, one has eaten me, slept with and as one, stolen one, have one stolen from me, run towards one, way from another, overpowered one, and been very afraid and overpowered by another, I have lied as one, and told of another as one, I am to my family, friends and strangers as one, and family, friends and strangers are to me as one, I walk as one on one, my house is full of, I clean lots form it, other places I go are exactly the same, I wash off some, and don't wash off any, I could die from one, and one could die from me as one, I have and most likely will believe and love one, and one has and most likely will believe and love me as one, and on and on.
The problem and my whole focus regards to something else altogether, the else I am extremely attentive towards by now, in regards to scum, and this can only be described, worded and explained with one word, a very none existing existing word, being the one imagine, which if and when "thought" over, automatically gives a different something else to scum, with the else part being none existing, which is(imaginary scum).
Imaginary scum is by far the most extreme, complex, intricate, complicated completely in the shadows as a shadow, moving faster than the wind none existing concept I am aware and conscious off at my degree and level.
One which always manifests physically but it is impossible to state so, simply because of the imaginary shield part, making it nonsensical if and when doing so, that is declaring it as scum.
For most of my life the present physical existence part of being is what I was taught and learned to look out for in regards to scum, and within many cases, be rightly or wrongly afraid off, neglecting and ridiculing often the imaginary part.
Now I have changed my way of thinking. I am still attentive and look out for the physical existence part of being while simultaneously being rightly or wrongly afraid off, but the imaginary part of scum has made a serious understandable impression and consequential impact, one from which there is no turning back now.
The most impressive part of the imaginary scum regards to it not having the illegality or the sinful part applicable to it, simply because it is imaginary, meaning it does not exist, which in turn you cannot call it a sinn or even right and wrong.
Within the most categorical simple terms, this is presented and is used as holy, clean, just, morally right, light, honest, truth, beautiful, correct and much much more.
It is fascinating, it achieves in doing so by taking a, any and all possible combinations of physically present scum and applying the imaginary part to all of it making disappear just like that, which really discriminates against anyone who has ever attempted to clean scum, be it theirs or others with their own hands.
Whereas the physically present part of scum cannot do that, simply because it is there always present, in fact it does not need or even try to do that if and when it is truly existing. Day after day wether static or moving as a life form it is there and wether one considers it holy, clean, just, morally right, light, honest, truth, beautiful, correct and much much more or absolutely not, it makes no difference at all in it's regards, only in regards to anyone involved with considering.
Thousands of years ago, one could become scum automatically simply through association, because of the imaginary concept part, in fact the thought process still exists under the supposedly most logical sentence (show me whom you are staying with, and I will tell you who you are.) Imagine asking and saying that to a rubbish collector, or a morg operator during a pandemic.
Thousands of years ago, one could be literal out casted from all possible cultural settings simply by association with musicians, dancer's, stone workers, shepherds, farmers, fisherman, prostitute's, even tax collectors, and who knows how many other peofesions which automatically included the illegality, sinful and disease part simultaneously making one extremely unholy scum.
Yet everyone had no choice but to make use of a, any and all possible combinations of services deriving of the illegal, sinful and diseased scum, and this can only be achieved through applying the imaginary part of and when required to do so. Making the imaginary part more powerful and more dangerous than the physical part, in fact I now considered it to be the truly illegal, sinful and diseased part off and by a, any and all possible combinations of actual physical scum existing structures.
Imaginary scum is so powerful and dangerous that it can take, in fact it has taken all what was considered physical in structure scum, and turned it into imaginary scum, meaning it has taken the illegality, sinful and the diseased part away from, leaving a, any and all possible combinations of always existing physical in structure scum prepetualy stuck in being as such, always illegal, always sinful, and always diseased.
Now imagine sin saying to sin you are sin, crime saying to crime you are crime, and disease saying to disease you are disease. At such a point even the old most reliable drawing a line on the ground and saying...(He who is without sin let them throw the first stone) sentence is of no use anymore, because it simply means suicide, being that more likely than not, anyone holding a stone, is under the imaginary scum concept of being as such, leaving the very physical held stone to do nothing else but fallow its logical physical existence part.
As off now imaginary scum is being given as a civilisation must, presented and taken for an antidote to physical existence scum, discriminating against one and elevating one. With the strange part of one existing no matter what and the other not being there until.
There is another part which makes imaginary scum even more powerful and dangerous and this regards to the build up structure and concept.
Physical scum can only do so much build up, before it is addressed in either natural transformation or correction. Imaginary scum can surpass such built up to unimaginable levels and degrees simply because it is imaginary until the physical parts doing and being highly involved in the imaginary part, suddenly, with the sudden part appearing as a suprise supposedly, logically, through faith, believe, premonition etc etc considers a, any and all possible combinations of physical manifestations to such imagined imaginary parts, a very must in existence, and in being within possession of extreme levels and degrees of power, and danger, such manifestations often resemble just like war and conflicts.
I am aware and conscious of this because I finally think it would be useful for myself at a certain point said and thought anyone, to adopt a most imaginary scum structure like most, meaning apply the imaginative part accordingly and correspondingly, while always keeping a lookout for the physical existence part of being.
Which as it stands and offered means everyone for themselves, the law accordingly and God for everyone. That is as imaginary imagine one can physically be, including the problem of because being is not imaginary, it can be, yet it is not, it never is.
© E.D
May 8 2024
what was meant by criminals and picking limited pockets? is this a reference to the fact its not about just-us (justice) but rather financial gain or isit about over charging to limit ppl knowing the law when it should be free and taught in schools for free without exception as man that does not know hes rights, has no rights at all!
***** Our rights are fairly few and are largely known to most people; I think incorporating the contents of a law degree into the free education system would be overkill in that regard.
Professor Virgo brilliantly dismantled Lord Sumption's arguments.
Loving Sumption saying it should be taken as a second degree, as I am taking law as a second degree now lol so I am biased. I don't know how much more depressing my life would've been if my time learning about human achievements in world war 2 and the life of Caesar in my early adulthood were replaced by the million different ways killing someone isn't technically murder and is instead, a million other different crimes.
i am going to start gdl soon. I infact agree that llb is waste because medics and engineers are more analytical ,imaginative and thinking ahead. i have bachelors in computer science engineering and master of?research in biomedical engineering. I cant see a meagre llb student cant have research ability than me
You must be a simpleton
At which point in the video does he say that?
Authority
Or Thor Writ He
At first I found it hard to understand why Virgo got whoops of appreciation from the audience before he had said a word. I found his arguments weak and specious. Drawing out specific points to make them general, not addressing the points as put to him, this is without mentioning his ad hominems. He is sneering and condescending, really not a generous participant. I didn't enjoy listening to his argument at all, especially when he reiterated the terms of the debate initially, the terms which he himself arranged which presumably thought afforded him the best chance of 'winning'. It became clear to me why he was appreciated by the audience when he played to the gallery and attacked Oxford. He admitted that it was a cheap shot, and I thought, why do it then? Because you're speaking to Cambridge undergraduates. That explains why he made a part of his argument about the cost of studying at university, as if Cambridge law undergraduates haven't, for the most part, just come from fee-paying schools. It isn't Oxford that came off badly in this debate, it is Cambridge and the virgo dude.
I truly believe that law is “over” taught in the school setting. And the principle function of law is at worst a glorified way to be play devils advocate (literally) and at best it’s misguided. Too complicated of a system creates the chaos that it is designed to prevent or eradicate. In reality it’s basically a machine that sorts through our infinite problems. But, only the problems that are put on paper. How can you have a system that works for the overall society when there are literally infinite ways to manipulate the paper system. I feel that law should be passed culturally, organically, tribally. Law should be enforced locally in general. Only commercial transactions should be enforced nationally or globally. Because the only language and principle that is the same across the world and across cultures is numbers. Money. Transaction ledgers. Accounting. Humans should not be treated like numbers unless they ask to be. It’s a soulless existence. In prison they ask for our number EVERY DAY ALL DAY. It’s exhausting. Its like being asked for your social security number 10 times per day and out loud. But it taught me how to quantize this society by seeing a “mini” version of America. Prison became a science experiment. A social canvas. I studied law in prison, and put it and practice to see how it would actually play out in this system that it was designed for. I became very successful in court. But they were always very reluctant to honor their own codes. It was the most bizarre experience I’ve ever had in life. It was hell and demons type of vibe. These people tried to be impervious to the facts and “law.” It took years and multiple trials and appeals to end it all. But ultimately I fell just short of being compensated for my sabbatical in a cell. But the key thing that I learned was the the topic of syllogism. It has no moral prerequisite. It’s a fill in the blank system. Honestly, it’s a little outrageous when I think about it too deeply. The academic study of law is a pure programming. A bending of the logic. If done correctly it should teach one to divide and support both the immoral and moral perspective. This is institutional law. Systematic control that puts in the code to the operating system. Social architects are equivalent to computer programmers. The society that they build is only as moral as the writer of the code. As long as abundant power and money are involved then expect the immoral and greedy to show up. Those are the dark magicians. The ones who want to bend words to do unnatural things in their favor. Call me crazy, but I feel that we could do a better job by governing ourselves in our respective villages and towns. Keep it simple. Keep it concise. The legal system and the “codes” and “high court” is the asset engine to this version of virtual reality. But anyway, I’m a little stoned. God bless
Scire leges, non hoc est verba eorum tenere, sed vim et potestatem. To know the laws, is not to observe their mere words, but their force and power. -Maxim of Law.
Non in legendo sed in intelligendo leges consistunt. The laws consist not in being read, but in being understood -Maxim of Law.
Please fix that TIE!!!
Haha! Thought I was the only who noticed.
Who cares about the damn the. Focus on what's important.
@@braddouglas1621 It's a terrible distraction. He apparently doesn't realize that the tie label is sewn in such a way as to permit the small part to be inserted into and held in place behind the front wider part. Or he could invest in a tie tack or tie bar. He didn't tie it correctly either. The narrow part should never extend below the front wider part.
Agree with Lord Sumption.
Passion for the community betterness an holistic legal minded
28:46
Practice*
Being good lawyer is all about traits suxh as self control not training
For all of his undeniable wisdom, Mr. Virgo submits a fallacious argument for numerous reasons - please allow me to shed some light on one; the analogy between a one year law conversion course and becoming a GP, which Mr. Virgo moots at roughly 29 mins into his rebuttal, is quite simply factually unsound - a better analogy would have been that of, perhaps, an A&E junior (though they remain the dregs no doubt) - one doesn't simply complete there medical degree and then, subject to not being good enough in order to specialize, become a GP of the batt, so to speak - its a rather arduous process, full of much training - however, the result often, but certainly not all of the time, results in a practitioner who doesn't particularly know much and is reliant upon readily accessible data in way of diagnosis. The best GP's that I have ever met are those that have a wider understanding of things - not matter how that understanding is derived - seldom from Med School though.
No as the Law Society does not allow or
Iike peoplebwho know common law which Parliament can not revoke. Statues are the best way to subjugate people. Acts are only allowed if we consent. NO consent no act.
Lord Sumption, I did not understand finally, did the hen make the egg or the egg the hen?
cannot tie a pink tie
15:18
Would the greatest liar please put their hand up.
8:00
THE LAW. pfff.
the law is me.
They should study 📖 law not case law. BAR school isn't law.
quoting legally blond?
I thought Virgo unconvincing: shrill, camp, catty, vaguely lightweight.
I thought Sumption weaselled out of the argument by merely saying: "lawyers can study non-law too". Each to their own.
And what does "vaguely lightweight" mean? Vague lightweight, yes. But vaguely lightweight would simply mean "slightly lightweight".
shabby.
Looks like the cameraman didnt have much imagination...no reaction-shot at ruclips.net/video/uMR1NIEifWM/видео.html
!😂
First part
My full attention at this point will be to give a different way, I believe it to be a natural way of seeing scum. I have always been drawn and attention triggered by scum, plus on top of that I have spent much of my existence seriously understanding it, not in a more or less then others type of meaning as I do not wish to brag about any such achievement as a medal, nor I would like anyone to do so in my direction, thus avoiding an awkward confrontational argument as to who it is the one that understands scum more, but a understanding be it simple or complex is what I aim.
Scum as an English word has no match in regards to other similar words from other languages, I believe it to be a most underrated word although highly and very often used. In regards to myself if and when I have required a very specific and precise word to singly occupy my entire mind, as a hybrid meditation type of technique, scum and the word scum, has by far been the most successful one.
It might not feel so, especially if and when considering the incorrect use of the word scum, but it is the main foundation which supports most, if not all of what I have written, backwards. I believe after I have written in it's regards, to it, as a word and concept, many might use it, and most probably use it exactly as a hybrid meditation type of technique.
Scum in regards to empirical terms is a highly physical concentrated concern, solidified, liquified, oilified, through temperature increase and decrease, humidity increase and decrease, wind friction and all its possible directional movement as a, any and all possible combinations of particles, some of which are extremely small, all the way to small, known often and recognised as dust.
As a concern giving it direct a consequence, scum can be anywhere the conditions enable and disable it, with the best example being none other than within the very physical existence, one which is inescapable in regards to anyone alive or dead, which in this case being is anyone's nose that is..
In fact anyone's nose is built as physical existence purposely, simply, and as importantly in order to not allow scum reach the immune system, which means to protect ones life from inescapable existence.
Based on that, in regards and to all possible technical terms, all matter is a ascending and descending degree and level of density scum.
All one has to do in order to have an example, is stick their own finger up their own nose and investigate, that is dig a bit lighter or bit harder, all depending on the quantity and quality of the scum in existence up their own nose, pick some up and pull it out. Upon doing so, a considerable or not, quantity of scum will be right there on their own finger to observe, and knowing myself to have been as a child, even taste it.
As a concept supported by and off lateral physical structures, in this case biological structures, while simultaneously keeping as a constant initiation, development, maintenance, and enactment, scum is highly representable through human beings.
In terms and regards to human beings scum uses two very distinct yet overlapping categories, one is wholly regarded to direct and indirect illegality, concerning a, any and all possible combinations of legal systems, while the other is wholly regarded to direct and indirect religious, faith, beliefs, ideology and morals representable most likely in the form of sinn or as a sinn.
This means that almost all of the instances the criminality of scum is simultaneously the sinful side of scum, making all crime a sinn. It precisely because such a magnificent overall possible structure, the importance to myself, regards my extremely attentive and personal involvement with scum. It a way of learning about law as a side hustle.