Posts Tagged ‘littlelawlinks’

Daily Little Law Links

November 9th, 2009
  • There is a discussion progressing that Rupert Merdoch, the media overlord, will begin to charge for all his outlets’ online content.  The new development is a story in the FT today that he has some robust plans to protect this content once access is restricted.  It sounds like a boon for some lawyers, as News Corp. produces a lot of content.
{lang: 'en-GB'}

Daily Little Law Links

November 6th, 2009

Welcome to the start of what seems to be a very damp weekend here in north London.

  • First, this report is a clue to what will form the next Cases That Changed Our World… Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.  Yes, I groaned too (for non-law readers, this is one of the first cases taught on a law degree course), but reading down I gained some insightful trivia.  I did not know that Mrs Carlill died in 1942, aged 96 of… irony, possibly.  I wonder if her family know how famous she is?
  • Staying with the BBC, another story about abuse of RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, or the ‘we-thought-1984-was-a-manual-for-goverment’ law, as I think of it) talks about The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which I confess to never having heard of.  As their website seems to suggest they have heard five cases, perhaps that’s unsurprising.
  • More politics than law, but I did enjoy Guido gloating that the guy he got sacked ended up having to pay for Guido to travel down and frustrate him further because he served the papers.  I also think the Prime Minister under cross examination would be wonderful legal theatre.
{lang: 'en-GB'}

Daily Little Law Links

November 4th, 2009
  • Following on from yesterday’s prediction, the suspects in the Italian Rendition case were found guilty in absentia.
  • The Conservative Party’s proposed change to strike ballots needing to be a majority of eligible voters, not just of those that voted has some of the unions spooked  (, and probably for good reason as the actions I’ve been involved with probably wouldn’t have passed this test.*
  • Finally, the BBC get another thumbs up from me for The Cases That Changed Our World on Radio 4 this evening.  It discussed a case of two Quakers on trial in 1670 that had a unique kind of jury-tampering; the judge threatening to kill a member of the jury.   It was the first of four programmes.

I am studiously avoiding the Conservative announcement on Europe and a discussion about Parliamentary supremacy, as there is nothing little about it.  I think I’ll save myself the effort of dusting off Bradley until there are some signs that I am not my only reader.  I’ll leave it at referring both the BBC and Mr Cameron to Chapter 8, as I have the impression both could do with a refresher.

*Spotted on Luke’s Blog whose opinions I enjoy having a private grumble about most mornings.

{lang: 'en-GB'}