lawyer, mother, tired.
2 stories
·
1 follower

Photos

15 Comments and 53 Shares
I hate when people take photos of their meal instead of eating it, because there's nothing I love more than the sound of other people chewing.
Read the whole story
janojanojano
3051 days ago
reply
Relevant to my current situation.
Sydney
Share this story
Delete
12 public comments
infini
3053 days ago
reply
Give the man a big hand, folkses!
Asia, EU, Africa
jhollowaygmailcom
3055 days ago
reply
Infrrf
Brighton
GuuZ
3059 days ago
reply
Spot on!
ktgeek
3060 days ago
reply
As an avid photographer and as someone who also just likes to enjoy experiences, I understand both sides of the starting argument. However, nothing drives me more nuts than someone telling me I'm "doing it wrong" when there isn't really a right way to do something and it doesn't effect that third party.
Bartlett, IL
dbt
3030 days ago
Yeah, I don't mind people taking pictures, just holding their phone up in front of me at a concert.
Michdevilish
3060 days ago
reply
A Kodak moment
Canada
MourningDragon
3060 days ago
reply
Exactly!
adamgurri
3060 days ago
reply
boom.
New York, NY
Satri
3060 days ago
reply
Interesting...
Montreal, Canada
JayM
3060 days ago
reply
Heh.
Atlanta, GA
soren
3060 days ago
reply
Fair point, although there's also "a photo-taking-impairment effect" from photographing events you'd like to remember.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/12/04/0956797613504438.abstract
llucax
3060 days ago
Very interesting!
ruthherrin
3060 days ago
Neat! Thanks for the link.
ameel
3060 days ago
reply
:)
Melbourne, Australia
trparky
3060 days ago
reply
"I hate when people take photos of their meal instead of eating it, because there's nothing I love more than the sound of other people chewing."
sjk
3060 days ago
I concur. Hearing shutter sounds is preferable to hearing people chewing and slurping and crunching. Blech!
fxer
3060 days ago
Of course, you'll get the slurping no matter what, photography only delays the inevitable. Like Judgement Day!

The Lord Chancellor must resign

1 Comment

Don’t post in anger, I resolved many years ago. Wait for calm and let any fury in the writing be calculated, I thought. It was, and is, a wise rule. But today I am prepared to make an exception.

Today was the day a Lord Chancellor made a public announcement that people who were or might be presumed to be opposed to Government policy, should be prevented from bringing judicial review claims and that he was introducing proposals to bring this about.

Today was the day a Lord Chancellor stated, pretty much explicitly, that the rule of law should not be allowed to ‘disrupt Government policy’ and he intended to make sure it didn’t.

We knew that Grayling was not a lawyer. Famously the first Lord Chancellor not to be a lawyer since the 17th century. His appointment has been described by Sir Stephen Sedley in these terms

The decision in 2012 to put a political enforcer, Chris Grayling, in charge of the legal system carried a calculated message: the rule of law was from now on, like everything else, going to be negotiable.

While the assault on legal aid has had clear political motivations lurking under the banal justifications of ‘no money, dear boy’, lip service was always paid to the principle of rule of law and access to justice – the practice being another matter entirely.

But Grayling has taken off the fig-leaf. This is now expressly about limiting, or avoiding challenges to state power.

As I read Grayling’s poisonous words, drafted by some ambitious, unctuous, amoral SPAD perhaps but approved by him, and his triumphant assertion that Judicial Review must not be allowed to interfere with Government policy, which is, but of course, ‘for the good of the country’, I hear the distant pitter patter of jackboots and the opening solo of ‘Tomorrow Belongs To Me’.

Grayling has demonstrated utter contempt for the rule of law and for his office as Lord Chancellor. He must resign from that office.

[There is, of course, a consultation on 'reform' of judicial review also announced today. One might well take the view that the consultation is heavily coloured by Grayling's public pronouncement.]

[Also, I understand that Grays Inn made Grayling an honorary bencher. So, Grays Inn, a decision you may wish to reconsider? Conduct unbecoming? ]

Read the whole story
janojanojano
3181 days ago
reply
Excellent short piece from @nearlylegal. Outrage required.
Sydney
janojanojano
3181 days ago
Right, so that was meant to be a share on twitter!
Share this story
Delete