I've got my graduation for my LLM coming up next week which should be interesting.  Personally, I don't think that holding it in the depths of winter is a great idea – and is causing my GF no end of trouble when trying decide on her outfit.  

I remember graduation time last year and just what disruption it caused: my competition seminar had to decamp over to the maths faculty at the far-flung reaches of the campus as our usual room had been suddenly made-over as a photo studio.  There were people milling about every which way and getting anywhere within the law school was a huge struggle.

It seems strange to have the ceremony so long after the degree was, to all intents and purposes, done and dusted. Things have moved on considerably since I submitted my dissertation last September: we've moved house, I've a new job, am thoroughly out of 'student mode' and, well, my LLM seems like a distant memory.  But a very pleasant one.

We went back into my university city yesterday on a shopping spree. One of the shops was virtually next to the law school so it was the first time I'd been 'back on track' as it were, since exam period last summer.  Walking that route brought back a lot of good memories from my LLM.  :D

I was thinking a while back, if I'd do it all again - knowing what I know now.  To go through the pain, hassle and sacrifice; trying to fit the endless studying around my part-time job at the time; the extra expense; the added stress. 

In fairness, though, it didn't take a whole lot of thinking about.  Of course I'd do it again!

Like a shot!!  :D

Being a leftie myself, I’ve long had to suffer the ridiculous and trite comments that people make when they see you’re left handed. 

So I can certainly relate to this graph which I stumbled across on Digg but, for me, the most frequent response I hear is:

“oh, so you’re a leftie/left-handed, then?”

To which I usually reply something like:

“There’s no getting past you, is there?” or “only on Tuesdays and Thursdays” or something equally ridiculous.

I’ve never considered myself a fully-fledged leftie, though.  I write with my left hand, am a left handed sportsman (except when I try and pick a fight because the game didn’t go my way) but I’ve always used scissors in my right hand and a computer mouse.

Of course, this doesn’t make me ambidextrous – just a bit mixed-up and awkward, I guess.  As my music-come-cricket teacher used to describe me, “right handed musician, left handed bat". 

I wasn’t much use at either though.  Perhaps I should have swapped around!!

From the Telegraph 02/02/10:

Christine Cuddihy, 24, was stunned when a checkout assistant refused to sell her the 51p piece of cheese and onion tart because “she looked under 21”.

In the end Miss Cuddihy, who was hungry, produced her driving licence in order to make the purchase.

She said: “The girl told me: 'You don't look over 21. I need to see some proof of age.'

''I told her I was certain the proof of age laws do not apply to quiche but she just said: 'We have to be really strict now and this applies to quiche bought over the counter.'

I know this one has been doing the rounds a lot in the last couple of days. I first read about it in the trusty Metro on my way to work on Wednesday and I know a couple of other blawgers have picked up on it.

For me, this story highlights everything that’s wrong with age-restricted goods training ran by companies.  Employees are typically given a 5 second blast of ‘you can’t do this or else…’  in which employers try and put the fear of God into their employees without imparting a grounding of why and how that training should properly be put into practice.

If a touch more time was taken, the true reasons behind why these age restricted laws are in place were explained and more trouble taken to explore the context in which those laws apply, not only will the employees leave with a better understanding of the problems that age restrictions are intended to combat but it would stop silliness like this from occurring in the first place.

Also, for employees to engage their brain whilst at work tends to help a lot.  ID-ing someone over a quiche – I mean, honestly!!!???

A curious little matter dropped onto my desk last week - one of many at the moment, actually; there just don't seem enough working hours in the day.

Essentially, it seems that we provided communication services to firm of solicitors who are now subject to an Intervention under s35 and Schedule 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974.  We were approached by the firm who are acting as Intervention Agents on behalf of the Solicitors Regulation Authority to confirm detailed information about our client and re-direct their phone lines to the offices of the Intervention Agents. Initially, I found out, these requests were made via a phone call to the support dept. and then, when information was not forthcoming from that member of staff, a firmly word fax hinting that they were on the cusp of applying for a court order to compel us to provide the information required.

Being the most cautious of all risk-averse people, my data protection spiny senses were initially sent into overdrive at the mere thought of all this.

I did a little research as to exactly what our obligations were, checked out the firm acting as Intervention Agents and the firm being investigated.  My preliminary research bore their fax and phone calls out.

A quick flick through the Solicitors Act didn't seem to reveal anything as to what our obligations were to provide this information and how it sat with the relevant Data Protection legislation. I was left with no alternative then, than a rummage through the depths of the Data Protection Act, something I hadn’t done in well over a year, since early on in my LLM. It didn’t take me long to find that this situation pretty much fell squarely under s31 of the Act, covering exemptions from the Subject Information Provisions in relation to regulatory activity.

So that was more or less that then.  I was shocked at how prominently the firm being investigated featured on the web from previous clients who’d had their fingers burnt.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, I also found that they were featured on the Solicitors From Hell website. I’d not heard of this site until last Thursday; since then, I’ve noticed that Charon QC and Aimless Wanderer have both mentioned it. I should imagine that a lot of lay people out there believe that all firms of solicitors should feature on that site!!

Still, this bit of excitement made a change from drafting and reviewing endless contracts, resolving number portability conundrums and advising on stuff under the Communications Act – plus strategising how to prod, poke or otherwise coerce OFCOM into action over a specific issue.

Geeklawyer for his beautifully-put response to yet another personal injury ad request:

I’d rather have my bol­locks chewed off by a bad tem­pered rot­tweiler with a taste for slow pain, than have a bunch of low-life ambu­lance chasers taint my site with their ads.

Perfect!  :D

From Right Side News.com 25/01/10:

Baker said she worried about "the increase in laws that make it difficult to run an open network," especially rules about content.

"You suddenly become liable for anything that gets downloaded, whether it's legal or not," she said. "If you said to a municipality, if you build a road, you have to guarantee nothing illegal happens on it - that's what's happening on the Internet now. So that's the kind of regulatory disruption that's going to have some long-term consequences."

Wacky hair-dos aside, I’ve nothing particularly against Mitchell Baker.  And yes, that’s despite her recent efforts in spearheading unreasonable demands in relation to the ‘ballot screen’ idea for Microsoft to include with further versions of Windows to better allow other browsers to compete on a level playing field.  Kind of.  As head of Mozilla, I guess that’s her prerogative. 

What I don’t get is why she’s come out with this ridiculous analogy, which crumbles to pieces on even the most cursory of glances. 

Finding the correct regulatory balance is one of the challenges in any sphere of modern life.  Governmental regulation can often overstep the mark and it must be kept in check.  My grievance with Baker is that her comments were wholly unsubstantiated – she didn’t even try and back her point up with examples.  Far from those ‘running networks’ being held liable, recent developments point the other way: that end users are being held more and more responsible for their contact rather than the organisations offering services to them through which their spurious behaviour is conducted.

ISPs continue to fly under the radar through the exception to liability under the heading of ‘mere conduit’ and just last week, the  outcome of the OiNK case saw the site’s creator escape the teeth of national regulators.

Regulation of the net is inevitable and vital.  Of course it shouldn’t be arbitrarily done and, where possible, competitive forces should be harnessed to regulate efficiently.  But Baker’s points were poorly made and not backed up in the slightest - which detracts from the underlying worthiness of the cause.

Trying to compare national regulators who seek to hold road builders responsible for the conduct of road users with situations on the internet is a terrible example.  This oversimplification does nothing to try and help find the correct regulatory balance and just makes Baker look a trifle silly – with or without that bizarre hair cut.

I had this gem drop into my inbox a few days ago (it was the Digital Economy Bill Newsletter):

Rural communities and hard to reach areas who do not have access to next generation broadband will benefit from a share of £1 billion of Government investment said Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson today.

The investment will upgrade the UK’s digital infrastructure to bring super-fast broadband to 90% of the country, essential if the UK is to remain globally competitive as estimates suggest that private investment will only reach up to 70% of the population by 2017.

The Next Generation Fund will provide the UK with a world class communications network to bolster innovation and services in digital content.

The Government is now consulting on the most effective way to deploy the investment.

Oh goody.

I've been bitching about this stuff for a while now, particularly since my house move in October last year which was to just outside one of the south-west's cities, only to find that my broadband connection would be 512 mbps at best.  The fact that this should be classed as the 'middle of nowhere' in broadband availability terms was even more surprising given that my parents can receive a far superior connection down in the darkened depths of Cornwall. 

Digital inclusion and access to broadband for all is a hot topic and (inevitably) something of a political fighting ground at the moment.  I went along (on work-related duties) to the Parliament and Internet Conference last October - ironically just days before I moved house - where better access to high quality broadband and increased inclusion of those currently excluded from the wonders of cyberspace were high on the agenda.

Ed Richards (CEO of Ofcom) Stephen Timms (Minister for Digital Britain) and Martha Lane Fox (Chair of the Digital Inclusion Task Force), who all gave speeches, collectively dedicated a good  portion of time to just these issues.

I also attended the Ofcom Draft Annual Plan meeting in London last week which mentioned a bit more of the same - albeit in rather vague terms, as seems Ofcom's style.  Problems with access to decent broadband featured heavily on Ofcom's priorities for 2010: 'progress on broadband and mobile not-spots' and 'support of the Digital Participation Consortium' (both under the head of 'Consumer and Citizen') and 'support of effective competition and efficient investment in super-fast broadband' under the Competition category.

They also outlined potential powers granted under the Digital Economy Bill (should it become law in its current form) with duties/powers to oversee the universal delivery of broadband - whatever that means. 

Finland, of course, are taking all of this a step further by making access to decent-ish broadband (1 mbps) a human right by July 2010 and potentially increasing this 100 mbps by 2015. 

I guess this makes the UK's efforts look more like a catch-up exercise rather than leading the way forward.
 
Nothing new there then.