What kind of law student are (or were) YOU?

And we want the truth! :D

	What it really means	Burned by	Frequently Says	Try
The ‘I'm seriously conscientious-er’	You’re a caffeine-fuelled boffin.	Serious rejection – that one time.	“You’re so immature!”	Getting laid
The ‘Panicker’	You're mildly neurotic	That time you got things badly wrong	“OMG – I haven’t read all 8 chapters for tomorrow’s seminar!!!”	Taking a chill-pill
The ‘I'm at uni to have a good time-er’	You’re a lazy no-good waster who should have avoided getting into debt by omitting the whole uni experience	Lack of ambition and/or intelligence	“Screw this – I’m heading down the union!!”	Visiting the library / bribing or having sex with your lecturers
The ‘Dreamer’	I’m hoping to stay in academia all my life	Real life	“I don’t see the need for practical contextualisation at all.”	Waking up and smelling the coffee
The ‘Chancer’	You’ve lucked through everything so far in life and if it aint broke, don’t fix it.	Hard work	“I’m going to wing it in tomorrow’s seminar”	Actually working hard for once in your cheating life

Moped rider burns up the streets – literally

From Ananova.com 30/03/10:

A James Bond fan fed up with drivers cutting him up on his moped invented the ultimate gadget to gain his revenge - a 15ft flamethrower.

Colin Furze, 30, from Stamford in Lincolnshire, spent a month converting the 60mph sports scooter in his back garden.

"It's a lot of fun and when I fire the flames out the back it makes me feel just like James Bond," said Mr Furze.

"The flames are pretty big and up to 15 feet long so you could definitely set fire to someone's car if you wanted to.

"The only problem is it can get rather hot if you are riding the moped and blast the flames when the wind is in the wrong direction."

But he added: "I've been told that if I fire the flames while riding on the road it's equivalent to using a fire arm and I could be in a lot of trouble," he said.

Wow. If I found myself driving behind him, I think I’d find myself a lay-by to pull into pretty sharpish.

And it’s not just ‘being in a lot of trouble’, for his homemade flamethrower being equivalent to a firearm that he’ll have to worry about; off the top of my head, I’d say he’d be caught by s6 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 amongst many other things.

University stipulates font for printing emails

From Greenbiz.com 26/03/10:

The University of Wisconsin at Green Bay announced this week that it was switching fonts to save money, from Arial to Century Gothic.

[The University] says that while the change sounds minor, it will save money on ink when students print e-mails in the new font.

Diane Blohowiak is the school's director of computing. She says the new font uses about 30 percent less ink than the previous one.
That could add up to real savings, since the cost of printer ink works out to about $10,000 per gallon.

That's nothing to sneeze at, to be sure. Except for that little part about printing emails.

Who prints emails these days? Why not just disable that function? With the exception of things like concert tickets, boarding passes, and so on, what needs to be printed? 
 
Another, probably more impactful tool for university officials who want to go green: Buy and install printing optimization software that removes unnecessary images, cuts HTML headers from web pages, and prevents printing those one-line or blank pages that so often make their way into printouts.

N.B. Eco Printer Ink and Paper saver can be a Godsend here or for the web, try the Aardvark Firefox extension.

If you're already thinking about switching fonts, why not consider the "eco-font"? By incorporating tiny holes into each character, the company behind ecofont says it saves 25 percent or more of the ink over traditional fonts.

Or what about specialist ink-saving software such as the excellent eco-print or Inksaver. I’ve vouched for this type of software before and seriously, I just couldn’t be without it.

The eco-font idea is kind of funky, particularly as the font displays on-screen without the holes. It is said that it’s the little things in life that can make big changes and I guess mandating a more ink-conservative font when printing emails might be one of them.  It’s also preferable to removing the possibility of printing emails all together, though it wouldn’t surprise me if some overbearing universities choose to go this route in the future.

Failure to wear seatbelt, not contributory negligence

From the Solicitors Journal 03/03/10:

A 16 year-old boy who sat in the front seat of a friend’s car without a safety belt, but with a female friend “on his knee or lap” should not lose a percentage of his damages for contributory negligence, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

William Stanton suffered serious brain damage when the driver, who was also not wearing a belt, lost control of his car driving a group of young people back from a bar in South Yorkshire.

The court heard that Matthew Collinson was driving too fast on a single lane road, at a minimum of twice the 30 mph speed limit, when he hit an oncoming vehicle. He was killed immediately and the car ended up on its roof.

Giving judgment in Stanton v Collinson [2010] EWCA Civ 81, Lord Justice Hughes said the High Court had declined to reduce the damages awarded to Stanton on the grounds that it had not been shown that wearing a belt would have sufficiently reduced his injuries.

Hughes LJ said Collinson was just within the legal alcohol limit at the time of the crash and there was no evidence that Stanton had drunk too much.

“Who was sitting on whom in the front was hotly in issue at the trial, but the judge’s finding, which is not now challenged, was that the claimant had the girl on his lap or knee,” Hughes LJ said.

“Neither had the seat belt on. Nor did the driver or the other passengers wear the belts available.”

Lord Justice Hughes went on: “It seems to me that the decision whether the evidence nevertheless showed, on the balance of probabilities, that a seat belt would sufficiently have reduced the injuries to require a reduction for contributory negligence was a fine one.

“Some judges might, as it seems to me, have been persuaded that this was more likely than not, given the apparent agreement to that effect of both experts, with relevant experience, and given the element of restraint which at least the lap part of a seat belt would have provided.

As Hughes LJ highlighted, the decision whether or not to find that not wearing a seatbelt had amounted to contributory negligence was a fine one – particularly as Stanton remains seriously brain damaged and in need of considerable care since the accident. The real question, perhaps, is whether the judge should have found against the claimant on the grounds of policy. In other words, should he have found that failure to wear a seatbelt did in fact amount to contributory negligence on the basis that such a decision would send out a strong and more meaningful message to the public at large about the undeniable importance of seatbelts.

Choc-Actually: Chocolate Designed with Lawyers in mind

Coming to all good confectioners...

As Donald Trump might say, 'The confectionary industry... it's a big business.  And I want a slice of it ... (or should that be square?)

Introducing a new range of dreamy, creamy chocolate - designed particularly for a lawyer's vices.  Legal professionals, students and graduates  up and down the UK are discovering the revolutionary pleasure sensation that is Choc-Actually.  Made with 78% cocoa, it's sure to deliver 200% pleasure.  With a patented ultra-quiet foil wrapping, it won't give the lawyer with a craving away.  Choc-Actually so sensually satisfying, it never stops at one bar...

Be sure to  get your bar of Choc-Actually today, available at all good confectioners.

Choc-Actually...  Yes it's chocolate.  No actually - really!

What people / obscure publications are saying:

"Just what I needed to get through that deposition", Adrian, 42, slightly bored divorce lawyer.

"God that's good chocolate", 'Nicky', 24, trainee with a magic circle firm.

"I never really thought of chocolate this way before", Susan, 42, legal secretary from Hull.

The Chocolate-Box Review: "It's pure, unadulterated stimuli for the pleasure senses"

Generic Trashy Mag: "Yes, oh Yesssss!!!"

Guilty Pleasures in Chocolate: "it's instant gratification for lawyers - lucky them!".

"Oooh - it set my senses a-tingle", Rosie, 19, Law Student (quite the little madam).

Cocoa-Today: "Takes chocolate to a whole new level.... It's time to reconceptualise the chocolate experience ... [it's] sheer brilliance in a wrapper."

"This much pleasure can't be legal, surely?" - Justice of the Peace from Croydon.

"I just can't get enough, I can't", - Jamie, 25, Licensed Conveyancer from Cardiff.

Another trashy magazine ran with the story, "Legal secretary in shock-sensation ... caught chomping on senior partner's bar".

"You'll want a stock for your desk drawer", - Addictive Lawyers' Bulletin

"Cah-ching: It hits the spot, baby", - Loose Lawyer's Weekly.

"It's crazy, everybody seems to have a bar in lectures, seminars",  and “My lecturer imposes a 10 minute chocolate break during lectures now... it's the pick-me-up we all need - particularly in land law!” say generic students from new university.

"It's utterly choc-tacular" - The Enthused Observationist.

Confessions from a mid-life crisis: "My secretary's always trying to get her hands on mine..."

"It's quick and satisfying under-desk pleasure", says anonymous (and slightly desperate) paralegal, 22 from Rotherham.  "Thank God for that ultra quiet wrapping!"

"Not to be enjoyed judiciously - wow... they got that right", Anon.

"It delivers an instant high for needy law students" says student rep from undisclosed London university.

"Be prepared for ultimate pleasure-addiction", Anon.

"You'll certainly go off on a frolic of your own... who knew chocolate could be this satisfying", says High Court judge from 'the home counties'.

The Modern Barrister: "This is no ordinary chocolate bar - it's more like chocolate for the bar". 

“Seriously Goood!!  .... the client certainly wasn't getting my full attention.  But I don't feel guilty - after all, I'm a lawyer - I've done far worse!  ;-)”,  Rebecca, 27, solicitor with a craving.

Another one bites the dust: ASP Bites bows out

 

In case anybody didn’t see the comment left on Law Actually by ASP, here it is:

Well, I'm afraid to report that the Blawgosphere is now getting ever smaller.
I apologise unreservedly to Michael for using his post in this way, but I need to post things to my fellow blawgers whilst not, for reasons that will become apparent, putting it in the blog.

Over the past few months, I've known that some of my work colleagues have come across and read 'Bites. I, personally, did not see that as a problem. I've been careful with my posts, not referred to people by names, and not mentioned any cases I'm involved in any detail whatsoever.

The problem with blogs though is that it's a very 2-dimensional platform. There's no body language or tone of voice to show how things are intended. People can comment, but generally don't.

Today one of my colleagues, who knows about the blog etc, gave me what I would professionally term as "certain advice". This included a warning that some of posts could even get me struck off - doomsaying I'd think, but not a risk I'd rather take.
I've stewed on these comments all day, and have - with deep regret - taken the decision to close Asp Bites for the forseeable [sic] future.

It's the time of my training contract where the "big decisions" are going to be made as regards September, so I don't need any complications towards that.

I'm not going to vanish. I'll probably still stay around commenting. And I may, when things have settled down, return. But it'll either avoid all mentions of work, or be under a completely new identity and starting afresh.

Many of you have my e-mail addresses and even Michael's my "facebook friend", so do stay in touch. But, I just wanted to explain why I've done what I've done - to stop to rumours of my demise!

There’s no doubt that this will be a real loss to the blawgosphere as ASP has been one of the members of the inner sanctum since I coined the term over 2 years ago.

This isn’t the first time blawgers in the ‘sphere have ran into difficulties; off the top of my head, I know that Pooni’s had trouble, Andro had a couple of run-ins during interviews, Legally Ginge quickly wound up her blog after being ‘found out’. And I’m sure there have been others.

One thing that did occur to me in this is that perhaps the simple solution would have been to not have blogged about about work. Another option may be found in bloggers better maintaining their anonymity?  Or maybe that spoils all the fun?!

So I think I’ll throw this one out to the sphere and ask, ‘was ASP right to take a breather from blawging?’

Favourite stories of the day

Here are two of my favourite news stories that have been floating about today:

From The Register 24/03/10:

"Facebook gives you the clap: Official"

The sharp rise in syphilis cases in Teesside has been partially attributed to social networking sites which incautious locals are trawling in search of casual sex.

According to the local Evening Gazette, the number of reported cases jumped to 30 last year, up from less than 10 in 200 8. Professor Peter Kelly, executive director of public health for NHS Tees, said that "reports from doctors and nurses diagnosing and treating patients suggest some sufferers are using social networking sites to find and arrange meetings with new lovers".

Now I'm a FB user, let's hope I won't be doing my own stint in the STD clinic.

And secondly this brarmer from the Guardian:

The police have issued a warning for harassment against an airport worker after he allegedly took a photo of a female colleague as she went through a full-body scanner at Heathrow airport.

The incident, which occurred at terminal 5 on 10 March, is believed to be the first time an airport worker has been formally disciplined for misusing the scanners.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "Police received an allegation regarding an incident that happened at Heathrow Terminal 5 on March 10. A first-instance harassment warning has been issued to a 25-year-old male."

The BAA employee took a photo of his co-worker, Jo Margetson, when she inadvertently went through a scanner.

"I can't bear to think about the body scanner thing," she told the Sun. "I'm totally traumatised. I've spoken to the police about it. I'm in too much of a state to go to work."

 

But I really love the headline comparison for this story between the Guardian and the Sun:

"Airport worker given police warning for 'misusing' body scanner"

and

"I love those gigantic t**ts"