I've been racking my brains for how on earth I'm going to plan, research, write, re-write, re-write again, then sumbit this first law assignment. My tutor's advice (which I believe is sound) is "not to overthink it". It 'ain't my first rodeo, not by a long shot, and this should be like shootin' fish, a walk in the park, easy meat. However, I have several concerns and reservations. Firstly: every mark counts. I have to get a first (which means getting 86% or more on each essay [at very many other universities you only need 70%]). My marks have been steadily improving, but I will not settle for less than a first. The chances are I probably won't get a first (though I might...). I have to. Why? It's a book I read by Peter Hennessey (not one of his more notable works on law or politics, interestingly, this one's about nuclear war: The Secret State). Hennessey discusses the infamous "Cambridge Five" and in his discussion of them, it is quite plain that in this country, you don't get anywhere unless you get a first. I'll be back in McDonald's before I know it. A degree in classical Latin? A master's? Now a law degree? All they mean, in this country, is that you work in McDonald's. That's it. It is not a civilised country (though it pretends - and pretends very well - to be). There is no point in becoming university educated, here, now, in Dark Age Britain, unless you get a first. That's the reality. People may tell you otherwise, but they don't know what they're talking about.
I remember seeing one hard-nosed industrialist (himself not university educated) from up north somewhere, and he says to his interviewees: "Why didn't you get a first? You should have got a first, you're lazy." This is evidence that there is absolutely no point in becoming university educated, unless you get a first. Sure, elsewhere in the world you can do something other than unskilled labour with three degrees, but not in Dark Age Britain. In fact, I know, personally, several people with multiple degrees, distinction students, and they all do unskilled labour for minimum wage, here, now, in Dark Age Britain. That's the reality, not f-ing Rainbowland. (It makes me think I should have studied English Lit', Documentary Photography [cop out subjects] or Music [something I already know a great deal about, having been a professional musician for more than twenty years]). Now, if you're some nobby prick that never did a day's work in your life (such as our former Prime Minister, for example - the one which was booted out for sleaze), you don't need a first, but for the rest of us, you do.
So, I've been over thinking this essay, and over thinking it, and overthinking it. However, in overthinking it, I've read a lot, and made notes. I haven't read as much as I should have (mainly because I'm six episodes away from finishing watching all five seasons of Breaking Bad - which is a great show by the way, in case you haven't seen it [though it's still nowhere as good as House of Cards - British or American]). Anyhow, I've ordered a bunch of books, and am drilling my way through them steadily. Here are a list of the following titles I have invested in recently:
Public Law (Elliott and Thomas, OUP, 2nd ed.) [Public Law 3rd ed. is the set text for this course]
Complete Public Law (Webley and Samuels, OUP, 4th ed.)
Blackstone's statutes: Public Law and Human Rights (only the 2019 ed.)
Plato: The Statesman (trans. Skemp [for old time's sake])
Aristotle: Politics (only Jowett's trans.)
Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution Albert Venn Dicey (8th ed. [1915 - his last edition before he died])
The Spirit of the Laws Charles Montesquieu (trans. Nugent) [I also invested in a commentary, in French]
Nothing But the Truth (The Secret Barrister)
Stories of the Law and How it's Broken (The Secret Barrister)
Fake Law (The Secret Barrister) [these last three are purely for practical purposes]
A.V. Dicey and the Common Law Constitutional Tradition: A Legal Turn of Mind (by Mark Walters Cambridge University Press)
That last one is (probably) going to be the subject of my essay (well, a scalding book review of it, and only because that is more recent 2022, as opposed to 2020). By extension, it will be about Dicey's Study of the Law of the Constitution (someone I am particularly interested in). We have to choose a case study for one part of the assignment, so I have chosen Jackson v Attorney General (2006). This is because it relates to parliamentary sovereignty (one of the five choices for the rubric). I almost went for the rule of law, but I feel that parliamentary sovereignty is more topical (basically because the Lord Advocate Dorothy Bains mentioned Dicey very recently in the context of parliamentary sovereignty, in her first session before the Supreme Court on the 11th of October: Reference by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 (UKSC 2022/0098)). I did notice, that she also mentioned the Jackson case, so this all ties in nicely (well, almost, because in truth her case was about a referendum, and when she cited Dicey, she did not cite his Study of the Law of the Constitution but another article he had written). In any case, I'm overthinking things, as per usual.
Hades is not worth mentioning. However, while in the supermarket today I happened to be browsing the bakery section when a rather comely looking lady and I met. We locked eyes and smiled. I was somewhat timid, so went to another aisle. Suddenly, she appeared next to me, stopped where I stopped. Then, when I went to the checkout, she chose the one immediately next to me, and began singing (at low volume). I don't know if this was merely coincidence, but I sometimes play music in this town, sometimes the piano, sometimes the guitar, and I always sing. It may be nothing. She was perhaps in her early thirties, and works among nature. It is, at least, nice to know that I appear attractive to a member of the opposite sex, her age (and she was really quite beautiful).
No comments:
Post a Comment