Thought becomes Action; the Fight for Legal Diversity

This evening, I wrote a letter to the local MP, Douglas Hogg, regarding the recent decision to increase the cost of the Legal Practice Course and the Bar  Vocational Exam. Below, I have copied the letter I wrote.

Dear Douglas Hogg,

I was quite distressed to learn of the numerous law schools and their
decision to increase the fees regarding the Legal Practice Course and
the Bar Vocational Exam.

The Legal Week reported that law schools in London were raising their
fees by 9% to £12,500. Others suggested that an increase of between
4.7% and 9% were being introduced.

What I fail to understand is how, considering the economic climate,
these businesses can continue to operate under such pretences.

One must assume that these businesses are attempting to return to a
Victorian view of law which assumed solicitors, barristers, magistrates
and judges were all high-class citizens who upheld the law and fought
on the side of justice.

It is presenting itself as a creation of an elitist judicial system
that rewards wealth and power, much rather than intelligence and hard
work.

How are students of lower class backgrounds expected to enter into a
profession which is working so hard to promote 'diversity' when each
hurdle they overcome shows another one in sight?

As a barrister yourself, I would hope that you would be concerned about
this. How is the Government going to respond to this injustice?

Is it out of your hands?

I have created a petition which I hope will gain support over the
coming weeks and I would like to add your name to the list of
supporters.

If you wish to visit the petition, I would be eternally grateful.

http://www.petition.co.uk/the_fight_for_legal_diversity

Yours sincerely,
Ian Caithness

This is a serious matter. 

We must act now.

We cannot allow ourselves to be dictated according to the whims of these businesses. If we stand as a collective audience against these prices, we can make a difference.

Economies of Political Struggle [Article]

As the consortium of world powers meet once more in the hopes that their influence upon world banking will deter the crises of economic disaster, we must once more consider several questions, all of which are of crucial importance. First, we must consider who is to blame for this sudden shift in economics when, mere months ago, we were at an economic high. In the United Kingdom, it is stated that the regulations and rules of the 'economic genius' Gordon Brown are held to blame, considering the fact that it was during his period of rule that we were granted economic stardom, however, his shift from one position to the other has meant that guidelines which were once considered the framework of economic growth are now considered the foundation of our downfall. Others look towards the banks with high-risk investments and the attainment of power being to blame. According to some, the banks invested in some of the riskier loan agreements and mortgages which therefore influences the downfall of the world's economy. In truth, both responses are correct, however, we failed to point the finger at one other person to blame - ourselves.

One of the problems that we have is that we continue to desire short-term prospects and discard the long-term disadvantages. In fact, it is this statement which was our downfall. As the economic crises fell upon us, we deemed it appropriate to blame Gordon Brown when, in fact, we are to blame. We desired low-rate bank loans which resulted in inflation. As the cost of food rose, we found it appropriate to blame the banks because their refusal to raise interest rates meant that investments were not reaping the rewards. As the commercial cost of oil rose to its highest recorded figure, we could not help but blame the world. In fact, all these problems are rooted in our demands. We demanded low taxes and as a result, the concept of universal benefits was reconsidered. Investment in failing state responsibilities such as education and hospitals meant that the budget could not allow for interest increases. The cost of living rose because we have become a commercial society.

That being said, it is not the only question to ask. We must also ask what it means for us. The nationalisation of three banks in England has a huge impact in terms of our finances and the economic status of this country. It is quite frightening to learn that Lloyds TSB are purchasing HBOS - bank takeovers are not a promising sign for the economy. What we must understand is that we are all shareholders in the nationalised banks. Gordon Brown declared that he desired that banks to return to their '2007 state', which is the root of the problem. He desires to implement low-rate mortgages in order to protect the public and also increase the turnover of their investment in housing. As the property market crashed in the early months of 2008, Gordon Brown desires to see first-time buyers and investors making their voices heard in the property market.

In terms of the long term impact, there is little that can be said, except that our budget is now focused upon the ownership and control of the English banking system. We have invested approximately £20 billion into the economy, at the cost of other important industries. The Royal Mail, for example, continues to fail to meet its targets and is a nationalised corporation, although there has been talk of privatisation. The NHS, the English health-care system, is in billions of pounds of debt and yet the government has failed to invest the same amount of money which it has invested in the economy. Of course, the investment in the economy may delay the shift from recession to depression but there is clear evidence that this investment will cost us in the future. There will be the prospect of an increase in taxation, disproportionate budgeting and the concept of a 'one world bank' once more being raised and considered.

Having said that, the investment does have its advantages. Gordon Brown is now said to be improving in his character, due to being in his 'element' during the economic crises, which helps to promote national morale. Gordon Brown has also declared that the decrease in the cost of oil should be reflected in the commercial price. The investment is set to decrease the cost of living, however, the prospect of unsecured loans remains uncertain and the approach to banking and housing will never be same. Repossession and increased rates does seem a possibility but only time will tell.

Personal Challenges in Politics

As the elections once more captivate the masses in a delightful turn of events, I should wonder what it is that brought millions of people to decide that we are better left under the control of the Conservatives. After all, do people not know what the Conservatives represent? I should believe that most believe dire reform is required within Parliament. Who wouldn't? We have gone to war with a country that, whilst tormented by disease and poverty, shows little sign of being the bountiful settlement that both Britain and America hoped it would. After all, the intelligent amongst us would know that the Iraq War was not an attempt to restore peace to the Middle East. Far from it, in fact. The Iraq War was, how shall I put this, a political movement. This was all about economics.

Consider the fact that the Middle East prospers. How? The Middle East is ravaged by war. Politics is cast aside, replaced by a theological government that opposes (male) homosexuality and the possibility of a second religion entering the state. How can the Middle East prosper under such considerations? How - because it works. The Middle East is, in essence, a theocracy. People respect religion - people worship religion and, because religion rules, there is no need for taxation and foreign affairs that Western civilisation seems so obsessed with. This isn't the main reason that the Middle East prospers. Of course not, that's ridiculous.

There is one reason - oil. The Middle East accounts for a high percentage of oil. The economics of the Middle East are based, on the majority, of oil sales to Western civilisations because our scientists have failed to discover some alternative source of fuel that will save us all from eternal damnation when, heaven forbid, climate change kicks in. The Middle East sells oil relatively cheap. In fact, if you research the price of oil in different countries, you'd see the surprising difference between Western and Eastern countries.

Rising prices within the US - $100 p/barrel
Rising prices within Asia - $130 p/barrel

This is all due to politics. Consider the images which have been added. Prices shot up at the beginning of the Iraq war because it has a surplus of oil. As the world progresses from crisis to crisis, the oil price skyrockets. Investors continue to argue that oil prices in the US may reach $200 p/barrel within the next few years. If I were you, I'd be afraid. We all depend on oil. We need to consider a back-up plan. In fact, we need a plan! That's where politics comes into it all, that lovely word 'politics'.

British citizens voted in the local elections that Conservatives should have power within Parliament. For the first time in ten or so years, Conservatives have beaten Labour. I wonder, do people honestly believe that a new party will help solve all our problems? I certainly hope not. I'd be afraid if that were so. We need to pull our finger out of our ears and do something drastic. Why not pull out of Iraq? I think it's caused us enough grief as it is. Let them solve their own problems. Why not stop waiting months to decide something and do it in a day? MPs (Members of Parliament) have so much time on their hands, it's frightening. Normal people work so hard and they don't get half the publicity these imposters do.

I say we make a stand and let Parliament know what we want!