Last bend, finishing line in sight

That's another yet landmark passed.

No, not another birthday-I've now had my last lectures/workshops. The learning part of the course is now ended. All I have now is a week and a half of finishing off my notes, followed by 4 exams in 6 days and then it'll all be over.

I have promised myself that for my very last entry I'll try to summarise the year but it's difficult trying not to express a bit of that now. I have a deep sense of sadness that it's nearly all over, that the people that I've met will soon be going their individual ways and embarking on rich new adventures. Will they succeed? What will happen to them? Will we keep in touch? Will I ever get a snog again?

How did that one creep in?

And the doubts. Have I worked hard enough? Was it worth it? What now? Do I look fat in this?

These questions and others will be answered in time...

On first sight, it appears that the College wanted all the electives to finish with a flourish. Running into the last week there was more preparation involved than at any other stage-unfortunately the apathy that has been prevalent throughout the electives managed to infect the final sessions too. I had hoped that the announcement of results a couple of week back would help energise a few people into a last push before the final exams but all it seems to have done is motivated those who could be heading for a distinction-the others have either accepted their fate to get commendations or passes and as for those who failed a compulsory-it's hit them hard.

I know from experience just how demoralising it was to fail an assessment and how it knocked me for six for a goodly while. For those that failed a compulsory exam, it becomes more serious since you know that you will have to come back to Guildford to retake at least one exam in August and that the best grade you can now hope for is a pass. My heart goes out to them-it must make these next couple of weeks very hard.

Employment was a classic example of a course that wanted to peak on a high. The first part of the workshop was simply covering the prep exercise and making sure that we were familiar with the case history that we had been studying recently.

A female member of staff (your client) who works in the accounts department of a moderate sized employer applies for a position as head of accounting. In the past she has deputised (on a smaller scale) for the former head while he was sick. Only two applicants apply for the role, the other being a male member of staff from the marketing department. Neither of the them have an accountancy qualification although your client is studying at home for an OU accounting degree (Good old OU!)

Regarding the appointment interview; your client alleges that some of the questions asked to her were inappropriate and focused on her children and her commitment to the role being questioned because of her family. The interview was conducted by a male director and the female head of human resources.

The male candidate gets the job.

Your client feels that she has been discriminated against on the ground of her sex. Although she is prepared to go to an employment tribunal she is happy for you to negotiate some form of settlement with the lawyers for her employer.

And that's the second part of the workshop-you along with at least one member of your table must negotiate with students from another table who will be acting for the employer. Obviously, both sides will try to get the best possible terms for the people they are representing.

Looking at the facts and witness testimonies that the client and the employer have supplied, my view was that her case was a tad lightweight shall we say? Her best witness was the head of human resources whose testimony was fantastic-except that we received an addendum that told us;

• She had been under a lot of pressure at the time
• She was taking some strong medication
• She resigned from the role a week or so later
• She is still unfit for work
  

So that's your best witness...The client herself has a history of a having a short temper and expressive tantrums.
Great-If I can get her off being fired, I'll be doing well.

The College was slightly remiss in not supplying us with a list of the clients wishes-particularly since we had been told on our video tutorial that this was vital so that we could gauge our opening gambits.

In the absence of this, I decided on 3 things that I wanted for her;

1. Keep her current position
2. Be considered for the newly announced deputy head of accounting position
3. Get the employer to grant her study leave for her upcoming exams
   

Before we started on the actual negotiation itself, we discussed on our table the merits and strengths of our case. One person has decided that they are god's gift to negotiating and started to explain (very forcefully) just how strong our clients position is and telling us the sort of phone numbers of compensation he is expecting to get.
I just smiled and let him get on with his fantasy-we'll see...

I have only just noticed a flaw in my fledgling legal career-I don't like confrontation...Is it too late to ask for a refund? Quite how this incredible oversight managed to slip by me I haven't got a clue...Still, in for a penny in for £9,000.

The representatives for the employer are in quite a bullish mood. They have been given objectives for their client and will offer us little crumbs of encouragement. In the end we compromise on;

• The client keeps her job
  
• Damages of £1,500 for injured feelings
• Consideration for the new position
• The employer to make a public declaration of their position regarding discrimination (from experience this will hurt the employer way more than money ever could!)
• 2-3 days study leave
• The possibility of the employer paying for the client's accountancy course fees

All in all, a good deal for our client-way more than I anticipated. We had to put up all the terms that we negotiated on white boards so the rest of the class could see them.

The first thing that I noticed was that our injury to feelings compo was way lower than anyone elses-but we were then told by Temp-loyment that even £1,500 would probably be too much and that this case was probably worth little more than £500 (the statutory minimum). Apart from that we did pretty well.

Except when it got to announcing our results, one of the 'solicitors' for the employer that we had negotiated with told the group in a loud voice that they considered us 'pussies' who had folded at the first sign of their aggressive stance. This really narked me-we had little to play with and (I think) used it well. However, revenge is sweet. The tutor asked about the confidentiality clause that the employer had asked for-they hadn't mentioned it at all!!!

They suddenly went very quiet and while the room was still I had my chance to reply in an equally loud voice-'well in the absence of that, exposing the story to the papers should be worth a few extra quid to our client...'

And god's gift to negotiation? Well, for all the big talk-all he got was a larger settlement for hurt feelings (but as noted before was greatly in excess of what would have been granted by experienced opponents)-other than that?
Much, much worse...

We then had a quick consolidation session where our stand-in tutor (9 weeks, no sign of the real tutor) went over the likely form of the exam paper and what we should do regarding timing and then it was all over...

I had arranged to meet a friend for a soft drink and a chat after but she was intrigued by the idea of going to a class on conduct that had been arranged by the College for those people who are worried about that exam. I do find it strange that so many people are stressed about this. The average score so far seems to be about 30 out of 40-the written exam is to be out of 60 to give us an overall mark of 100. A pass mark of 50% is required. That means that for the average student they will only have to get 20 out of 60, just 33%. There is no higher grade, just pass or fail-why are they worrying? Have I missed something here?

Keen to spend some time with her I decided that I would go to this lecture. The room was set out for 80 students and even as we were arriving the tutor was saying, 'if your name is not on the list you will have to leave'.
We waited until every chair was filled and then decided that since we were not supposed to be there we would go. Interestingly, even as were leaving more people were arriving who had signed up to this class. 80 chairs, 90+ people who all claim to be on the list-methinks there may have been one or two fibbers amongst them.

The College announced that there would be two more classes later that week-she signed up for one. I didn't. No worries. (I do hope that that doesn't bite me on the bum later...)

Tuesday-our last criminal workshop. Another showpiece. This time a trial (whoopdedoo another one...). A slight twist though-this one is set in a Youth Court with two girls accused of forcing open another girls locker and stealing her phone.

Yet again, I have been allocated a role acting for the CPS. That's 3 criminal trials in the year-all acting for the CPS. Oh lord, why do you torment me by waving this delicious morsel in my face? Oh, and I've lost all 3! Yet again, the CofL favour the defendants even though the vast majority of cases that go trial result in convictions.

I did have a little bit of fun though-I got to cross examine one of the defendants. This means I get to ask lots of nasty leading questions and try to trick a response out of them (or something like that).

The story is that one girl is a bit of a tearaway, the other is a 'naice' girl from a stable middle-class background. While the tearaway is breaking into the locker the other girl is meant to be watching for people coming to the locker room.

I have to cross examine the 'naice' girl. This looks fun-how can I go wrong?

The trial proceeds and we get to my bit. The tutor asks who is doing the cross examination.
I indicate that I am...
...and no word of a lie...
The tables where those students who are acting for the defence let out an audible gasp.

How cool is that?

Oh oh, problem. The defence's table has 10 people, 3 men-7 women.
Result?
The middle class 14 year old guy is played by a bloke with a stubble problem!
Thanks people for ruining my role playing experience!

So we begin,
"Good morning Kate, I'm going to ask you a few simple questions. There's nothing too hard here, just be truthful and it'll soon be over"
How long have you known Natalie?
And you're her best friend?
You're really close?
And she helped you when your father died?
You owe her a lot?
And you look out for each other?

And so on. A simple openingl question followed by automatic 'yes' responses (Old salesman's trick-get the customer saying 'yes' automatically)

Astute readers will notice that I got her to admit that she 'looks out' for Natalie-which was a bit naughty and I only did it for my own fun!

Anyhow, the cross examination carried on but became less fun as the 'defendant' got more cocky and started to show off
Hmm, where have we heard that before?

The end-result? As I mentioned before another notch in the loss column. This time though the 'magistrates' didn't take long to come to their decision. If I was a more fragile soul I could start to take this personally...

Following this was the last criminal large group-again a consolidation session about the examination-talking about 'timing'. It is worth noting that the room was barely half full-shame really, missed some good tips-especially about timing...

On the way to school on Wednesday, I bought a 'thank you teacher' card for our welfare tutor. This is a bit weird and totally unlike me-I have never done anything like that before.
Mind you, saying that, I did send some flowers as a 'thank you' to my first OU law tutor after I got my end of year results but then she was hot so it doesn't really count.

I managed to get the class to sign it on the sly saying cynical things like 'this gives you an excellent opportunity to give the tutor an example of your handwriting which he can refer to when he marks your anonymous exams'.
But the truth was that I had really enjoyed the classes (This is particularly ironic since I am currently updating and reviewing earlier posts and have only recently read what I originally write about the tutor and the course)

It's possibly because it was such a small group and so more closely integrated because of it. It was also my third choice and one that I chose 'to make up the numbers'. It was (and still is) hard though-we have been warned that it is a struggle to finish the paper in the time (but I love a challenge, me)
I do think that if someone had started crying then I would have started blubbing myself-my sensitive side is waaaaay too strong these days....

The final lecture of the year, a consolidation on welfare and a talk about the exam especially timing.

Enough with the freaking timing already!!

Change the record please! I have never not finished an exam. I think fast, I write fast!

There is a parallel argument here that I think inteligibly and write illegibly but we'll leave that for another day

And that's it-my college tuition is over.

So, only consolidation and revision to go before the elective exams.


Except

Today, I applied for my dream job-working for the CPS in Exeter. This ticks all the right boxes and would be ideal for me. So much so that I was determined to write an exemplary application.

It took some time-not half it did!
Just over 3 and a half hours! Previously I could do a CPS application in 15 minutes but they've changed their electronic application system.

No longer do you have to list;

• Past work experience
• Education and qualifications attained

Instead there is more focus on the 'waffle' part-which is a lot trickier if I can't refer it back to my past work experiences or present academic ones.
A slight problem might be that the interviews take place in one day during the week of my last exam. Oh well, if it was not meant to be...

There will be only one more post on this blog-after the exams are over I will say how they went and give as full a review of my year as I can.

Celebrations and commiserations

Well, that's it.

My youthfulness, naivety and immaturity are no more.

This week I hit the ripe old age of 43. It's now 22 years since I first graduated and 22 until I retire (assuming that the minimum retirement age doesn't rise until then. I have truly hit middle age.
Mind you, I don't feel any older-I've always felt about 60, so no change there.

One thing I have noticed about myself, is that lately I'm getting a weeny bit apathetic regarding my preparation-it's probably not too serious now since the course is almost done-In fact, this week coming contains the last timetabled classes of the year.
There is, however, a definite trend to my prep-it's very much of the, 'well, that's probably good enough'-knowing that we will almost certainly cover it correctly in class, so any shortages can be made up in my consolidation time.

Part of me thinks that this is down to the heat (although it was a lot warmer in April), but a larger part thinks that this is my psyches attempt to disassociate from the course and to reach 'closure'.

Unfortunately the majority of me is of the opinion that I am an idle scrote and looking for any excuse to bunk off.

Fair enough...

When I graduated the first time back in '85, I had the charming misconception that the wide world was waiting with an open cheque-book to sign me up to do exciting things. With this self-delusion in mind I made no attempt to get any interviews before I graduated. I remember people coming to lectures wearing suits but I made no connection with this 'milk-round' that I overheard others talking about.

End result-no job and the first of my periods of unemployment.

Now, 22 years on and I know that this was wrong-the world is not waiting to put me into employment no matter how;

• Intelligent (**cough**)
• Hardworking (double cough**), OR
  
• Handsome I am (**collapses coughing, realising that no one will give me mouth-to-mouth and gets up again**)

I know now that I will have to be proactive (which is probably my most hated word in the English language-I loathe 'proactive' and regard it as the epitomy of bad management concentrated in 1 word) and actively search for that job and whilst my chance for a training contract for 2007 is zero there are paralegal vacancies available if I look.

So I looked and found a couple that intrigued me;
The first didn't state;

• The name of the firm
• The location of the offices (we were told between Surrey and Berkshire)
• The role
• What areas of law the firm deal in
• Start date
• Pay

but it did mention that to get the position, you would have to;

• Send a handwritten application
• Complete a first interview
• Complete a second interview
• If selected, complete a period of unpaid work experience for them for an unspecified time.

The ad also mentioned that the firm's website was not up to date regarding the number of partners and other staff-so we couldn't find it that way.

Well, that did it for me.
Do I seriously want to work for an employer who makes the applicants jump through hoops and at the same time can't be bothered to keep their web-site vaguely up-to-date?
Hmm, time to file it in the 'trash' I feel.

Ah, here's another one.
It gives a firm name/location/start date/salary

Looks good so far...

Areas of law;

• Criminal-good
• Welfare-very good
• Immigration-couldn't be better
  

'Requirement-Must be able to speak in Jamaican patois'

What!!!!!

Dammit-curse my State school upbringing for depriving me of a career opportunity. I was only offered French, German or Latin. If I only had gone to the school a few miles further on down the road where patois was part of the syllabus...

OK, that may be where the bulk of my apathy is coming from; sheer mind-numbing terror about the future.
Mmm, that makes sense I guess.

This was the last proper week of learning workshops-it looks like the classes for the last week are a chance to consolidate our knowledge in what appears to be full sessions of representation and advocacy on some of our cases.

Before the employment class started, our 'stand-in' tutor asked us to fill in tutor evaluation forms for her. She should have realised how bad this was going to be when one of the class (not me) asked if she wanted 'tactful or truthful?'. But in her usual blythe way she asked that we be truthful.
Mmm, truthful and anonymous-that could be a bad combination...

Lets just say that for 5 criteria each marked out of 5, she may have made double figures if I added them all.

So, in the class proper we tackled our last topic-TUPE (pronounced 'chew-pea'). This won't mean a lot to non-lawyers, so the quick explanation is that when a business (or part) is sold the employees must be transferred with it on the same terms and conditions as they were employed (Unless they are offered better terms and conditions by the new employer).

During the workshop, our tutor mentioned that the question we were answering was a 'typical exam type question'.
Another group, I have been informed were told rather less cryptically that this was very likely to appear in an exam. Now, fair enough it does cover a fair part of the syllabus-as well as TUPE, you can squeeze in unfair and wrongful dismissal and maybe a bit of misconduct, statutory disciplinary procedure and if you're lucky, redundancy.
Another question on discrimination (not indirect-too fiddley) and one involving filling in a claim form and that's the exam sorted.

(Editor's note: this information is by way of example and does not reflect the actual 'Employment Law' paper as set by the College for 2007)

But I bet it's pretty close...

It's Tuesday! Hurrah, my birthday! And for the first time in about 20 years I have to work. Oh.
However, I was determined that nothing was going to ruin my day.

• It rained on me on the way to school-so what?
• My notes got a tad soggy-so what?
• Class overran-so what?
• It rained on me during my walk back-so what? I'm still wet from the walk in!
  

The class itself was about how the criminal justice system was different for juveniles (under 17 in the police station or under 18 in the courts-don't ask!!) which was all pretty interesting.
We also got tutor evaluation forms for both his workshops (highest praise) and his lecturing (hmm, tact or truth?)-in the end I went for tact. He is a good lecturer but just seems bored with it all.

That night, a class meal had been organised as a 'last get-together' before the final set of exams. It was a fantastic occasion-especially for me. The meal was combined with a birthday do with me as the guest of honour. I was given a card signed by my classmates (and that I shall keep forever) as well as a few carefully chosen gifts. There is something very special about a gift that has been chosen with a person in mind. I hope that I remember this when I am tempted to buy a voucher or book token for someone. (but I doubt it...)

Anyhow, after the meal, we went pubbies and then back to a student's (palatial) flat where even more alcohol was inbibed and I rolled out at gone 3am to hit my bed at 3.30. Which gave me about 3 1/2 hours before I had to get up and complete my studies for Wednesday

But before I get to that, 3 highlights

1. A young lady (who was both tired and 'merry') privately pointing out to me that I was neither 'old' or 'fat'. Wahay! I could be in there...if only College was not coming to an end...dammit!
   
2. A male member of our group showing his tiredness and merriment by passing out. This meant that his 'friends' had a field day with his limp body. By the time he came to, he was plastered in make-up, permanent marker, had had his shirt unbuttoned and an item of intimate female apparel put onto him. I realise that this was grossly immature and irresponsible. The only defence I can make is-it seemed hysterically funny (in my condition) at the time!!
3. I returned home with more money than I went out with (my meal and all my drinks were paid for)-and a whip round was made for a tip but it was turned down as service was included on the bill-so rather than try to split it, it was given to me. Result!

NB For non-lawyers, there was a legal 'joke' above that should be explained. Nobody is ever drunk-whether in theoretical scenarios or real life (presumably because their lawyers advise them not to be since it automatically would pass any 'reckless' part of the offence they are charged with).
Although an extreme, it is not uncommon to read, 'I wouldn't describe myself as drunk, I only had 3 bottles of wine, 8 pints and a few whiskey chasers. I was definitely merry but no more than that'. With that in mind, I am proposing some new offences;

• Merry and disorderly
• Merry driving
• Being found merry in charge of a vehicle...
  

Wednesday-the good news is that I'm not hungover (yet), the bad news is that I'm shattered. We are still struggling through the mine field that is means-tested benefits. We had a prep task to do which nobody got right (in fact I was the closest with about 2/3 right)-this does not bode well for the exams. The good news is that I realised where I went wrong and rectified my mistake in a matter of seconds. We also had to calculate housing benefit for a client-this will be very useful in the near future I feel!
The rest of the bad news is that my hangover kicked in about 1 hour into the class. Ho hum.

That's about it for the week, just add a lot of consolidation on Thursday and a token attempt to work on Friday and Saturday and we're nearly done.

Except...
I sent an email to my classmates during the week and since this blog should reflect all that happens to me I want to share it.

"I would like to thank everyone who helped contribute to making Tuesday night a wonderful one for me. I am truly touched by the warmth and affection that is shared by our tutor group.

As some of you may know, I was very apprehensive about this year and what sort of students I would be 'lumped' in with. As the year comes to a close I would like to put it on the record that I have been privileged to have spent that time with some of the brightest, kindest and most likeable people I have ever met.

Thanks guys, not only for Tuesday but for making this year one of the most fun and enjoyable ones of my life."

And I can write that with 100% sincerity, for those people who have read from the start I was truly concerned about being put with students who were;

• In their own minds my superior since they had got the degrees from a 'proper' polyversity
  
• Cliquey
• Bitchy/snide
• Discriminatory
• As thick as a whale sandwich-what with 'A' levels being so easy now that you can get them with box-tops of your favourite cereal (I have been proved wrong on this one by the way before the poison pen letters start...)
  

And many other worries, all completely unfounded. I realise that I have been very lucky. We had two (potentially disruptive) classmates who left us in the first two weeks and had them replaced with a real star.
Despite the fact that I am closer to their parents ages (and maybe older than one or two), I have received nothing but acceptance from my classmates-and will be eternally grateful for that.

And on the flip-side, knowing me may just make one or two of them look more closely at their parents and think, 'well, OK, they'll never be as cool as Paul but they're alright' (**cough**) or even after they've made their pile from this lawyering business, to chuck it in for a year and go back to school and learn some new stuff.

You never know...

The more astute of you will be asking, 'Why 'Celebrations and Commiserations' as a title, Paul?' Where's the commiserating? Celebrating I can just take but where's the usual whining?

So, as an aside-today I went up to Wembley to watch Exeter City play Morecombe in the Conference play-off final with the prize being a place in the lowest tier of the football league. Wembley was fantastic, an amazing stadium with a brilliant view (but high-very high where we were-and I don't like heights!)
I travelled up with some Exeter supporting mates and Exeter did not win. A shame to have come so far on the journey (talking metaphysically here and not in terms of motorways) then to have it abruptly denied them at the end.

So, commiserations to Exeter. Next year, eh lads?

Results are in!

Yes, its true. The most important part of the week was the announcement of results.

And the verdict?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Serbia's Marija Serifovic won with 268 points. And the UK scored just 19!

(oh, there were some LPC scores as well but I'll come to those later)

Now that's not to say that I have no life and can afford to spend hours watching the creamed cheese of Europe pratting about on stage. Well, actually I do have no life but I wasn't watching Eurovision-scout's honour.
I might have channel surfed onto it at the start in that sort of 'attracted to car crashes' way-but that's all.
At this time I year I begin to feel my age and the chasm that's developing between me and the youth of today-luckily Eurovision has a timeless quality that keeps it as naff and nauseating as it was when I was a nipper.


This was the first (and only) week this year when a Bank Holiday intruded into the timetable. This meant that my Monday class got postponed to Friday afternoon. If I had could ever get into a routine I would find it very irritating to have to keep changing it.
Luckily I haven't, so I'm not.

Tuesday's workshop had a familiar feel-the tutor for the other criminal group who meet at the same time as us was sick so our tutor thought that he would combine the groups again.
This was pretty disasterous last time but he must have reckoned that he had it sussed now. Most of the session went fairly well, since he has learnt that presentations in a room the size of a hanger for small aircraft is a no-no and it was easy enough to set problems to the room and use our combined intellect and researching skills to blunder blindly to the correct result.

The problem occured when he decided to follow his lesson plan and get us to role-play (spits) the role of the prosecution and defence in a drink-driving/spiked drinks scenario. With a class of over 30 that's a lot of bodies to keep occupied.
Firstly we were split into two separate trials. Then 6 people were randomly selected to make up the magistrates benches. This still left about 6 people to sort out the roles of 'prosecutor for this', 'defence spokesman for that'.
I had been posted on a prosecution table (and with me not being particularly in love with the CPS at the moment too...). There were not enough of us prosecuting types to get a role each so I was happy to slack off and settle back and relax.

With hindsight this was not smart.

The defence team had to distribute out the roles of defence solicitors and also the witnesses. And that's where it all falls down. Rather than be impartial and give the evidence that was in the case facts, one of the defence witnesses thought they would try to be the 'life and soul' and quibble pedantically with the prosecutors.
Unfortunately, every laugh he got made him feel even more important and thus more determined to carry on. Not content with arguing semantics from the 'witness box' he thought he would improvise some factual details. (Amazingly these helped his clie-sorry the defendant's story and tore holes in the prosecution line)

At one stage he was actually telling the defence 'solicitor' who was examining him what questions to ask-a true first in the history of British justice. A witness leading the solicitor!

That's why I am annoyed with myself-so sickened I was with this childish showing off that I got involved as a prosecutor and got caught up in this sideshow-but I hadn't planned my questions (having mentally turned off earlier) and got short shrift.

His performance was enhanced by one of the magistrates looking to interrupt the prosecution case whenever she could (oh she was from a defence table too-how amazing!)

I have no idea how many trials he has witnessed (I imagine it's quite a lot-he's very keen) but in the ones that I have seen both at magistrates and Crown-I have never seen such an arrogant and cocky performance.
Once when at Torbay magistrates I did see a young man who was being tried for possesion of cannabis and an offensive weapon adopt a cocky smile and a smug look. In all the others I have seen the defendants/witnesses have all looked either frightened or repentive.
For the record the smug guy got a maximum fine, a community work order and confiscation and destruction of the drugs and weapon-he didn't look so cocky after that...

That's the point, if you go into the witness box and are argumentative, cocky or know-it-all, do not expect the magistrates to say, 'You have a formidible intellect and we all bow down before you. Please walk free and here's ten pounds for your trouble'. You will get warned about your behaviour and probably slapped down.

But our magistrates couldn't (or wouldn't) do that. The witness carried on with his 'I'm the centre of attention act' right through and only looked less than cocky once, when right at the end I made the comment,

'When this trial finishes can we have one for perjury?'

Amazingly, the magistrates found the defendant's excuse of spiked drinks to be valid. Did this have any basis that on the fact that two of the magistrates came from the defence table and only one from the prosecution table? And after the 'trial' everyone had to rejoin their table-mates?

Interestingly the other group found the defendant's excuse not to be valid-but of course they had two members of the prosecution table making up their 'bench'.
Co-incidence?
I don't think so!


For Welfare there was a definite mood of apprehension. Rather than the cosy little world of immigration we are now thick into calculations of various benefits and credits. The session was not helped by the star student in the group being away leaving just 3 of us on our table.

On top of this, the other two guys are not so comfortable with numbers. I might have struggled through if I had been on my own but I had a feeling akin to baby sitting that afternoon. One of them reminded me of a hyperactive 5 year old whose mother had fed him too many e-numbers. Any time he did a calculation he felt he had to waft his calculater in front of me to confirm that we had agreement.
Unfortunately the other person on our table was struggling and I was going slow to make sure that she was following what we were doing.

So we have manic on one side and glacial on the other.
I was shattered at the end of that.

This was not helped by overrunning by a full 30 minutes! We were given 10 minutes break before the same tutor took us for our large group lecture. Most of the group had visions of a finish well past 6:15 but luckily the lecture was a short one (non-existant is a slightly better description-it still ran for over half an hour though!)


So to Thursday. Results day. I had spoken to a lot of my colleagues during the week and got a wide range of responses. Some could not be bothered, some were nervous, one was hyperactive to a wild degree and expected no sleep at all on Wednesday night (oh, we've covered him already! Aha! That may just explain his behaviour in welfare!)

The results were to be posted up on campus from 8:30 am on. They were also due to be published on the college web-site from 9:30 on. I was interested to see what I had got but not interested enough to walk to college at 7:30...

So, I went on the net at the appointed time (well, a bit before if true be told) and got-

-a message saying that the site could not be accessed. Not surprisingly, it seemed that everyone was going on-line at the same time to check. So I casually logged off and went back to my consolidation.

Then checked again a few minutes later. Still nothing. A bit peeved now, I signed off and went back to consol.

And so this continued until about 10:20 when I finally got through. I ran down the list to find my candidate number and got the following;

• Business: 76% (5% up from the mock)
• Property 63% (9% down from the mock)
• Litigation 70% (20% up from the mock!)
  

I had expected my scores to all go down from the mock so I was delighted. Even better I have two distinction marks and a commendation. On a casual glance if I can get two distinction marks from my electives and get 211 out of 300 then in theory I will get a distinction (sadly, my fail in advocacy comes back to bite me in the butt again).
But, better news is that provided I pass my electives then I should get a commendation (That is provided I don't get exactly 50% for each of them!)

We also received marks for conduct-there have been various conduct questions included in exams/mocks/assessed work throughout the year. I was awarded 32 out of 40. This means that I only have to get 18 out of 60 on the set conduct paper-which is lovely since I will not be able to revise that paper as fully as others since it on the same day as my far more important welfare paper.

I also passed the last two assignments-drafting and legal research.

All in all, a fine morning. I certainly waded into the rest of my consolidation that day with renewed vigour.

One bit of bad news though, a friend from our original tutor group phoned me to say she had failed a paper by 2%. (I actually knew this already-I had checked her results earlier and decided not to phone her to be the bearer of bad news).
I hope that she can find something on her paper to scrape those last two marks. I have advised her to check and double check everything, in my view she must try to find something to appeal against-it's so important for her (like all of us) to pass first time.

Since then I've come across another in our group who failed one and a young lady who still hasn't even checked her results yet! Her view is that it won't be good news and if she does check it'll demotivate her further...

So saying, I have come across a couple of (minor) horror stories. There are two students here who have scored over 70% in all their compulsaries and would be shoe-ins for distinctions except they failed either drafting or legal research. (One of which is actually averaging over 80%).

And one guy who has a training contract with a huge 'Magic Circle' firm and is set to start on a monster salary drafting client contracts and agreements.

...except he failed drafting...

Onto Friday-my first Friday-in for about 3 months and I'm delighted to see that Friday PM apathy is universal. Despite all the best attempts of our 'wetter than a squid's tentacles' tutor, we were bereft of enthusiasm. This may have been to do with the day itself but probably had a large contribution from drinking to celebrate (or forget) the previous night.

We were in the murky waters of sexual harassment and I discovered another difference between the majority of students and myself. In the scenario a woman is asked for a date by a man at the Christmas party. She turns him down and in front of her work colleagues he makes a comment about her loose morals and calls her a 'bitch'.

When we came to discuss it, I focused on his accusation that she is of easy virtue whereas the rest of the room was more concerned about her being called a bitch. That must be an age thing!

The rest of the session was spent drafting a reply to a form-yep, that's right-padding out the session!
Just like for the compulsaries, at least two of the electives appear to be struggling to fill the full number of weeks. Only welfare is still going hell-for-leather. Knowing that tutor, he'll still be sending us points to note and last minute emails on the morning of the exam...


I have mentioned age a couple of times this week-it is on my mind at the moment. In this coming week I 'celebrate' my 43rd birthday. How the hell can I be 43? OK, I creak a bit from time to time and move as slow as sloth with piles but 43? That's almost old!

Just a thought-does middle age begin when you're closer to a Saga holiday than an 18-30 one?

NB Under new age discrimination-there are possible court cases in the pipeline about younger people wanting to take part on Saga holidays-can we expect retired people to start applying to go on 18-30 shagfests if they win?

Just a thought, don't mean nothing by it...

If no news is good news, is received news always bad news?

Mmm, the beginning of May.
Another sign that this is rapidly coming to an end.
My last exam is on Monday the 11th of June. A quick check on my wall calender indicates that this Friday is the 11th of May which means I'll be entering the last month of the course.

I'm going to miss it so much it's almost worth failing just so that I can retake in August.

Well, not quite-but almost...(you get the idea).

It's fair to say that I was not at my focused best this week what with the thought of my impending job interviews popping into my mind every few minutes.

Monday went how I thought it may go; there was a 'clashing of opinions' about certain aspects of the discrimination part of the employment course.
Law should have certainly.
If the law is uncertain how can a lawyer (for an example) advise anyone else? That is not to say that law should be static-it must be able to adapt to changes in society.

So saying, it took 255 years from when the legal position was settled in 1736 for the law to accept that it was possible for a husband to rape his wife-so don't expect lightning quick decisions.

But the law should be decided upon reasoned rules and maxims not by what is perceived by the court as 'just' and then relying on tortured logic and indiscriminate statistics to justify the decision.
The problem that this creates follows from the fact that lower courts are bound to follow the essence of decisions of higher courts (it is called precedent). So, if a higher court makes a decision that is, shall we say of 'doubtful provenance' then this dubious decision MUST be followed if the case in the lower courts 'is on all fours' (a wonderful term meaning that all the relevant details are essentially the same, sadly it is not used very much)

The basis for this rant is the same 'London Underground' case that I moaned about before. We had to use it this week in our workshop to justify the advice that we were going to give to a client.
This is what I mean-Law is certainty (discuss, 2000 words before next week please)

So the advice we gave was based on this case (higher court cases must be followed, right?)-even though every fibre in my body was screaming,

'This case is complete Barclays!!.'

God bless my late Cockney father)

So, the tutor and I had what may be classed as 'a full and frank discussion where various points were forcefully argued'. The problem being that this FFD was with Temp-loyment (still no sign of our proper tutor yet) so it was akin to shadow boxing a waterfall-you expend a lot of energy but you achieve absolutely nothing.
The discussion went on between us through part of the break but she could not argue the logic for the case because the answer wasn't on her sheet.

Yes, she has an answer sheet for all the problems that are set in the workshop.
Which is great if we stick to the questions but we are a;

• Young (**cough**)
• Blossoming (**double cough**) collection of intellectual heavyweights (**collapses coughing**)
  
• Who all have enquiring minds (**I'll have to stop here to get some water**)

So, we like to ask questions. I would like to stress however, that we do not ask questions to embarass our tutor and make her look ill-prepared and foolish.
Well, not much...

Sometimes however, it is great to have a tutor who has to carry the answers around with her on printed A4 sheets-especially if she comes to our table, puts the sheet down (those A4 sheets do weigh a lot), so I can sneakily read them and then repeat what I just read to her.

Pauls handy tips for lawyers number 1: Practice reading upside down-bosses always leave important sheets on their desk-but believe you can't read them if the sheet is not facing you.

For sheer amusement value the highlight had to be the young lady on our table who was getting more and more 'wound up' when we started doing disability discrimination.
In every other area of discrimination the person who is claiming that they are being disciminated has their position analysed in relation to a comparator-someone who does not have the feature that they believe is the source of the discrimination but is identical in every other way. (so if a gay employee feels they are being discriminated against for reason of their sexuality they are compared to a straight employee of the same age/sex/religion etc)

But not for disabled people who believe that they have experienced discrimination on account of something that happened related to their disability.
The example we discussed was a guy who had to go to a therapist every day before starting work. This made him late and he was dismissed for timekeeping.
Ideally his comparator should be an employee who was late (for a perfectly good reason) but not in disability discrimination-his comparator is in fact someone who always turns up on time. So, the court then examines if the two have been treated differently.

1. Disabled chap, always late, dismissed
2. Comparator, always on time, kept in work.

Hmm, can you spot the difference?
I think I can.
Absolutely farcical.

The test is made so that the finding is 100% always going to show discrimination. The theory being that the employer then has a chance to justify why they acted discriminately and the tiny lickle bit of positive discrimination is simply to get to that stage.

And that was what so wound up this young woman-everyone in life has 'hot buttons'; topics that they feel passionately about, one way or the other. If you can engage and empathise with them on these (and they are things that the person is excited about) then you will make a friend for life.
But if they are subjects that the person is angered about then by tickling their hot button (I really should stop this thread or go and have a cold shower) then they will get very heated indeed (and you will have to work really hard to get them back onside).

Well, it appears that 'positive discrimination' is one of her angry hot button topics. It was wonderful to watch, like being an observer at your own personal volcanic eruption. First we had a little gentle smoke, followed by some deep rumblings leading up to a full pyrotechnic display and once deep buried residue spraying around the room...


Tuesday, a good turn out for our workshop-all 20 of us were present and it went swimmingly. I have been wondering why my table is so intimidating and this week I finally found out.

• first woman-has worked 2 years as a Crown court clerk
• second woman-has worked 5+ years as a legal executive in a firm that does criminal law only
• 3rd woman-worked 2 years as a paralegal in criminal only firm
• me-a blob, who has worked in shops

Cripes, I'm seriously out of my league! On any other table I might be considered a star, with this lot I'm the duffer! This week even the tutor got made to wonder who was in charge when the Crown Court clerk explained to the class about the procedure for appealing to the Court of Appeal.
As an aside, I put the boot into him myself by telling him that one of the facts on an OHP he used was wrong.
Well, if you can't beat 'em...

One thing I have noticed is how much more vocal I have become on this course. I seem to interrupt in most (if not all) of our workshops at some stage, however this may not be such a good thing since if someone does it in a workshop/lecture that I'm attending and what they say is toss I have a tendency to class them as purveyors of toss...

Oh no, that nice man accused of growing and selling dope has pleaded guilty and that nice young man accused of rape has been found guilty.

Gosh, am I a bad judge of character-I would have let 'em both off!

Of course as I mentioned last week that gives us an excellent chance to look into appealing against sentence and/or conviction.

So why those two poor souls languish in gaol, swinging their legs, running their tin-cups against the bars and singing 'ole man river', (What do you meam, romantic notion of prison?) we start to represent a new client in a new area of law-driving offences.

This is so exciting-it's almost a class in black letter law! Our large group lecture was about offences, endorsements and disqualifications-wonderful!

(Although quite why anyone would want to use our firm since our last 2 clients are now serving long sentences, I do not know...) Don't these people ever listen to word of mouth?

Wednesday and more benefits. Things are getting seriously sticky and smelly. The class have started to have that glazed 'you say, we'll write it and maybe understand it one day'. This week we looked at Contributory non-means tested benefits (contribution based-jobseekers allowance and incapacity benefit) and although the class exercises were fairly straightforward, it wouldn't take too much variation from them in the exam to throw us off completely.

It did give Tigger the chance to role-play a confused, depressed middle aged woman though. I have noticed a trend that he enjoys playing all the female parts and he never plays the male ones. I shall monitor this situation closely. I am starting to get disturbing visions of him waiting for his wife to go out to choir practice so he can nip upstairs and try on her clothes.

Note to self: I shall have to get out more, or stop visiting so many interweb sites.

STOP PRESS: Looking at this weeks prep about Income support/Income-based Jobseekers allowance/Tax credits and housing benefit/council tax benefit the brown stuff is about to hit the rotating device.

OK, well we have reached Thursday.
Interview day 1. This post is based in Guildford, only about 1/2 a mile as the crow flies but a mile as the pedestrian walks. This is the one that requires knowledge of Excel 'as an intermediate' as well as Word 'as an intermediate'.
The Word part I can probably handle since I've done all my notes on it this year as well as all my assessed work for the two previous years.
The good news is that I did spend Tuesday afternoon testing myself on Excel formula and putting together a few spreadsheets from my business accounts work. That went very well, I was surprised how much I remembered and how good it looked.

The interview had been arranged by phone but was not confirmed in writing. I had been invited for a chat with the HR guy. I expected an informal talk with perhaps me being given a chance to prove my skills.

First impressions-it looks very swish. All glass and chrome. A little warm for me perhaps-I am the sort of guy who sweats in the freezer section of Sainburys but OK.
I go to reception then sit and wait-my appointment time comes and goes.
Not a good sign.
Eventually HR guy comes out shakes my hand and we go to an empty office.

First bad sign, there are two people there already. One has the suit and moustache that says 'I am a senior partner', the other is a young lady who is displying waaaay too much cleavage for me to concentrate properly.
Is this a test?
Look her in the eyes, Paul! Dammit!

Informal chat my buttcheeks-this is a real full-blown interview!
During the week I had taken the chance to scan a few books that I have downloaded from the net about interview technique and questions. In the past I have been too passive, so this week I tried to be a bit more positive in the interview and take charge.

And to be fair, I did do this. I answered the questions as best as I could, flipping a few back to them when the chance arose. I showed my supportive qualities, I went over my experience; my teaching, my tutoring and was positive throughout.
I produced a list of questions that I had prepared to show an interest in the firm-and some of their answers in reply were pish-poor (so take that!)

The only thing is that I discovered very quickly that I really didn't want to work for them.
The phrase 'smug bankers' summed them up. Their firm exists to make people who have a lot of money to make more money and then to scoop a fair sized wodge out of it.

That's not for me-I realise that someone has to do it but it's not for me.

Plus the job was to take over as the 'case management assistant' from the chick with the cleavage who was going to start a training contract. The idea being that if you did well then they would consider you for a TC 'after a suitable time'-which in their view would not be before 2010.

So 3 years of writing memos and helping people who are earning vastly more than me to use Excel and Word.

That's not to say that I would have turned it down if it had been offered to me (I am nothing if not a hypocrite) but I knew that I would get an 'Unfortunately, we..' letter.

That afternoon I started to do some consolidation from the week and to focus on my next interview-the important one, my first with the CPS.

Friday-an early start for me. I was out of the house by 8.30 having done some cramming on the CPS and the 'cut n paste' answers that I had sent them. As I reviewed this a cold chill went down my spine.
I hadn't updated the application details from when I was working at Specsavers so I wrote it as if I still worked for them.
Now this might not be so bad, except in the application I spoke of my attention to detail and how I check and double check everything.

WHOOP WHOOP Catastrophe alert. 'Iceberg approaching Captain'.
I should take evasive action-I could go home an hide under the duvet...

Oh well, I better go and face the music-it's too late to turn back now. The job was based close to Southampton working in the office that handles Crown Court cases.

The building itself was difficult to find (in fact it was only about 50 metres from the station) but I went far too far up the road and had to come rushing back as time was going against me.
I took the life up to the third floor-at least two of the floors below were abandoned (not a good sign) and I couldn't help but notice the presence of 'Heightened Threat' posters up in the reception. (make that two not good signs).

A problem developed. I had brought with me what I had been told to bring. A passport (never had one) or a birth certificate (to prove that I have been born, I guess).
This was not enough (whuh?) and I should have brought a utility bill (I kid you not), how was I supposed to know? Amazingly my NUS ID was not good enough-even though it has my photo on it.

Eventually they decided that since I was there they ought to interview me. This time I knew that I would be facing a panel of 3 interviewers. (two female with a male 'chair') so no sneakily ambushing me!
We started with the usual, 'what do you know of the CPS' and 'why do you want to work for us?' before the interview proper started.

They asked me exactly the same questions as were on the application form. I had the form with me, I could have read out my answers! Why did they bother? Did they think that I had forgotten what I had written?

Anyhow I answered as well as I could. I expanded on what I had written and tried to include examples from both work and college. By the end I though that the chair and one of the panel were definitely pro-me with the other being anti.

When I was asked if I had any questions I produced a list (not the same one as for the day before, I was smart enough to write a fresh one!) but time was against me and I only got to ask 4 of the better ones. Again I had the joy of watching the panel flounder when the boot was on the other foot!

The interview had gone well, I had been positive and been in control even though I was outnumbered 3-1.

I was told that they would let me know the result that day at 3pm and could I give them a number where I could be contacted at that time.

So, I tootled off home and got back to working. I got the call at about 3:40 (a very bad sign) and

got told the bad news-not this time, thanks but no thanks. The chairman very kindly gave me some feedback-apparently a couple of my answers had been vague and not specific enough for them.

The questions were (paraphrasing) 'give an example of a time where you had to meet a deadline' and 'give an example of when you had to prioritise your work'. With the greatest respect to the CPS these are really stupid questions. Everyone who works, whether its paid work/study or even a hobby does these things dozens of times a day-without being conscious of it. You may as well ask,

'give an example of when you thought breathing was a good idea', OR

'explain how standing up plays a part in your working day'

And yes, I am bitter!

All this means is that for my next interview I will have to invent a couple of bogus examples from my imagination-which is particularly amusing when I was told that one of the main characteristics they want from the applicants is honesty!

The following day I got a letter rejecting me from my previous interview and a rejection from a CPS post in Cheshire.

Can I please have no news for a week or so? Thanks.