2017 is off to a rollicking start, and who better to incite bad will toward the men and women who least deserve it than ‘DAILY MAIL REPORTER’: the human version of luncheon meat made of reformed ham and 29% water (where the ‘water’ is actually sewage runoff from a condemned sausage factory)? The headline ‘Lawyers raked… Continue reading ‘Raking it In’ or just Rankling?
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard Quick Summary: Facts – Mrs Jackson died in 2004, leaving the majority of her estate to three animal charities (Appellants). Having been granted nothing, her estranged daughter, Mrs Ilot (Respondent), made an application under The Inheritance (Provision for Families and Dependants Act) 1975 for ‘reasonable’ financial provision from her… Continue reading I’m Sorry, Ms Jackson: Ilot v Blue Cross & others
After a week of waning public interest, intermittent media coverage and terrifying threats to incite violence against the petitioners, The Supreme Court managed to hear the arguments in support of and against the so-called Brexit Appeal. As you may recall from my first post, the issue at hand is Royal Prerogative; specifically, whether PM Theresa May can… Continue reading Which Clause Is More Important: Santa or Henry VIII? A Brexit Appeal Breakdown
As we approach the festive season, I realised that I haven’t stocked up on conversational ammunition yet. With a year like 2016, I will do whatever I can not to talk about the US Election; including talking about the other sad elephant, Brexit. This week the Supreme Court will hear the government’s appeal of the… Continue reading Brexit Appeal Hearing 4 Dummyz