<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for UKSC blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ukscblog.com/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ukscblog.com</link>
	<description>UK Supreme Court Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 15:17:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Privy Council &#8211; New Judgments by Anthony Fairclough</title>
		<link>http://ukscblog.com/privy-council-new-judgments/comment-page-1#comment-27327</link>
		<dc:creator>Anthony Fairclough</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 15:17:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukscblog.co.uk/privy-council-new-judgments#comment-27327</guid>
		<description>This case has only recently been heard, and no judgment has yet been given. When it&#039;s available, it will be on http://www.jcpc.gov.uk/decided-cases/index.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This case has only recently been heard, and no judgment has yet been given. When it&#8217;s available, it will be on <a href="http://www.jcpc.gov.uk/decided-cases/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.jcpc.gov.uk/decided-cases/index.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on New Judgment: Berrisford v Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd [2011] UKSC 52 by Keiran</title>
		<link>http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-berrisford-v-mexfield-housing-co-operative-ltd-2011-uksc-52/comment-page-1#comment-27222</link>
		<dc:creator>Keiran</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 13:15:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukscblog.com/?p=6847#comment-27222</guid>
		<description>A tenancy for life can only be granted to individuals, therefore, terms of uncertain duration made to a company will still be invalid as a tenancy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A tenancy for life can only be granted to individuals, therefore, terms of uncertain duration made to a company will still be invalid as a tenancy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Privy Council &#8211; New Judgments by Joseph Melville</title>
		<link>http://ukscblog.com/privy-council-new-judgments/comment-page-1#comment-27153</link>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Melville</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 15:29:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukscblog.co.uk/privy-council-new-judgments#comment-27153</guid>
		<description>Where can i find the recent judgment in an appeal from Trinidad and Tobago RE:- the consideration for the law lords (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lady Hale, Lord Mance of Frognal, Lord Dyson and Lord Wilson),  whether Section 4 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risk) Act, requires an insurer (Presidential Insurance) to satisfy a judgment obtained against the driver of the insured vehicle, who was driving with the consent of the insured, in circumstances where such person was not a permitted driver in the matter of  Resha St Hill vs Edwin Hogan, Dexter Denny  and Presidential Insurance company ltd .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where can i find the recent judgment in an appeal from Trinidad and Tobago RE:- the consideration for the law lords (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lady Hale, Lord Mance of Frognal, Lord Dyson and Lord Wilson),  whether Section 4 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risk) Act, requires an insurer (Presidential Insurance) to satisfy a judgment obtained against the driver of the insured vehicle, who was driving with the consent of the insured, in circumstances where such person was not a permitted driver in the matter of  Resha St Hill vs Edwin Hogan, Dexter Denny  and Presidential Insurance company ltd .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Case Preview: Phillips v Mulcaire, the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination by News: Supreme Court hears Glenn Mulcaire&#8217;s appeal on privilege against self-incrimination &#171; Inforrm&#039;s Blog</title>
		<link>http://ukscblog.com/case-preview-phillips-v-mulcaire-the-scope-of-the-privilege-against-self-incrimination/comment-page-1#comment-27080</link>
		<dc:creator>News: Supreme Court hears Glenn Mulcaire&#8217;s appeal on privilege against self-incrimination &#171; Inforrm&#039;s Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 May 2012 12:56:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukscblog.com/?p=7762#comment-27080</guid>
		<description>[...] post originally appeared on the UKSC Blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks Share this:PrintEmailTwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] post originally appeared on the UKSC Blog and is reproduced with permission and thanks Share this:PrintEmailTwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on New Judgment: Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC 15 by Directive 2000/78, Age discrimination and the Supreme Court &#124; eutopialaw</title>
		<link>http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-homer-v-chief-constable-of-west-yorkshire-police-2012-uksc-15/comment-page-1#comment-26937</link>
		<dc:creator>Directive 2000/78, Age discrimination and the Supreme Court &#124; eutopialaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 13:17:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukscblog.com/?p=7700#comment-26937</guid>
		<description>[...] 25 April 2012 the Supreme Court handed down two major judgments on age discrimination: Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC 15 and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes [2012] UKSC 16. In both cases Lady Hale [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 25 April 2012 the Supreme Court handed down two major judgments on age discrimination: Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC 15 and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes [2012] UKSC 16. In both cases Lady Hale [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on In the Supreme Court w/c 23rd April 2012 by S Lotay</title>
		<link>http://ukscblog.com/in-the-supreme-court-wc-23rd-april-2012/comment-page-1#comment-26653</link>
		<dc:creator>S Lotay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 11:38:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukscblog.com/?p=7696#comment-26653</guid>
		<description>re: Alvi
What&#039;s in a name?
1) List of Skilled occupations ( Alvi )
2) List of Graduate level occupations ( UKBA )
3) List of Professions(?)
I thought they were the same , but a Designated Immigration Judge contends that they are different lists.
Any comments/ thoughts ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>re: Alvi<br />
What&#8217;s in a name?<br />
1) List of Skilled occupations ( Alvi )<br />
2) List of Graduate level occupations ( UKBA )<br />
3) List of Professions(?)<br />
I thought they were the same , but a Designated Immigration Judge contends that they are different lists.<br />
Any comments/ thoughts ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Case Comment: Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher &amp; Ors [2011] UKSC 41 by ali</title>
		<link>http://ukscblog.com/case-comment-autoclenz-limited-v-belcher-and-others-2011-uksc-41/comment-page-1#comment-26538</link>
		<dc:creator>ali</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 22:43:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukscblog.com/?p=6489#comment-26538</guid>
		<description>err. did you read the article? or the case?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>err. did you read the article? or the case?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Supreme Court New Appointments: Sumption and Wilson by Rll Brett</title>
		<link>http://ukscblog.com/supreme-court-new-appointments-sumption-and-wilson/comment-page-1#comment-26429</link>
		<dc:creator>Rll Brett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 12:24:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukscblog.com/?p=5604#comment-26429</guid>
		<description>Sir Nicholas is a kind, caring and lovely man without any degree of pomposity at all.  He represesents all that is good and just in our legal system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sir Nicholas is a kind, caring and lovely man without any degree of pomposity at all.  He represesents all that is good and just in our legal system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Dragon Rises by Westengland</title>
		<link>http://ukscblog.com/the-dragon-rises/comment-page-1#comment-26231</link>
		<dc:creator>Westengland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 19:25:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukscblog.com/?p=7715#comment-26231</guid>
		<description>Consider that Welsh legal devolutionists will know:

a) That Wales had a court distinct from England - The Court of Great Sessions - between 1542 and 1830, organised like the English Assizes, with the addition of Chancery, in four circuits with Chief and Puisne Justices for each circuit (an historical reference).

b) Of the separate legal system of Northern Ireland, established since 1922, including its own Court of Appeal and Lord Chief Justice (a contemporary reference).

c) Since last year Wales now has its own Great Seal, usually called the Welsh Seal (a future reference).

These related legal matters, amongst others and the way in which Welsh political and administrative devolution is developing all point to some form of separation from the English jurisdiction in the future, probably complete in time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Consider that Welsh legal devolutionists will know:</p>
<p>a) That Wales had a court distinct from England &#8211; The Court of Great Sessions &#8211; between 1542 and 1830, organised like the English Assizes, with the addition of Chancery, in four circuits with Chief and Puisne Justices for each circuit (an historical reference).</p>
<p>b) Of the separate legal system of Northern Ireland, established since 1922, including its own Court of Appeal and Lord Chief Justice (a contemporary reference).</p>
<p>c) Since last year Wales now has its own Great Seal, usually called the Welsh Seal (a future reference).</p>
<p>These related legal matters, amongst others and the way in which Welsh political and administrative devolution is developing all point to some form of separation from the English jurisdiction in the future, probably complete in time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Lord Steel confirms resignation after SNP Supreme Court spat by D.</title>
		<link>http://ukscblog.com/lord-steel-confirms-resignation-after-snp-supreme-court-spat/comment-page-1#comment-26144</link>
		<dc:creator>D.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 17:53:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ukscblog.com/?p=6496#comment-26144</guid>
		<description>It is not right to work for the S.N.P. in the first place.

&quot;Lord Steel explained: “... I was appalled by the language being used by Alex Salmond, Kenny MacAskill and an authorised spokesman towards the judiciary on the Supreme Court and the secretary of state.

“I told Alex that I hoped this was not the way they were going to continue now that they had an overall majority, ...”&quot; - Of course it is. Everyone knows that this is how Salmond and the S.N.P. always behave.

I wasn&#039;t aware of this abuse by Salmond but, after seeing this blog, I read this Telegraph article on it:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/cw6tsn4

The article reports Salmond saying: “... when the citizens of Scotland understandably vent their fury about the prospect of some of the vilest people on the planet getting lots of money off the public purse, they don’t go chapping at Lord Hope’s door,” Mr Salmond told Holyrood magazine. 

Sounds like he&#039;s abusing his position while on public duties: &quot;citizens of Scotland&quot; makes it sound as if Scotland already had independence. (A ploy he uses often.) I also think it&#039;s  unacceptable of someone in his position to talk threateningly of: all the people in Scotland &quot;venting their fury&quot; and saying: ... [let&#039;s hope] they don’t go chapping at Lord Hope’s door.&quot;

(As if they&#039;ve heard of this obscure subject anyway.)

Salmond also says: “At least I went to the bother of being elected – it may be an inconvenience but none the less has to count for something.” - Not much of an election. Only less than 45% of the people who happened to be living in Scotland at the time voted for The Scottish Parliament to exist. A minority of a minority.



&quot;Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was also criticised after threatening to remove funding for the court, saying: “He who pays the piper picks the tune.”&quot; - A pretty good summing up of Mac Askill&#039;s understanding of law and government. Is it legal for him to threaten that?

http://ukscblog.com/lord-steel-confirms-resignation-after-snp-supreme-court-spat


According to the BBC: &quot;Scotland&#039;s first minister, Alex Salmond, has announced plans to hold an independence referendum in the autumn of 2014.&quot; - How is this legal? Salmond is in The Scottish Executive - constitutional matters are reserved, and it is illegal for him to be agitating on them while on his public duty hours.

Salmond and his fellow S.N.P. politicians sow discord wherever they go.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is not right to work for the S.N.P. in the first place.</p>
<p>&#8220;Lord Steel explained: “&#8230; I was appalled by the language being used by Alex Salmond, Kenny MacAskill and an authorised spokesman towards the judiciary on the Supreme Court and the secretary of state.</p>
<p>“I told Alex that I hoped this was not the way they were going to continue now that they had an overall majority, &#8230;”&#8221; &#8211; Of course it is. Everyone knows that this is how Salmond and the S.N.P. always behave.</p>
<p>I wasn&#8217;t aware of this abuse by Salmond but, after seeing this blog, I read this Telegraph article on it:<br />
<a href="http://preview.tinyurl.com/cw6tsn4" rel="nofollow">http://preview.tinyurl.com/cw6tsn4</a></p>
<p>The article reports Salmond saying: “&#8230; when the citizens of Scotland understandably vent their fury about the prospect of some of the vilest people on the planet getting lots of money off the public purse, they don’t go chapping at Lord Hope’s door,” Mr Salmond told Holyrood magazine. </p>
<p>Sounds like he&#8217;s abusing his position while on public duties: &#8220;citizens of Scotland&#8221; makes it sound as if Scotland already had independence. (A ploy he uses often.) I also think it&#8217;s  unacceptable of someone in his position to talk threateningly of: all the people in Scotland &#8220;venting their fury&#8221; and saying: &#8230; [let's hope] they don’t go chapping at Lord Hope’s door.&#8221;</p>
<p>(As if they&#8217;ve heard of this obscure subject anyway.)</p>
<p>Salmond also says: “At least I went to the bother of being elected – it may be an inconvenience but none the less has to count for something.” &#8211; Not much of an election. Only less than 45% of the people who happened to be living in Scotland at the time voted for The Scottish Parliament to exist. A minority of a minority.</p>
<p>&#8220;Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was also criticised after threatening to remove funding for the court, saying: “He who pays the piper picks the tune.”&#8221; &#8211; A pretty good summing up of Mac Askill&#8217;s understanding of law and government. Is it legal for him to threaten that?</p>
<p><a href="http://ukscblog.com/lord-steel-confirms-resignation-after-snp-supreme-court-spat" rel="nofollow">http://ukscblog.com/lord-steel-confirms-resignation-after-snp-supreme-court-spat</a></p>
<p>According to the BBC: &#8220;Scotland&#8217;s first minister, Alex Salmond, has announced plans to hold an independence referendum in the autumn of 2014.&#8221; &#8211; How is this legal? Salmond is in The Scottish Executive &#8211; constitutional matters are reserved, and it is illegal for him to be agitating on them while on his public duty hours.</p>
<p>Salmond and his fellow S.N.P. politicians sow discord wherever they go.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

