"Bean" a four letter word!

So it is OK to tell the police to 'f... off' according to Bean J.  I don't think so. Why should public servants be subjected to foul mouthed yobs swearing at them and not be able to arrest them.  The use of such language may be part of common usage, common being the operative word, but it is unnecessary.  The actor David Jason was right when he said that there is too much swearing on TV.  It appears to be the imperative to try to get away with as much swearing and use of the 'f' word as possible on TV shows.  Why?  It merely demonstrates a lack of vocabulary and intelligence.  Comedy shows do not need to be punctuated by these words.  The great comedians used the double entendre to great effect without resorting to swearing.  Watching Buzzcocks the other day, it featured the 'f' word it seemed just to try to be salacious.  It was unnecessary and detracted from the show.
Enough of swearing.  Life sentences should be abolished and replaced with determinate sentences.  I think not. There has to be a deterrent for the taking of life.  The statutory tariffs are a good indicator of the level of culpability involved.  The Chief Justice, Lord Judge, is on the point when he said that the law of murder needs to be looked at.  Well look not merely at what amounts to provocation but also to the absurdity of the intents.  For murder either an intent to kill or to cause serious harm but in 'attempted murder' an intent to kill.  Perhaps the intent in murder should be that, namely an intent to kill!

Ministry of Justice and LSC show some common sense!

Some common sense by the Ministry of Justice and the LSC.  Some might say 'about time too'! But who am I to comment.  Having apparently threatened to seek to persuade the MoJ to link advocacy fee rates to QASA case rankings and in consequence abolish fees for Silks, the LSC has now signed a letter (5/10/11) to say that is not the case.  Well done Max Hill QC Chair of the Criminal Bar Association.
Well like many, I thought that was what they were proposing.  Was I wrong?
Is it 'never mind the quality feel the width' of coverage from advocates of any calibre however poor?
There needs to be some regulation of ability but aren't the judges the ones to do so, seeing advocates in court, rather than some tick-box system?

What is the BSB up to with a 100% increase of CPD?

The BSB proposes an increase of 100% in the CPD hours! Why, when its Working Group presents no evidence to support such an increase and overlooks the many hours of research necessary not only on keeping up with the new cases but of research on individual cases?

Is it regulation for regulation's sake with no benefit to those we serve? It would seem that is the answer.