Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Dear PPLers


    Congratulations on our offers! As you may know there aren't that many spots every year and we are small class.




    I Made this thread so we can get to know each other, discuss modules, offers, and help each other if need be.

    If you're an offer holder, current student, or an applicant with questions please post away!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hi, just saw this and thought I'd introduce myself. I'm an offer holder, it's nice to find someone else doing the course- I assumed there wouldn't be that many of us! I chose this over straight law as it the modules look amazing and there's so much module flexibility. I'm currently working in the NHS and am looking forward to the Medical and Anti Discrimination Law modules in particular. What about you? Congratulations on your offer, too- Feel free to ask away!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    hello! Congratulations on your offer! you are the 5th PPLer I found here in the TSR(thats 1/5 of our class!). you have very particular interests in Law! do you have any other interests in Philosophy and Politics? I chose PPL because my main interest is Politics and Philosophy, but Law is also very interesting and more employable.

    Are you international? have you look at accomodation?

    (Original post by NZnostalgic)
    Hi, just saw this and thought I'd introduce myself. I'm an offer holder, it's nice to find someone else doing the course- I assumed there wouldn't be that many of us! I chose this over straight law as it the modules look amazing and there's so much module flexibility. I'm currently working in the NHS and am looking forward to the Medical and Anti Discrimination Law modules in particular. What about you? Congratulations on your offer, too- Feel free to ask away!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you! I am also interested in Politics and Philosophy, but Law, and how all of the subjects fit together, is my main focus. From what I know of the Philosophy content, it seems to be very modern and ethics based- is that one of the things that drew you to the course? No, I'm not international (are you?), and I'm currently living in Greater London so will be commuting in from there. What are you doing about accommodation?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NZnostalgic)
    Thank you! I am also interested in Politics and Philosophy, but Law, and how all of the subjects fit together, is my main focus. From what I know of the Philosophy content, it seems to be very modern and ethics based- is that one of the things that drew you to the course? No, I'm not international (are you?), and I'm currently living in Greater London so will be commuting in from there. What are you doing about accommodation?
    i see. that is interesting. The first two years of philosophy are mostly political philosophy and ethics. I'm not really a big fan of ethics at all( I'm Nietzschean), but I will have free choice of modules on 3rd and 4th year. What attracted me the most was the chance to have a law degree and still study a lot of philosophy. i will most likely take almost all philosophy modules on the final years. I am international, and you are actually the only British PPLer I found.

    I'm applying to the intercollegiate halls, so hopefully I will live there
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Fair enough, you'll have to explain what you mean by that (I haven't really studied philosophy before) when we meet in September! The first year looks like it might be a bit of a drag, but the range of choices in the last two years more than make up for it. I'll be taking mostly law I think, but hope to gain more interests as I go through the course. The intercollegiate halls sound nice ( I looked at them when I applied last year)- I'm sure you'll have a great time living there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    yeah I'll tell you about it on the Philosophy Bar (is that really a thing? haha) the first year sounds interesting for Law since we will be building foundations, but that's it. you'll have 4 years so you can take as many law courses as a LLB three year student + other modules so I would say don't be scared of trying thins out.


    (Original post by NZnostalgic)
    Fair enough, you'll have to explain what you mean by that (I haven't really studied philosophy before) when we meet in September! The first year looks like it might be a bit of a drag, but the range of choices in the last two years more than make up for it. I'll be taking mostly law I think, but hope to gain more interests as I go through the course. The intercollegiate halls sound nice ( I looked at them when I applied last year)- I'm sure you'll have a great time living there.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Sounds good, may well take you up on that! I haven't heard anything about a philosophy bar, though..... It does, but it seems like an odd decision to start with EU law, as opposed to something more accessible like criminal. I'm definitely not worried about having not enough law in my life! :P
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NZnostalgic)
    Sounds good, may well take you up on that! I haven't heard anything about a philosophy bar, though..... It does, but it seems like an odd decision to start with EU law, as opposed to something more accessible like criminal. I'm definitely not worried about having not enough law in my life! :P
    I think the EU law is EU constitutional Law. I wonder if they teach us UK constitutional law too? It is indeed odd. Constitutional law is the bedrock of law, but I agree with you that criminal is also incredibly important to build a strong foundation in law.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    EU law has a lot of relevance for the UK. I don't know too much about it, but I'm assuming we'll cover the European Convention of Human Rights, Immigration law (free movement of labour), Consumer law (eg consumer protection, EU safety regulations etc) and stuff like that. In terms of the UK constitution, we don't have a traditional written one (until Labour introduce one, maybe :P) I think we still have a module on general constitutional law, though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NZnostalgic)
    EU law has a lot of relevance for the UK. I don't know too much about it, but I'm assuming we'll cover the European Convention of Human Rights, Immigration law (free movement of labour), Consumer law (eg consumer protection, EU safety regulations etc) and stuff like that. In terms of the UK constitution, we don't have a traditional written one (until Labour introduce one, maybe :P) I think we still have a module on general constitutional law, though.
    I see. That sounds useful, yet I still think criminal and constitutional work better to build foundations - you may disagree with me.

    I know Britain has an unwritten constitution but the term 'unwritten' is deceiving. There are still documents that are the foundation of UK law (I have only basic knowledge on the four documents that constitute the Uk constitution, but I don't know anything about their supremacy, etc. maybe you could enlighten me a bit on this). I find odd not to teach about the documents that are the blueprint of all laws...

    I guess I just find this weird because I live in America. Here the constitution is the Bible. All Law students take at least two constitutional law classes here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with with you. We have to cover it as part of an LLB, but I wouldn't have put it as the first module. Maybe they did so to free up their specialists in other areas for the older students or something? (People sometimes get really angry about first years being taught by phd students instead of 'proper academics', especially since the fee increase. Doesn't particularly bother me, though). Going back to the UK constitution, I'm not sure about 4 constitutional documents (such documents would not have any legally enshrined supremacy) only ones I can think of would be the Magna Carta (though my bf studying medieval history has told me that it is historically irrelevant, I assume our course might think differently..), maybe the Human Rights Act/ ECHR, and I can't really think of anything else (but I'm really ignorant and could be wrong). Our 'constitution' is a combination of all Acts of Parliament/ Statutes (parliamentary law) and 'judge made' law (common law). All this legal documentation has given rise to legal principles, which courts can use to inform their judgements. For example, the principle of 'duty of care' (enshrined in an Act of Parliament, possibly most recently in the Health and Social Care Act 2014) means that drs can be sued for clinical negligence and be struck of the register. A court could then interpret the law to say that this care is also applicable to surgeons (stupid example, I know, but this does illustrate how common law could be used in court) and so they should be prosecuted in the same way. Yeah, the US is very different. However, having a clear constitution doesn't seem to make law any clearer, the UK system is just as broken!!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gabrielxucram)
    Dear PPLers


    Congratulations on our offers! As you may know there aren't that many spots every year and we are small class.




    I Made this thread so we can get to know each other, discuss modules, offers, and help each other if need be.

    If you're an offer holder, current student, or an applicant with questions please post away!
    How long as this course been around for and where is it taught?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NZnostalgic)
    I agree with with you. We have to cover it as part of an LLB, but I wouldn't have put it as the first module. Maybe they did so to free up their specialists in other areas for the older students or something? (People sometimes get really angry about first years being taught by phd students instead of 'proper academics', especially since the fee increase. Doesn't particularly bother me, though). Going back to the UK constitution, I'm not sure about 4 constitutional documents (such documents would not have any legally enshrined supremacy) only ones I can think of would be the Magna Carta (though my bf studying medieval history has told me that it is historically irrelevant, I assume our course might think differently..), maybe the Human Rights Act/ ECHR, and I can't really think of anything else (but I'm really ignorant and could be wrong). Our 'constitution' is a combination of all Acts of Parliament/ Statutes (parliamentary law) and 'judge made' law (common law). All this legal documentation has given rise to legal principles, which courts can use to inform their judgements. For example, the principle of 'duty of care' (enshrined in an Act of Parliament, possibly most recently in the Health and Social Care Act 2014) means that drs can be sued for clinical negligence and be struck of the register. A court could then interpret the law to say that this care is also applicable to surgeons (stupid example, I know, but this does illustrate how common law could be used in court) and so they should be prosecuted in the same way. Yeah, the US is very different. However, having a clear constitution doesn't seem to make law any clearer, the UK system is just as broken!!



    Maybe yes. Being taught by PhDs doesn't bother me that much. At least they are not as intimidating as professors... The British constitution is constituted of the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the Acts of Parliament, and Common Law. Those were the four parts I meant. I might be incorrect though (I briefly studied it last year). My political science teachers last year absolutely hated the UK political system because of the lack of the written constitution, parliamentary sovereignty (post EU), and the oddness of the courts system. I don't know much about it but I heard there were factions trying to transform the system in a more, for lack of a better term, Americanised version. I think the country seems to be working fine, so I don't why adopt the Us system which is utterly flawed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sykro)
    How long as this course been around for and where is it taught?
    Since 2012 at King's College London
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gabrielxucram)


    Maybe yes. Being taught by PhDs doesn't bother me that much. At least they are not as intimidating as professors... The British constitution is constituted of the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the Acts of Parliament, and Common Law. Those were the four parts I meant. I might be incorrect though (I briefly studied it last year). My political science teachers last year absolutely hated the UK political system because of the lack of the written constitution, parliamentary sovereignty (post EU), and the oddness of the courts system. I don't know much about it but I heard there were factions trying to transform the system in a more, for lack of a better term, Americanised version. I think the country seems to be working fine, so I don't why adopt the Us system which is utterly flawed.
    Ahh, I see what you mean now. Yes, the British Constitution is formed from all those sources of law you mentioned. However, when taken together, you basically get the entire legal system, so calling it a constitution, to my mind, is unhelpful and unnecessary. There are definite drawbacks to both systems. For the US, basing law primarily on a document written in the 18th Century, written in a completely alien social and historical context, seems problematic to me. You only have to look at the troubles they are having with possible gun control legislation to see how dangerous the Constitution can be. However, in the UK, pieces of 'constitutional' law can be just as easily changed as pieces of 'normal' legislation, which is why the Conservatives were almost successful in scrapping the Human Rights Act 1998. Combining that with a blurring of the executive and legislative branches of government (parliamentary sovereignty), and a basically useless Head of State (imho), limiting democratic checks and balances, you are likely to run into problems. (e.g. The Anti Terrorism Act 2001). However, we do have the the European Court of Human Rights (eternally popular :P) and the courts to reintroduce some balance. I could not presume to say one is fundamentally better than the other given how little I know...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NZnostalgic)
    Ahh, I see what you mean now. Yes, the British Constitution is formed from all those sources of law you mentioned. However, when taken together, you basically get the entire legal system, so calling it a constitution, to my mind, is unhelpful and unnecessary. There are definite drawbacks to both systems. For the US, basing law primarily on a document written in the 18th Century, written in a completely alien social and historical context, seems problematic to me. You only have to look at the troubles they are having with possible gun control legislation to see how dangerous the Constitution can be. However, in the UK, pieces of 'constitutional' law can be just as easily changed as pieces of 'normal' legislation, which is why the Conservatives were almost successful in scrapping the Human Rights Act 1998. Combining that with a blurring of the executive and legislative branches of government (parliamentary sovereignty), and a basically useless Head of State (imho), limiting democratic checks and balances, you are likely to run into problems. (e.g. The Anti Terrorism Act 2001). However, we do have the the European Court of Human Rights (eternally popular :P) and the courts to reintroduce some balance. I could not presume to say one is fundamentally better than the other given how little I know...
    Yes, almost everything is the British constitution haha. The founders of the US constitution wrote a government supposed to be inefficacious to protect individual's freedom. Yet, they themselves acknowledged their failures. The most particular failure is on the judiciary system which, while supposed to be impartial, is utterly politicised. The constitution nowadays is only useful because of the Bill of Rights. Without it, the Constitution is simply a blueprint to how checks and balances work. The gun issue is not that much a constitutional issue. It is rather a more patriotic one. To be an American means to have guns (I disagree, but it is a very sentimental topic to many here).

    I love that the UK system works really quickly while here in America things can take decades to change due to gridlock. Yet, Parliament's speed can also harm one's personal freedoms (as seen in the conservative attempt to scrape the Human Rights Act of 1998). Also I don't like the idea of the House of Lords or Monarchy in the UK, but they are kind of irrelevant in politics.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    That makes sense. The judiciary system is also fairly corrupt, especially during election season. I thought that the gun control is such a problem because the 'right to bear arms' is enshrined in the US constitution, which in turn makes it a patriotic issue. Another problem I have with the constitution is that it can seemingly be interpreted to fit the political landscape at will.For instance, how on earth are the NSA's activities 'constitutional'? The ability to make laws quickly here is undeniably useful, but it also makes law less considered. Personally, I'd rather my elected representative fully read and understood the implications of the laws that he/ she were signing off on. I think I'm right in saying that the Anti Terrorism Act, which was a huge piece of legislation (giving the Home Secretary the right to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial so long as reasonable suspicion was had), was only considered for 16 hours. Another reason the legislature is so quick is because the executive has a crazy amount of influence over the House of Commons, and MPs are unlikely to vote with their conscience and just do what their party says. I don't like the fact that legislation is very rarely subjected to vigorous debate. The House of Lords (although I hate the concept of an un-elected 2nd chamber) has the power to delay all pieces of law (except financial) for a year, which does at least give it some leverage over the legislative and executive. The Queen, however, is never going to use her legal rights as sovereign, purely because of self interest. This is not a great state of affairs. It does, however, seem preferable to the US system of constant pointless gridlock just for the sake of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NZnostalgic)
    That makes sense. The judiciary system is also fairly corrupt, especially during election season. I thought that the gun control is such a problem because the 'right to bear arms' is enshrined in the US constitution, which in turn makes it a patriotic issue. Another problem I have with the constitution is that it can seemingly be interpreted to fit the political landscape at will.For instance, how on earth are the NSA's activities 'constitutional'? The ability to make laws quickly here is undeniably useful, but it also makes law less considered. Personally, I'd rather my elected representative fully read and understood the implications of the laws that he/ she were signing off on. I think I'm right in saying that the Anti Terrorism Act, which was a huge piece of legislation (giving the Home Secretary the right to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial so long as reasonable suspicion was had), was only considered for 16 hours. Another reason the legislature is so quick is because the executive has a crazy amount of influence over the House of Commons, and MPs are unlikely to vote with their conscience and just do what their party says. I don't like the fact that legislation is very rarely subjected to vigorous debate. The House of Lords (although I hate the concept of an un-elected 2nd chamber) has the power to delay all pieces of law (except financial) for a year, which does at least give it some leverage over the legislative and executive. The Queen, however, is never going to use her legal rights as sovereign, purely because of self interest. This is not a great state of affairs. It does, however, seem preferable to the US system of constant pointless gridlock just for the sake of it.
    the second amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
    so the 2nd amendment was created for people to protect themselves from government. It can be argued that it is being misinterpreted and the court has chsnged their views many times throughout history. You are absolutely right about the interpretation of the constitution changing from court to court.

    The Supreme Court has the last word on the meaning of the constitution. This led to many cases of segregation, declaring black people are not citizens, Citizens United v FEC (reason why the US constitution broke, in my opinion). The judged are appointed and hold their office for life. This is a lot of power. The only way to overrule the court is either through a constitutional amendment, or through the court itself. What is interesting is that the court is usually very divided between liberals and conservatives, so whoever is the swing vote(the guy that changes sides) has the utter power to completely change policy for decades. That is why there is so much scrutinity and partiality in the court. How could the writers of the constitution expect that people that are appointed by politicians aren't political themselves?

    also the NSA is deemed constitutional because of the Patriot Act of 2001 which gave the government blank checks to do whatever they want in the name of counter-terrorism. It is actually similar to the UK law you mentioned above and it was also passed very quickly. The constitution has been previously bended in times of crisis or war (e.g. During the US Civil War Lincoln abolished the write to habeas corpus). The problem is when the exception is made to be rule. War on terrorism is a broad term which is used to justify abuse of power.

    I don't like the idea of Lords delaying anything. I find it rather archaic. Yet, even with those issues, I prefer the UK system over the US due to the speed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have a scholarship?
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.