Some would say I have the perfect face and voice for blogging, and that I should really try to avoid podcasts, radio, and camera work. They may well be right, but every so often I give such things a go anyway.
And so I have now participated in two "Without Prejudice" podcasts.
The idea is simple. Every fortnight, two experienced law bloggers and I discuss current legal issues with a guest. The intention is that between us we explain and explore topical legal issues in a way accessible to both non-lawyers and lawyers. We will do this with regard to substantive and procedural law, and to the relevant political and media contexts.
The chair and producer of the discussions is Charon QC, the doyen of British legal blogging. Any listener to his many podcasts will enjoy his fine, even luxurious voice; but behind the voice is one of the sharpest and most erudite legal minds imaginable, drawing on the experience of observing and explaining complex legal matters for more than thirty years. He is indeed probably our leading legal communicator, though he uses blogs and podcasts rather than TV and radio as his chosen media.
The second regular is the superb legal blogger Carl Gardner, a former government barrister who has been involved in some of the most interesting and controversial legislation and public law cases of the last twenty years. He was also one of the very first legal bloggers to see the potential of the medium and his posts are usually fully-linked and comprehensive masterpieces.
Carl's technical brilliance and unmatched inside experience does not, however, prevent him from error. Indeed, he can be as executive-minded (or, at a push, legislature-minded) as I am judiciary-minded. In other words, Carl will tend to see judicial supervision as sometimes frustrating the clear intention of the crown-in-parliament, whilst I will tend to see such a role of the judiciary as essential in a democratic and liberal society subject to the rule of law. Accordingly, the listener to Without Prejudice can expect to hear genuine but good-natured clashes between me and Carl as we examine various public interest cases: each exchange expertly provoked and moderated by Charon QC.
The three of us also come from different legal backgrounds: Charon QC as a teacher of and writer about law and founder of BPP Law School; Carl as an in-house lawyer in the pleasant and leisurely world of the government legal service; and me as a jobbing commercial and media lawyer in private practice. Between the three of us we hope that current and controversial legal issues can be presented in a way to inform and engage the listener and to make each hour podcast worth the time listening to it.
And if the three of us are not quite to that, then we have a guest to offer an alternative and perhaps quirky perspective. It is envisaged that the guests will often be non-lawyers, such as campaigners, journalists, legislators, or even those just caught up in the news. Our first guest was media barrister and human rights campaigner Joanne Cash, and the second was the editor of The Lawyer, Catrin Griffiths.
The podcasts so far have been a joy to record. They take place in Charon QC's agreeable Thames-side penthouse suite on alternate Thursday evenings, where one literally can hear the ducks quack as they float by.
So please, do join us every two weeks. If there must be law podcasting, then surely this is how to do it.
Without Prejudice Podcast I - with guest Joanne Cash - Assange, European Arrest Warrants. the British Bill of Rights and the ECHR, the oversupply of lawyers, Garrow’s Law and Silk.
Without Prejudice Podcast II - with guest Catrin Griffiths, editor of The Lawyer - insurance and sexual equality, sexism in the City, libel, contempt of court, legal journalism.
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
Sunday, 13 March 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Even though the commute to DC would be horrendous, you've now made me want a Thames-side penthouse suite. In a pinch, I would be willing to forgo the quacking ducks. As this seems as likely as my election as Pope, I'll have to live vicariously and imagine the luxurious surroundings as you all speak.
I had a listen to this week's show and I liked the format.
Two small points though...
First, your Chair needs to remember to periodically name the speakers before they chip in to the discussions. I think I managed to sort out who's who, but this is a little bit of technique that would help listeners along.
Second, perhaps more importantly, you need to get every one of the people taking part separate microphones, or record around an omni-directional microphone in a room with a softer acoustic. You all sound like you're sat at the bottom of a deep well. At the very least, try covering the table with some felt.
That second point needs a bit of an investment .. in a few microphones and a small mixer. However the benefits will be immense in terms of professionalism.
Stephen here. I follow Human Rights issues but I am not a lawyer.
I wondered whether you you see any mileage in a Podcast in examining the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the extent to which it is, or is not, compatible with the HRA? In particular, the fact that fare dodgers and similiar minor transgressors are now subject to confiscation proceedings.
The provisions were strengthened (ie made more draconian) in 2009 by Statutory Instrument, a fact picked up by Lord Onslow.
It does seem to me, that if oppressive legislation can be enacted and that the HRA can be circumvented so easily through its qualifications, then the HRA affords little protection. It would mean that concentration camps (so long as they were not death camps) would be compatible with HRA so long as legislation brought them into existence.
Pleasant and leisurely? You're a master of irony, David!
Can you please get this on iTunes- its so much easier to follow podcasts that way.
Post a Comment