Posts Tagged ‘funny, odd or interesting’

Want some free CPD? Its approaching the CPD year end for solicitors (Oct) and not all that far off for barristers (Dec)… Well, lucky readers of Pink Tape may now sample the wares of CPDcast for free using the code below. CPDcast tell me that:

‘CPDcast is an online CPD provider to the legal profession, helping solicitors, barristers and legal executives get their points and keep up to date. Their library contains over 400 titles in 25 practice areas, divided into pithy 30 minute legal podcasts.

To get your free podcast just select the one you’d like to listen to for free. Then when you get to the payment screen put in the following voucher code “pinktape2010” which will discount the price to 0.

This voucher code can be used to listen to any one podcast on our site and is valid until the end of this calendar year.’

Feedback on the CPD they provide could be helpfully posted in comments on this post.

Read Full Post »

Iconoclasts – A Modest Proposal

How charming: Tomorrow on Radio 4 at 8pm Edward Stourton chairs a live debate in which Professor David Marsland defends his view that the mentally and morally unfit should be sterilised. Part of the Iconoclasts Programme.

Read Full Post »

Democracy in action

Apparently, Pink Tape has been shortlisted for the 2010 Blawggie Awards, category Best Legal Commentary. Who’da thunk it? This could be my moment…

Anyhoo, vote Now all you lovely readers.  Voting is open until Friday 3 Sept.

Read Full Post »

Lighten Up

You’ve got to laugh in this job or else… A little bit of black Wednesday humour

Read Full Post »

Surreal: Mr Hitler’s children removed by New Jersey Family Court. Thanks Popehat.

Read Full Post »

The Tale of Piglings not-so-Bland

Apologies for the recent downturn. Here’s a little something to entertain. To quote that well known legal pundit Homer Simpson: ‘Doh!’

Back blogging soon I promise.

Kisses x

Read Full Post »

Rob Williams writes in the Guardian about the practice at Basildon hospital of excluding fathers to be from ultrasound scans. He suspect[s] that the policy to exclude men from the scanning room is rooted in a belief that men are not important to the process of bringing a baby into the world. Whilst I sympathise and think this policy creates more issues than it resolves, I suspect it’s not that simple.


The article publishes in full correspondence in response to a complaint about this policy, along with answers to a Freedom of Information Act request. Rob Williams complains that the Trust’s claim that the policy is ‘to protect technicians from violence’ is not borne out when one looks at the statistics – only one incident of violence towards a sonographer in the two year period covered. But in fact, this is not what correspondence from the Trust says. It says that in part the policy results from very real concerns about ‘the reactions of partners when they are in the scanning room’. It seems fairly clear to me that what is likely to be behind this is not a concern about direct aggression towards staff, but the risk of an adverse reaction towards the patient herself, particularly at dating scans where a woman may be caught out in a lie. We know that domestic violence often emerges or worsens when women fall pregnant and I suspect that this policy relates to the risk to women patients, and of course the risk that staff may be caught in the crossfire. And a woman in an abusive or controlling relationship may not have been able to prevent her partner from attending the appointment, or may be unable to voice her preference to attend the scan alone.


That said, I don’t think its a policy I support. I do think that it minimises the role of fathers and operates on a presumption that they will be disruptive or unsupportive. If we can manage to involve fathers routinely in the birthing process we should be able to make arrangements for dating scans to be carried out in a way which doesn’t exclude dads, whilst safeguarding vulnerable women. If this means that staff need to be watchful, sensitive and adaptable so be it. It shouldn’t result in women who wish to have their supportive partner with them being denied that support. Having experienced both the awful moment when the sonographer confirms that the baby has no heartbeat, and having gone through subsequent scans with my heart in my throat clutching on to my husbands hand for dear life, I cannot see that this policy is right. And allowing for the partner to be brought in after the initial scan does not solve this problem.


We should not see all men as potential perpetrators. Violence against women is bound up with gender stereotypes and such a policy runs the risk of perpetuating them.

Equally, the campaign which sought the information from the Trust seems to have been so focussed on rights and equality that it had a bit of a blind spot as to the very real issue that the Trust was quite legitimately trying to address.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »