I’ve been unwell the last few days, otherwise I would have written a few posts on different issues: students suing schools for lack of support with learning disabilities, apology to stolen generation, other things. But before I get to that, I thought I’d answer Bruce’s meme of 3 good reasons why I blog.
(1) To keep my mind active and keep learning – I started blogging about four months after I had my daughter when I was not working. It is so good to keep thinking about issues and write about them. I find that writing things down clarifies my thoughts. And I enjoy thinking about other perspectives. Some people write about very different things to me, in a different way and from another perspective. That has been fascinating.
(2) To hear what other people think – Initially I didn’t think anyone would read my blog apart from those who knew me well. One of the nice surprises of blogging was how many other blogs are out there. And another nice thing was the people who found my site and commented on my posts. I think a really important part of blogging is being open-minded and open to the opinions of others.
(3) To learn and keep in touch with current affairs and legal developments – I’ve learned a lot through this blog – about the law, about other countries and religions, about other people’s points of view. I like reading recent legal cases and commenting on them for two reasons: first, to improve my own knowledge, but also secondly, hopefully I demystify the law for non-legal readers. Long-time readers will know that I feel very passionate about the way in which ordinary people can be alienated or sidelined by the law. It’s also been very interesting to research some current affairs issues more thoroughly and have a more informed point of view.
Who do I tag? I always feel a bit funny about tagging people in case it’s a burden, but I’ve enjoyed writing this post, so hopefully those whom I tag will also enjoy writing their posts. So I tag: Jim Belshaw, Stephen Warne and Dave Bath. Each writes a very different style of blog, but I enjoy them all. I’m hoping they will all give different answers too! (and check out their respective blogs, please).
The Legal Soapbox 
Good morning, LE. Thank you and I will respond! Sorry about the gastro. It’s kind of par for the course! Babies and all that.
Pingback: Meme-tag: 3 reasons why « Balneus
I’m just glad you stuck with it. I thought you were close to giving it up.
Sorry I don’t visit as often, but Jonestown has taken a new, and even more insane turn.
But it’s fun.
Thank you Fairlane! You’re right, I was close to giving it up, but now that I’ve lessened my teaching load, I’ve had a new lease of blogging life – if I could just stop getting horrid diseases off my daughter (latest one has caused me to lose my voice). I guess that’s a risk of having a toddler about the house.
I’ll have to stop by Jonestown and check it out!
Dear LE
One reason you should not stop blogging is to give lay people a chance to get some answers.
Section 347 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 says:
(2) A law practice cannot file court documentation on a claim or defence of a claim for damages unless a principal of the practice, or a legal practitioner associate responsible for the provision of the legal service concerned, certifies that there are reasonable grounds for believing on the basis of provable facts and a reasonably arguable view of the law that the claim or the defence (as appropriate) has reasonable prospects of success.
My question is – what effort, if any, is the principal expected to make before certifying “that there are reasonable grounds…”?
In my experience, principals give that certificate without ANY enquiry. Should that be so?