‘Make a stand for human rights’
Thursday 11th February 2010, 2:29PM GMT.
CHERIE BOOTH QC made a plea to the Guernsey International Legal Association last night to support human rights.
She was guest speaker at an event in the Royal Court chamber to celebrate 20 years of the association.
The practising barrister, wife of former prime minister Tony Blair, started by saying it was her first visit to Guernsey but joked she had been to Jersey three times.
‘I’m delighted to be here, especially as I saw snow falling in London.’
Ms Booth (pictured) said human rights legislation often came in for a lot of criticism, often centred around rights for unsavoury individuals such as terrorists and murderers.
‘Such distortions aren’t deserved and are damaging to us all. The main challenge is a vociferous campaign against having the Human Rights Act at all.’
She said such rights were not new but had originated from the Second World War and in that respect Guernsey understood why they were important.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Dont do it look at the MESS the U.K is in due to Human Rights i.e the BAD guys have more rights then the good guys and who makes a fortune defending them no thank you
P.S was this another freebe ! !
Report abuse
Human rights? Is this the same Cherie Booth whose husband, while Prime Minister, gave tacit approval for the US to torture prisoners?
Report abuse
Da Do
The “mess” supposedly caused by Human Rights is largely nonsense and a media fiction.
At the end of the day, we all have Human Rights, as set out in the UNCHR and I am sure that you would not want yours to be violated. If we accept that they exist, then it is common sense that the courts should be required to take them into account.
The only issue is whether the court reaches the right conclusion in any given case. The occasional decision that you disagree with does not mean that human rights should not be recongnised or respected.
As for your last paragraph, she received a fee which she asked to be paid to a charity.
Report abuse
Well well well:
Human rights?
she must be joking. did she complain to her husband about the hundreds he had killed by his arrogant way about wars:
Or the many things she was involved with, like alleged house deals for her son.
There’s many things can be laid at their doorstep.
I wouldn’t trust them further than I could kick them.
‘Another blunder by our noble States.
Report abuse
How dare this dreadful freeloading harridan preach to us about Human Rights. This is the law that allows people to be taken to court and fined for driving a little above the speed limit but leaves extremist muslim hate preachers to spout their filth on street corners with impunity. It makes criminals of law abiding citizens who dare to fight back against the scum that break in to their property with the sole intent of stealing their possessions and causing mental and often physical harm. And why is she so keen on this law that her equally feckless husband helped bring in? Because she gets a big fat pay day everytime she keeps another feral thug out of jail leaving the streets of Britain a little bit less safe. Everyone knows their rights but not their responsibilities!
Report abuse
Beware the Wicked Witch of Westminster….. This woman has sucked millions of pounds out of the Legal Aid system (implimented by her husband – purely coincidentally by the way) in the UK defending terrorists and illegal immigrants. She is not to be trusted in any way shape or form.
Remember, this is the woman who charged an Australian childrens cancer charity £30,000 to do a speech…..
Just a thought but following Da Do’s question about it being a ‘freebie’, I would like to know if she was actually paid for her visit and, if so, did she pay her local tax & insurance on her earnings?
Report abuse
What a sorry woman of a spiv of a politician who’s fabrication for war murdered thousands. What does she really know about human rights or breaking international law on waging war for that matter?
Human Rights are where the State and judiciary award you your rights. This is socialism in a nutshell. You have no rights unless Big Bro gives them to you.
English Law is vastly superior to the insidious socialist garbage from the EC. We are all free men except that which is expressly banned. That is the basis of English Law, freedom, European socialism awards you your rights which you need an army of lawyers and pockets of a millionaire to obtain.
Another money machine for lawyers and another sham of a justice system from a Govt that has bullied, nannied, spyed on and bankrupted… another socialist train wreck.
Report abuse
WHY are these uk ppl being invited here to give us advice, they have 100% MESSED up there own country beyond repair and now they want to try and take us down the same road.
WE DONT NEED THERE ADVICE STATES OF GSY WAKE UP OPEN YOUR EYES TO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO THERE OWN COUNTRY
Report abuse
I must disagree with most of the above comments.
First, let me be clear that I despise this woman. Her behaviour as the Prime Minister’s wife was nauseating. Her hypocrisy, given her chosen specialism which she carried on while at the same time supporting her husband, is astounding.
However, that does not mean that she is wrong that human rights need to be respected. It just means that she is wrong in the other aspects of her sorry life.
From the posts above, it is clear that she has a point – human rights need to be respected and yet they have a bad image based on misunderstanding and ignorance.
It is not human rights law which says that you can be prosecuted for breaking the speed limit – it is the road traffic laws. It is not human rights law that allows Muslim preachers to say what they do – it is the difficulty in UK criminal law of being able to show that someone has crossed the line of advocating a crime.
And to those blaming the States for inviting her, READ THE ARTICLE!!
Report abuse
I agree with many of the negative comments on this thread about Cherie Blair but please don’t blame the States for bringing her to the island as some posters appear to be doing. Her visit clearly had nothing to do with our government. She came as a guest of a private organisation, the Guernsey International Legal Association, who no doubt paid through the nose to bring her over to speak at their private function.
Report abuse
TL
If you think what happens here in the U.K is nonsense and media fiction come and see for yourself-hope you do not meet up with the bombers who have human rights !
Regarding charity please see WATM comment and I think you may understand you are out of line with real life here in the U.K-Please keep Gurnsey as it is leave the U.K to mess its self up whice it is doing a very good job of !!
Report abuse
Da Do
We have our own Human Rights Law here
She gave her fee for this appearance to charity. That is a fact.
Report abuse
T L no one is blaming the states.. re read yourself..but i am sure they would have been sniffing arround somewhere..
we do not need their advice
Report abuse
Johnny B
You have misunderstood the nature of Human Rights Law and its application. “Human Rights” do not emanate from the EC (European Union). The European Convention on Human Rights pre-dates this and in fact the UK was responsible for much of its drafting. These rights are not “awarded by the State and the judiciary” – the rights are set out by the Convention, and apply to all citizens of the signatory countries. Of course, at times rights conflict and then it is for the judiciary to determine which rights should prevail.
Your posting on this blog is possible only because you have the right of “freedom of expression”. This right may however conflict with another’s right to privacy, for example. The media has done a fine job of publishing blatant untruths and misinformation about the reality of this area of law, whilst omitting to say that their publishing freedom is itself a right protected by the Convention!
And as for “what Cherie knows about human rights or international law”….it’s quite a lot actually. Most would agree that her husband’s actions were utterly reprehensible, and she supported him in his role as Prime Minister. However, she is also a successful practising barrister whose expertise is in precisely this area – a review of her CV will prove this to you. (There is a link to her CV on this page: http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/Information/Areas%20of%20Practice/Human%20Rights.aspx )
Report abuse
TL
It would seem you only find fault with other posting, either because they say it before you, or you have a twisted sense of respect for such as that woman,
You like to twist things as when you mention road offences and such like,
You have the audacity to say you Dis-agree with ALL the posters, not one or two but all.
You try to cover your bad habits with your out burst of disliking the woman in question, but secretly I think you really admire her,
My own thoughts about her coming here to blah-blah blah, was totally UNACCEPTABLE.
But at least it gives us another reason to break completely with the Anglo_Saxons.
They are a maelstrom of dithering, Black is white and green is pink, They have no logical system of combatting today’s lifestyle.
I truly feel sorry for the ordinary people of England, led by a disastrous government of Topsy turvy would be politicians.
It’s time to break away. before we also get into their way of life.
Today I watched the sorrowful way of how they squirmed their way out of the Christmas fiasco of the Channel Tunnel trains.
The lies and the self righteousness was appalling and if anyone believed them then they have a very limited belief.
And that specimen of explanation is exactly how the government of England works,
And that woman was part of her husbands mismanagement.
In truth one may wonder who was Prime Minister, Him, her, or her father—
Report abuse
@ Ayreon.
I couldn’t agree more.
In the words of Jeremy Bentham, these natural rights are’nonsense upon stilts’ :-)
Report abuse
Please say it ain’t so but my nephew swears blind that he saw Mrs B coming out of Swoffers with an Open Market brochure
Report abuse
Eric – actually, if you look again you will see that I said “most of the comments”, not “all of the posters”
after getting off on that wrong foot, the rest of your post in unintelligible
Report abuse
Rex Ipsa Loquitur – while Jeremy Bentham may have objected to the source of “natural rights”, he would have supported the substance of the rights that are now enshrined in domestic law.
So in fact, he would have been an advocate of the Human Rights Law as, to his mind, the rights would not have existed until that law was made.
Report abuse
Belinda
My point is Human Rights Law is a socialist doctrine that ‘awards” you rights from on high. My point is this is socialist State doctrine.
My other point is English Law is vastly superior to the garbage of European socialism because you have EVERY RIGHT of a free man under English Law, unless expressly banned.
You prove my point. You write, “Your posting on this blog is possible only because you have the right of freedom of expression”.
No I am NOT FREE if I am only AWARDED my rights by an unelected socialist cabal in Europe. I only have the rights a Big Nanny awards me. This is patronage and patronising Big Bro Govt/Judiciary.
Human Rights is fundamentally flawed and fundamentally socialist.
English Law – we are all free men – is vastly superior. Period.
Report abuse
Johnny B – just as an idea, why don’t you read up on how the European Convention on Human Rights came into being, and after that, rejoin the debate.
Who was the main driving force behind it? Oh yes, that old “commie” Sir Winston Churchill….
You should open your eyes to the rest of the world if you genuinely believe that you are not free. I actually pity you if this is the way you feel as you cannot be getting much out of what truly is a very privileged way of life.
Report abuse
Oh – “We are all free men” JohnnyB – yes that worked very well prior to the ECHR didn’t it. Well, I suppose it did if you were a member of the (male) gentry. Otherwise, the concept of freedom as we know it today, was entirely absent. Methinks the history books would also merit some perusal.
Report abuse
Well TL.
You may think whatever you like; I suppose you are like most from that side of the ‘Manche’
Know-it-all.
Perhaps it didn’t make sense; but something must have stuck.. you sure you are TL not ignoramus.
But then again you always try to be the “I am TL” listen to me.
My answer: fiche-Le-camp.
There’s enough clowns already in Guernsey, don’t add to the number.
Report abuse
Johnny B – your thinking is a bit skewed.
Under the UK constitution that you talk of, a citizen of the UK is free to do as they wish unless the UK sovereign or government has made it unlawful. However, there are few checks or balances on the rules that may be imposed by that sovereign or government.
Human Rights Law does not award rights to individuals – it creates limitations for the State. It prevents a State passing a law or State bodies acting in a manner which infringes your basic rights.
The Human Rights Law (or Act in the UK) does not change the merits that you see in the UK system, it just stops the State chipping away at your natural rights.
And why are you talking about English law anyway?
Report abuse
I think that it is very impressive that the Guernsey International Lawyers Association (GILA) were able to capture such a high profile speaker for their event. She’s a QC in the front rank of human rights work and employment law at the English Bar. She is so much more than the wife of an ex-Prime Minister. No doubt they probably did pay “through the nose” to get her services. In my experience, the guest speakers that they generally tend to get for these types of events are fairly dull, boring “bean counting” types; but this marks a real turning point.
I wonder how so called critics of the Human Rights Law in particular and the ECHR in general would feel if they were imprisoned without reason or without trial; or had their private and family life trampled on by the State; or had their rights to self-expression curtailed for little or no reason. Human rights are, by their very nature, universal. They apply to everybody in our society; not just to white, wealthy, well-educated men or women. So, yes, that does mean that unsavoury types can seek to take advantage of those same rights. It equally means that ordinary folk can reply on them if need be. But it also means that those who profess “hatred” of “human rights” can seek that same assistance, the next time the State decides to over-reach itself.
So much of the discourse on human rights these days is based on a demented Daily Mail view of the idea. Don’t fall for it. Respect for human rights is the mark of a civilised society and I am proud that Guernsey has implemented the Human Rights Law.
Report abuse
C1977
But how oftern are ordinary folk in need of human rights assistance ?? in nealy every case it is the unsavoury types who are let off thanks to do gooders – so hijack a plane at gun point land at Stansted do not go to jail live in the U.K at tax payers expence (and thay are still here)- human rights what a JOKE !!! I hope it never happens in Gurnsey
Report abuse
c1977
In my opinion (mark that my opinion) think you write a load of rubbish.
Freedom? what’s that?
If Guernsey is free; why are we still in the 12O0.s? as a dependency, subject to a medieval affair of Kings and Queens and lords and knights, what a load of old rubbish.
Why if we should be grateful, why then were the Islands refused to claim compensation for the destruction and whatever by the Hun when they occupied our Islands.l
Why? the answer was simple Family -Yes family-
Anglo-Saxon and German same blood.
Freedom? what a misused word. The British Empire-was that freedom. and still they manage to control other peoples, by simple methods of loans. or stopping trade.
Yet allowing other country’s to rattle their
sabres and then acting when it is far too late.
Freedom c1977, should mean just that, to run one’s life as a free person in a free land not shackled by outdated colonial acts of parliament.
Report abuse
TL:
My advice would be to meter your praise for Human Rights legislation. The idea behind it is sound, however the legislation that supports it is abused and allows itself to be abused. In a similar way, ‘PC’ is an excellent principle, but is taken too far and abused.
ECHR and ‘PC’ issues are all about protection for the individual, sadly, human nature does make the odd individual spoil it for the rest of us. We should be very cautious over accepting what has been found to be a weapon used by some offenders to the detriment of the victim, and the country.
Report abuse
Truth Man – I know where you are coming from but I am not sure that I agree. Most of the rights are relative or may be tempered in any circumstances by government, provided that the actions of the government are for a legitimate purpose and proportionate. Human rights legislation does not mean that the rights of the individual trump the rights of society. It means that the rights of society trump those of the individual only to the extent necessary to maintain society, and no more.
I agree that there are some crazy stories that appear in the news (mainly the Daily Mail) but what they often fail to report was that the human rights argument failed or was only an issue for one part of the decision, with the majority of the decision being the result of the domestic law. I have read a number of cases that have involved human rights issues and I have not yet read one which caused me to think that the judge got the balance stupidly wrong.
Report abuse
TL:
There are many stories of HR legislation being abused. I agree, the Daily Mail loves to distort any story to fill their comic, however this doesn’t alter the fact that many abuses do actually take place.
Look at it from another perspective : before ECHR were citizens of the UK persecuted, or their basic human rights violated by the government?
Are our basic human rights here in Guernsey violated by government?
Do we actually need HR legislation here? I personally think the answer is ‘no’ and therefore we are better off without it.
Report abuse
It’s interesting that the ones who are protesting in the most vociferous and lurid way about human rights legislation are the ones whose very comments would be forbidden and/or severely punished in a regime not devoted to human rights. As with the right to a fair trial, the right to other human rights will inevitably result in bad or questionable judgments from time to time; all human institutions are capable of error. That makes the judgment wrong not the law.
Which law would the objectors to human rights law prefer fascist or soviet or islamic?
Report abuse
Truth Man – you ask if human rights were abused in the UK before the ECHR. The answer has to be yes, and they continued to be abused after the ECHR. Maybe not on the scale of other countries that we love to criticise, but violated none the less.
Just read any reports from Amnesty International. The abuses mentioned are not technical or minor. There have been some shocking abuses in the past. Just look at the history of Northern Ireland for instance. Fighting terrorism does not mean that you have to deny those criminals a fair trial or torture them to get confessions. Doing so is often counterproductive anyway, but that is a different point.
The other perspective is that if we want other countries to abide by human rights, then we have to do so too, and be seen to do so.
Most human rights cases in Guernsey have centred upon housing law – unsurprising given the ability of the State to treat individuals harshly as regards their private life. The European Court of HR recognised that Guernsey has a legitimate right to protect its population and that the housing laws are not in themselves against human rights, but it has been held that those laws must be applied proportionately. In exceptional cases, the effect on the individual of them being denied the right to stay will outweigh the effect on Guernsey of letting them stay. If you read those cases, you can see exactly why the court was willing to make an exception.
Report abuse
Thats amusing her husband detroyed Civil Liberties in the UK whilst backing illegal war.
Report abuse
TL – 12 February, “Guernsey has Human Rghts” Are there any human rights that exist in Guernsey for common law partners,you appear to have some knowledge, so do please elaborate.
Report abuse
TL:
My point exactly. How has the situation improved since Human Rights legislation? I don’t think it has! The only effective use of HR legislation I see is people using it to abuse their position to the detriment of society and the home country.
I won’t lie, I do not like people who moan about their rights as they are usually the people who don’t care about the rights of the population. Criminals, for example, suing governments because their prison is uncomfortable. It makes me mad!!!
Report abuse
Andy: my husband was prosecuted for D&D and drink driving – it doesn’t mean that I am guilty of either, and nor does it mean that I condone either offence (although to be fair he is now my ex-husband…) The fact remains that Guernsey has enjoyed human rights protection for many years, and it is thanks to this that we all enjoy so many freedoms.
There are numerous contemporary examples of human rights abuses, but please don’t forget the utter contempt shown for the rights of Guernsey people when their home was occupied by German forces during the second world war. Take your Daily Mail clap trap to anyone who lived through the Occupation and see if they agree that HR legislation is unnecessary.
Truth Man – please look at the history of women prior to the ECHR and tell me that the human rights of women were not violated prior to that convention. Could you please also tell me that the rights of religious and political minorities were protected?
Thanks to human rights legislation, everyone in society is entitled to some basic rights and basic respect. In some circles this is an uncomfortable notion to grasp, but that doesn’t mean that it is wrong.
Report abuse
Dear Truth Man
Oh yes it has!
You are very wrong. It’s so sad to see the levels of ignorance in a place that has benefitted from centuries of other people’s struggles for recognition and equality. But this is Guernsey. I’m sure we would rather bow and scrape to some noble or rich overlord. Oh. We already do.
Backwards.
Report abuse
Belinda, do you really believe if we were invaded by enemy forces you would have nothing to worry about, as they would respect your human rights?
Report abuse
I’m afraid STEVE,
that if those who yap so much about human rights, had lived on the wrong side of the HUN whilst he occupied our fair Island and because in doing so was severely punished; attitudes might change.
‘
Then once we were *Liberated*? in all began again, if you think that the Government of England were charitable toward us then think again.
I know for a fact that from way back in time they have been a thorn in our side.
It’s time that thorn was removed.
Human rights:; don’t make me laugh, it hurts where it shouldn’t.
Report abuse
@ Da Do
How often do “ordinary folk” need “human rights assistance”? The answer is much more often than you might assume.
In Guernsey, for example, you can potentially be involved in any number of legal disputes where human rights principles are called into question, in circumstances where you have done nothing wrong at all; e.g. housing licence refusals; planning appeals; family law arguments etc; and that is without even mentioning anything about the local activities of the most visible “arms” of the State who may, from time to time, over-reach themselves in this island, the Police and the Customs department.
The point is that although sometimes the banner of human rights is waved by those who have (allegedly) committed great wrongs in our society, the fact remains that the ECHR exists for the benefit of all, whether you like it or not.
@ Eric
What specifically is “a load of rubbish” in my earlier post? Please enlighten me.
Isn’t the obvious point that we, in the Channel Islands, should be particularly aware of the importance of basic human rights, bearing in mind the fact that we (well my grandparents’ generation anyway) knew what it was like to be occupied by a foreign power; i.e Nazi Germany?
Report abuse
Human rights? Are you joking? Any governing body whose human rights laws allow the army/police to revoke whatever parts they like, and allow the death penalty in times of war, and who allow the holding of “suspected” Irish “terrorists” without charge for up to five days: hasn’t got a leg to stand on when talking about human rights. Not even mentioning the omittal of ‘sexuality’ from things you can’t discriminate against.
Report abuse
ERIC what?
Were you trying to make some kind of point or were you just furious that I asked another poster a question.
I fail to see your point if you side with Belinda that Human rights legislation would have made the Nazi’s, nice guy’s.
Report abuse
Belinda & The Birch:
(For Belinda) Show me one case where the rights of women in the UK or Guernsey have been protected as a result of the ECHR. Show me how minorities have benefited from ECHR. The main provisions are cut and pasted below for your information. You will see that these concepts are not new to the UK or Guernsey, and that HR legislation does not suddenly give us rights that we did not previously enjoy. So to The Birch : show me how our situation as ‘free’ residents of a democratic society has improved since the ECHR was given influence by legislation in the UK and now, here in Guernsey.
Separate legislation protects women and minorities from discrimination, and this is not since or because of ECHR. I suspect the problem with you Belinda, and you The Birch, is that your insight into law is press exposure, and unfortunately for you this does not give you the full picture of the situation.
Main rights granted under relevant articles of the Human Rights Act:
the right to life
freedom from torture and degrading treatment
freedom from slavery and forced labour
the right to liberty
the right to a fair trial
the right not to be punished for something that wasn’t a crime when you did it
the right to respect for private and family life
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
freedom of expression
freedom of assembly and association
the right to marry and to start a family
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
the right to an education
the right to participate in free elections
the right not to be subjected to the death penalty
Report abuse
As an add on – I just want to explain that I am not in principle opposed to our basic rights being written in to law. However, experience has shown that access to those rights via legislation against the state is sometimes abused to the detriment of society. If this abuse could be prevented somehow, then I would not be in objection.
Report abuse
Truth Man: For the record I suspect my insight into law (and this area in particular) is a little deeper than yours, given that I have a masters in international human rights law. Your contribution to this discussion however, suggests no deeper insight than a regular read of the Daily Mail.
Human Rights legislation ensures that those basic rights you list above are enjoyed by everyone in society – not just the favoured classes. When I have a little free time I will happily send you some links to cases where the rights of women, minorities etc have been protected by the ECHR and, in later cases, national legislation such as the HRA.
Report abuse
I am glad that you clarified that you do not object to those rights!
so to summarise Truth Man, you are not opposed to the basic human rights, or for them to be given legal force, but you are opposed to the way in which individual judges in individual cases have weighed up the conflicting rights and the way in which those judges have sometimes assessed the proportionality of government action when it impinges on a person’s human rights.
Not so much an objection in principle, but of application.
Would that be fair?
Report abuse
Belinda
Daily Mail Clap Trap ? Im not against Human Rights Im just questioning whether the Blairs are the right people!
Report abuse
Belinda
Never underestimate the knowledge of a Daily Mail reader. Whether it be laws regarding drugs, racial equality, sexism etc, they know it all. At least they think they do……………
Report abuse
Belinda:
I can proudly say that I have never bought a copy of the Daily Mail!
Since your Masters degree (a term you possibly read about in your copy of the daily mail?!) also qualifies you to assume you have greater knowledge than me in this area, perhaps you would humour me, and cut and paste the links you describe into your next post?
TL: Yes, I suppose your last sentence does sum up my feeling somewhat. We just need to protect ourselves from those who would use the law to the detriment of the wider population.
Report abuse
TL
I should think that your summary of the Human Rights legislation fits in exactly with most people’s thoughts on the subject.
Some dippy Judges look only at the wording rather than give any thought about what was intended at the time the law was drafted.
Belinda
Beware of studying too hard and long. It has been known to drive a man to drink !
Report abuse
Ray, actually in matters of human righst issues, the text of the law is the last thing that they look at. The law incorporates the ECHR into domestic law. The ECHR is purposive rather than prescriptive, so they very much assess the purpose within the context of the case, together with evolving case law on the issue.
If we have now narrowed down the criticism to individual judgments, could either Truth Man or Ray provide an example of a case in which the judge got the balance wrong and allowed the law to be used detrimentally, with an explanation of why they think that the judge’s reasoning was incorrect?
I am sure that there are arguments to say that this has happened, but it would be useful to have a real example.
Report abuse
TL
Sorry mate.I’m just a simple Daily Mail reader
Report abuse
TL:
See below link. This is the case of the Afghan Hijackers who came to the UK and argued that even thought they had hijacked an aircraft to come to the UK, the Government could not force them to leave. They subsequently brought a further action, so they could take up work in the UK. They won both cases. In my opinion, this cannot be good for the UK. I would hate to see anything like this happen in Guernsey. This is the type of thing I believe we need to protect against.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1157.html
p.s. For Belinda (and I have never showed my hand like this on these forums), I have been practising law for over 16 years. Perhaps your masters (of which I am sure you are very proud) does not seem so ‘important’ now you are in possession of this information? Would you still argue that your ‘insight into law’ is deeper than mine?
Report abuse