The [Legally Voidable] Wedding of River Song.

Everyone has been asking for a review from me on this episode. I guess the fact River Song made an honest man out of the Doctor had everyone thinking I'd be enraged that my least favourite character EVER has actually married the doctor. And you are right, I was disgusted. But I actually rather enjoyed that episode up until that point. Infact I've been enjoying all the episodes recently, I've just not blogged about them because I've been very busy, not even watching the episodes until a week later, being in paris and moving back to uni, which actually takes longer than it does for me to get to bristol airport, get a plane to charles de gaulle, get on the RER, change at challet les halles, get off at Chatou Croissy, and walk to my bourgeois mansion in villa lambert. (yes I stayed in a real mansion, my boyfriend has friends in high places) So I'd happily go back to paris any day rather than drive to Abersytwyth wich my travel sickness. But as I was saying, The God delusion was brilliant, I love a psychoanalysis study of faith and Doctor Who deconstructing this was just excellent. I also enjoyed last weeks episode, despite my hatred for James Corden. I believe he's only funny when he's been scripted for, he himself, is an annoying man who can't take other people calling him fat, when his sole career has been built on the fact he's tubby. Which is why that episode actually worked, but I kept worrying the baby was suddenly going to be announced as the evil one, I just seemed to be inclining that way.

But obviously you want my opinion on this episode, the season final. Although thanks to the huge gap mid series, I'm left feeling rather deflated and short changed. There was a distinct lack of fluency and clarity in the script. Matt Smith quickly goes from morbid to exuberant faster than light and this inconsistency makes the episode weak. On a positive note, Matt put in much effort in every one of his scenes, despite poor writing.

The best part was that the conclusion was actually relatively simple. Something my boyfriend who isn't a whovian could actually follow. It irks me the need to over complicate Doctor Who these days, too much technobabble and not enough story line. The idea that is wasn't the Doctor who died, but actually the doctor was hidden inside a teselector double. Basically the Doctor in a doctor suit. Brilliant. And when River looked into his eye it was hilarious to see him flamboyantly flouncing about. Moffat wrong-footed us by making us think it would be the Flesh Doctor on the beach, it’s still in essence the same get-out clause – a double. I also rather enjoyed the way the Doctor's morbidity and sense of self hatred which had been darkening out saturday evenings was overturned and he was finally portrayed as the much loved hero he is. The whole universe wanting to help him and appreciating him. It took us back to the Tennant times when the doctor was viewed by the universe a a saviour, not a fearsome warrior and I much prefer it that way.

As a law student however, I was to comment on the legitimacy of the marriage. I don't believe it's a valid marriage and would be declared void under any court ruling. Firstly, since 5 November 2007, a couple getting married are required to to give notification in person of their intention to marry to a Registrar at least 3 months before the intended date of the marriage, this is to allow people the chance to come say "I object" if they do so know of any unlawful reason that would void the marriage. This clearly did not happen, it was very spur of the moment and quicker than a Vegas ceremony. Unless the doctor uses his time machine to go back three months and publish the wedding, but I highly doubt any objectors would be able to find the marriage ceremony. Which leads to my other argument on the invalidity of the marriage, technically, the marriage never even happened. River reassured her mother that she hadn't really killed anyone so therefore if the murder never happened, then neither did the marriage. 

Furthermore, I'm pretty certain it wasn't performed in a legalised and registered location, The Marriages (Approved Premises) Regulations 1995 allow civil marriages to take place regularly in hotels, stately homes, pubs and football stadiums without compromising the fundamental principles of English marriage law and Parliament's intention to maintain the solemnity of the occasion. the validity of a venue requires prior agreement of the superintendent Registrar. Marriages and it must take place in readily identifiable premises to prevent marriages taking place in the open air, in transport or any other unsuitable location. - may I point that the ceremony in question was actually in open air and it certainly was not a "readily identifiable location". It must also be a dignified place in good state of repair, I do not believe the collapse of time itself is deemed a dignified place, it also lacked the fire precautions required by the fire authority. Yes I am being petty, but it annoyed me that much. 

Also. This one's a bit far fetched but it's a reasonable argument. The vows are "til death do us part". Technically River is already dead on the Doctors' timeline. Therefore death has parted them. And if the doctor is believed to be dead, the state won't recognise the existence of their marriage. Moreover, technically River married the robot doctor, not the actual Doctor. It wasn't the doctor who spoke the words, it was the robot. Therefore I deem the marriage totally void. I like to think the Doctor is fully aware of this and is simply having a bit of fun with no strings attached. Even so, he has genuine grounds for divorce under s1(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Clauses Act. Killing him is almost certainly classed as "unreasonable behaviour".

Moving on from my legal rant... Since the great Tennant years, we've always been warned of "fixed points in time" and finally we see what happens if one is messed with. To be quite honest I would enjoy living in a world where Dickens was regularly gracing my television. But surely as the Doctor didn't actually die, the "fixed point in time" has still been messed with? This episode had some great bits, some quality acting and a great storyline up until the wedding. It was so random and unneeded. There genuinely is no sexual tension between the Doctor and River, no matter how many flirty lines you throw around the script, there is just no spark. She has no endearing qualities about her and up until now the Doctor has always seemed surprised and cautious whenever she's made a move on him. There has been no change of heart nor any moment where we as viewers have seen him fall in love with her- discovering she's Amy's daughter wasn't a pivotal moment in their relationship romantically.  So I'm very confused as to when this change of heart happened.

So the time old question is Dr Who? It will probably end up being something completely mundane and it's a question that should never be answered as it would undermine the sanity of Dr Who's mystery. What is more important is the Christmas episode, featuring my West Country homeboy Bill Bailey, it's about time Dr Who had the slice of the West. Billy Piper is from Swindon (my nearest city AND she went to my ballet school) however she ignored her home roots, ditched the pompous farmer accent in favour of a Landan' twang. Shame on her. I hope Bill Bailey doesn't follow suit.

Are law students over worked or just plain neurotic?

It's been four months since those ghastly examinations and we've had a beautifully long summer to recover from the stress. Many students, law students in particular, strain under the monumental amount of pressure exams cause. I've known relationships to break up because of it, friendships fall apart and mental breakdowns too. I personally end up very ill around exam times, firstly my wrist can't cope with the strenuous and avid essay writing I put it through, I end up with blisters on my fingers, a swollen wrist and a locked arm. Also I become physically exhausted but too scared to sleep more than the recommended seven hours in case I am wasting valuable revision time. I get headaches and nausea from the consistent reading and note taking, only to be made worse by the inevitable crying fit i'll have induced by blind neurotic paranoia that "i'm going to fail, my life is over." And even after the exams are over we all seem to be in a post traumatic daze, it's as if there's an empty gap in our lives, to be precise a 17 hour gap. What do we do with ourselves now exams are over? Of course we drink, and part of the "post traumatic daze" is probably just a hangover but I do find myself rather confused and lost after the exams. 

I'm not suggesting  those who take other subjects don't feel the stress but obviously I'm so self absorbed in my own stress around these times I only notice how other law students are coping. But I do feel law students are under a hideous amount of pressure to do well in exams. We're under pressure from ourselves, there's pressure from your parents, who've proudly told all their friends, the other mum's in yoga class and the dad's on the golf course that their precious child is a lawyer and now you have to live up to this high expectation. There's also the pressure to beat cocky students who tell you to only expect low grades as you "spend far too much time partying and not in the library like me" just to prove to them that playing World of Warcraft in the Library doesn't make you a legal eagle. There's also the dreaded moment when you've decided you've done enough revision today, log onto facebook or twitter and see everyone else proclaiming how much more revision they've done, "I've done three all nighters" or "I've written 15 pages of notes on easements, your spider diagram is so concise", pressuring us to keep up with them. There's also the fact we're applying for training contracts and these companies expect the highest marks, passing is not enough, we know that we're competing against oxbridge students who's parents have already put in a good word for them at the firm. Those who aren't aiming for a particular career have the luxury of doing "the best that they can", there's no pressure to get a particular mark, a 2:2 in Literature, Maths or any subject really is highly respectable, sure a 2:1 would be better, but at least a 2:2 wouldn't mean the end of their career. So there's slightly less pressure there, for us though it's a case of Do excellent or you've basically wasted three years, vast amounts of money and lost all sanity. 

The sort of people who obnoxiously claim a 3rd in law is better than a first in any other subject are kidding themselves. I'll be the first to admit I am quite snooty about "proper degrees" but I include degrees other than law in my list of what I deem to be a respectable degree, such as literature, maths, medicine (obviously) etc. but yes, there are certain degrees that I do turn my nose at and deem worthless which I dare not mention publicly. However, I could never believe a 3rd in law is better than a 1st in Literature. A first in Literature would open so many doors for you whereas a third in law closes all desirable ones. 

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, we as law students are under immense pressure to excel, for we have aimed so high and are so determined to achieve that elusive training contract, we cannot allow ourselves to only achieve good marks, we need exceptional ones, else all the hard work is for nothing. This is why we crack during exams & go insane, ironically this actually affects exam performance negatively. It's a catch 22. 

I know four months seems excessive for a summer holiday, most degrees could easily be completed in 2 years if we had a normal 6 week holiday like we did back in compulsive education. Which would save much money, especially considering the extortionate prices students will have to pay as of next year. But I feel I needed the 4 months to recover from the trauma. I also had a chance to do a months work experience and visit the legal practice centre in which I hope to go to next year, this reignited my passion for law and reminded me why I was taking the degree in the first place. 

So in answer to my question, I don't believe we are over worked more than other students, sometimes we have a heavier timetable whereas other degrees have more coursework and this balances it out. We have set our own standards and expectations too high that we tend to panic and develop neurotic tendencies and whats worse, if we fail to meet those expectations once those results have come out, we make every excuse under the sun. I've seen it all from people claiming it's a harsh marker, to people telling their family that "no one gets above a 2:2 in law" to the worst of all, "well a 3rd in law is better than a high class degree in any other subject so it doesn't matter". We need to relax more as students, revise hard of course, but we need to be realistic about what we are capable of achieving and the amount of pressure our bodies can cope with. we will exceed far better if we could learn to revise effectively rather than trying to out do each other. 

Legal Eagle: Is Nutella false advertising? ...

...Or are Americans just idiots?

Nutella is my guilty pleasure, I don't enjoy eating chocolate bars or ice cream, I'm normally a savoury cheese board kind of girl or a citrus tangy cheese cake for after dinner. However, I have been known to eat Nutella straight from the jar on a spoon. Just one spoon, perhaps two, when I'm needing a sugar hit. I'm no fool, I'm fully aware it's about 100 calories a table spoon. After all, it is a chocolate spread, spread implies "fat" like butter or margarine, and everyone knows chocolate is unhealthy, only a complete moron would genuinely believe consumption of nutella can be part of a healthy diet. 

Only one mother did. An American mother of course, this is the sort of story that would only happen in the jurisdiction of the US of A. The Californian "Mom" (or Mum as we correctly say in this country) Athena Hohenberg is genuinely suing Nutella for misleading advertising that led her to believe Nutella was a healthy breakfast option for her daughter. 

Nutella advertises its product as being enriched in Hazelnuts and wholegrain. Which is true, it's just also full of saturated fats and sugars. The crazy mother has kindly asked that any monetary judgment be divided among "all persons who purchased on or after January 2000 one or more Nutella products in the United States for their own or household use." Assuming this case isn't laughed out of court... but then again, this is America we're talking about. 

We have to be serious, what are the boundaries between free speech and false advertising? The most prominent case illustrating this question is Nike v Kasky. Any law or business student that has studied Corporate Governance will be familiar with this case. Acting on behalf of the public, Kasky filed a lawsuit in California regarding Nike newspaper advertisements. The plaintiff brought this action seeking monetary and injunctive relief in the hope to curb false advertising and unfair competition. Plaintiff alleged that defendant corporation (Nike)  made false statements of fact about its labour practices and its working conditions in it's factories,  this was to induce consumers to continue buying products after public complaints about Nike's corporate responsibility. Kasky claimed that these representations by Nike constituted false advertising. Nike responded that the representations were merely an expression of opinion; they were not intended to be an advertisement and therefore, were entitled to First Amendment protection (protection of free speech). Although the local court agreed with Nike's lawyers, the California Supreme Court overturned this ruling, claiming that the corporation's communications were commercial speech and therefore subject to false advertising laws. Although there was going to be a review of the case, the parties settled out of court before any accuracy of Nike's statements was found or proven, subsequently leaving the California Supreme Court's denial of Nike's immunity claim as precedent. This basically illustrates the flummoxing and delicate line between a right to free speech, and false advertisement.

The point I’m trying to make here, is that if we are to claim Nutella is falsely advertising, then surely all advertisements must be reviewed? Are Mcdonald’s guilty of false advertisement? Do we really believe that their “whole chicken breast burgers” are good for our children? Or that just because a cheese string contains a “whole glass of milk” it is a super healthy snack for our children? It is after all cheese. Should we sue Cravendale for claiming milk is a good source of calcium but neglecting to mention in the advert the calorific content of it’s full fat milk? Surely this contradicts the point of advertising, the purpose of which is to highlight to good points to consumers? Not to manifest the negatives along side. So should we sue every company that has ever advertised for “stretching the truth” a little, or do companies have the right to assume their consumers have a little common sense? You as an adult consumer have the responsibility to use your own brain when shopping.

To conclude, Athena has no leg to stand on. Yes Nutella advertises itself as rich in calcium and whole grain, because it is. The company has no obligation to broadcast every nutritional fact on it’s commercials. KFC don’t should about their calorific content on the adverts yet they do rave about it being “fresh, on the bone, chicken.” What the company IS obliged to do, is print all nutritional information on its label, which is does. If you were to turn the jar over and read the label, you’d clearly see the calorie, sugar and saturated fat content. Then it’s up to you to make an informed decision regarding it’s purchase. I say the plaintiff has no leg to stand on, but we have to remember this case is being tried in America, stranger things have happened over seas. Only in America would someone claim to be “shocked” at the high fat and sugar content of a chocolate spread. Athena, I’m sorry, but Nutella isn’t the reason your daughter is fat, it’s because you are too lazy to read the label and have no common sense.  

Dr Who Overdose: Lets kill Hitler.

The long awaited and much anticipated return of Doctor Who. I changed into my sweat pants, gorged down pizza and garlic bread and settled myself down for what I was expecting to be a fantastic night of Matt Smith oggling. The elusive title of "Let's Kill Hitler" had already caused much controversy but there was one thing distinctly lacking from tonight's show, Hitler.

Yes he was in it, for a few minutes, then they promptly locked him in a cupboard and forgot about him. Obviously I'm not a Hitler fan, but don't name the title in such a way to imply the story will revolve around him and not deliver, this was a clever ploy by Moffat,  we all spent the entire summer courting a minor controversy over casting the Fuhrer in a family show, this was fueled by the teaser implying that the Tardis crew save his life. I was intrigued as to how they'd created a storyline about such a contentious character, I was hoping the doctor had some part in his downfall, perhaps he'd provoked his conscience or used his knowledge of history to trick Hitler into halting the blitz and turn his attention to Russia. Or perhaps it'd turn out Hitler was a vile alien? Alas, there was little point in me pondering this throughout summer, for Hitler barely spoke two sentences and it became quite clear that the writers and producers simply used Berlin as a background, the actual story line could have been done anywhere really. 

One of the highlights was Rory, he finally came into his own as a character, he made some great one liners and punched Hitler, this was a refreshing change from the useless entity that aimlessly ambles around the tardis, occasionally dying and resurrecting. And we had some fine acting from Karen too. Matt Smith, despite the fact he spent most of the episode writhing on the floor, did manage to squeeze in two fantastic costume changes. It seems he has a new longer (still tweed) coat. It was rather dashing but I was slightly disappointed. I've spent all year convincing my boyfriend to buy a tweed jacket like the Doctors, and just as he buys a swell vintage one, the doctor dons a longer coat instead. I was more impressed with the dapper suit he changed into. I hope he keeps that one up. 

But on the down side, River Song/Melody Pond featured heavily. Firstly we saw her at 2nd regeneration, as Mel, Amy's best friend. Then she regenerates into the Riversong we all know. She and the Doctor indulge in some mind games, ending with River pointing a banana at his head. And she's even more of a slut. I don't understand why people went crazy about Hitler potentially featuring in a family show and yet no one ever complains at her promiscuous behaviour. Right in front of her parents she was girating the doctor, spreading her thighs and basically acting like a low class hooker. They should ground her there and then. It’s clear straight away that Melody Pond has been part of Rory and Amy’s life for far longer than either has realised. Specifically, in the form of Mels. Mel is the one who made Amy realise Rory wasn't in fact gay, but actually in love with her. The ultimate time paradox was created- not only did "Melody get her parents together- which sub-sequentially led to her own birth. But also Amy named her daughter after... well her daughter. It's all timey whimey confusing stuff. 

Many questions were answered, yes, River Song can regenerate, but she also gave the rest of her cycles away to save the Doctor and we learn where River Song got the diary. I think it's safe to conclude now that River is in prison for killing the doctor, and it's likely she is the one who killed him back in Utah. However, new questions were raised. It turns out the silence aren't a race, they are a religious order- so what were those creepy things in the impossible astronaut? There's the slight confusion that River Song is perceived to be a greater criminal than Hitler. And what is the Academy Of The Question? Also, how were the Doctor's regeneration's disabled? this implies something mechanical and is altogether quite confusing. And now the Doctor knows when he will really die, so it'll be interesting to see how his attitude will change now he believes to be living on borrowed time. (although I refuse to believe this is the end of Doctor Who)

Mark Gatiss has written the next episode- Night terror. And it looks unbelievably terrifying. But then again so did the trailer for the "rebel flesh" and that turned out to be a let down in the terror stakes. However, surely there is nothing more terrifying in the universe than a child's bedroom? Regardless, I'm so glad Dr Who is back in my life. I'm terribly sad but I enjoy my saturday nights with a takeaway, wine and Matt Smith. What more could a girl want? 

What if...

A level results day has got me thinking. Two years ago, I was fortunate enough to have no worries as I’d received an unconditional sholarship to Aberystwyth uni. I had personal reasons for wanting to move far away and the offer of 1000 pounds meant I was happy to settle for the small town. I guess I feared failure. I convinced myself I was better suited to a small town uni, being from one myself, rather than going for some where new, vibrant and exciting. 

Aberystywth uni is a very respectable uni and with entry grades of BBB you have to be reasonably intelligent to go there. It’s got an obscene amount of pubs but only two nightclubs. One is a tiny, grubby place full of tits and chavs, the other is much nicer but no one ever seems willing to pay for quality. I couldn’t be more sick of hearing students gush about “the aber bubble” and claiming they forget there’s a world outside the town. It makes me ever so claustrophobic.There are times I wish I’d tried for the uni’s I really wanted rather than take the easy route. I’d had my heart set on Bath or Bristol. I had applied to read literature and had been accepted and I was intending to do the GDL (a law conversion course) afterwards. I'm not sure why I am moaning about chavvy night clubs. My main beef with the uni is the crap the Law department has put us through and the fact I've met some proper arses there. I assumed a small, friendly town would have friendly people. Don't get me wrong, most of the people I know are lovely, especially the law students, it's almost like we have a bond- the bond of depression and hardship. But there have been some people who have managed to ruin the uni experience for me and make me loose my faith in humanity. So I guess that's why I'm so bitter about the place. I shouldn't be anymore though, i'm moving back to uni halls and so these people will be a distant memory come september. Perhaps i'll review the place in October with a more positive spin.

But I can’t complain, law at Aberystwyth is hard enough as it is. I met my wonderful boyfriend there and I’ve had some good times. I can imagine if I went somewhere more exciting I’d be partying too hard too study. I’ll be moving to either Chester or Bristol next year to do the Legal practise course so I will get a student life in a more vibrant environment, a taste of it at least. I'll probably realise it's not for me and then long for the quiet seaside town. 

Just a note

My deepest sypathies to all those students awaiting their results. I remember the pain & terror the night before a-level results, the sleepless night, tossing and turning, worrying about whether I'd got the grades to get into university... 

Just kidding. I had an unconditional scholarship.

I slept like a log beetches.

TV overdose: Franklin & Bash

I guess in a nutshell this is lawyers do scrubs. However, it's less slapstick than our favourite hospital drama. This doesn't mean it's not a thoroughly enjoyable show. It's not received spectacular accolades and  it's a rather slow burner, you don't instantly warm to the characters and it doesn't really make sense how two lawyers who rarely win cases, suddenly join a big firm and start winning every single one. But it's been renewed for another series and I genuinely believe it can only get better. I've only watched the first four or five episodes so far, but with each one I've started to warm to the characters and been able to enjoy the show a whole lot more, and this will undoubtedly grow as the show progresses.

Franklin & Bash. Bash is the sexier one.

I was determined to enjoy this show, so I'm glad I persisted. As a law student I seem to have developed Stockholm syndrome and I've learnt to love my oppressor, the oppressor being the law and anything to do with it. I love drama's and books about the study and practice of law. I usually hate on most characters though for being successful, perhaps once I'm actually qualified this ferocious and incessant detest for young, pretty blonde lawyers with top class degrees and a jag will fade. But the fact it was two goofy male lawyer, one being rather dishy, I felt the show had potential to tame the green monster within. So I went onto 4OD and watched the pilot whilst working out on my cross trainer- watching tv helps ease the pain of exercise and makes time go faster. 

I'll give you a run down on who's who.

Jared Franklin, the bolshy, overly confident lawyer, who's main game is to party hard and take on the occasional case. His dad is a highly successful trial lawyer but Jared refuses to work for him. His mannerisms in court are rather unconventional, for example downing beer or encouraging Bash to make out with the client in front of the jury- but they inevitably work.  

Peter Bash, Franklin's best friend and legal partner. He is more mature than Franklin but also tastier. He's much more appreciative of his place in such a large firm and tries a little harder to not get fired, unlike Franklin. He does however still fawn over his ex, who is clearly a douche. 

Stanton Infeld, the eccentric, yet easy-going senior partner of a major law firm. He's very into Chinese & Japanese culture. He see's a spark in Franklin and Bash that more serious staff do not. He appreciated their unconventional techniques and is impressed by them and also by the way they care more about justice than making money. I guess his firm has become so established as a corporation it's loss the fundamental and initial purpose of the firm.

Damien Karp, Stanton's nephew and also a lawyer there. He's rather jealous of Franklin and Bash' rappour with his uncle and cannot quite fathom why Stanton hires them. He is a traditional lawyer and prefers the mature approach to the practice. However he's not always completely clean, he's willing to pay and bride witness' and basically screw people over. However there are times when you think he would warm the F&B eventually. He's probably a lonely sod with no friends. He dreams of being a judge one day but this is unlikely since a video of him masterbating went viral. 

There is also Carmen Phillips, an ex-convict who works for Franklin and Bash and Pindar Singh, an agoraphobic nerd also working for F&B. 

Basically Franklin and Bash party hard and work, relatively hard. They have a strong sense of justice rather than corruption- which is a refreshing change from how lawyers are usually presented in the media. Their wacky and unconventional methods perhaps should be more elaborated as the show goes on as it has such potential to be an outstanding comedy. I'll continue to watch and hope that one day, I too have a hot tub on my decking with fairy lights and parties every night. 

Work Placement Review

It's been a while, I'm very sorry about this but I've been on a work placement We live in a demoralizing Catch 22 society where you cannot get a job without work experience, but finding work experience is practically impossible. It's a case of who you know not what you know, so those of us who do not have family members that are lawyers are unlikely to ever find work experience and subsequently we will therefore never become lawyers. Meaning those already from privileged families are protected whilst the rest of us struggle to get noticed. However that is quite enough of my left wing harangue.

I had a stroke of luck however, after applying to well over 50 firms for a work placement- all rejected and most without the courtesy to inform me so- My boyfriend's dad who is manager of an auction house had managed to get me a month's work at a solicitors in Chester as one of his regulars is a partner. I love Chester, it's historical yet vibrant, which is why i'm applying to do my Legal Practice Course there. It also meant I got to spend a month living it up in Wrexham with my boyfriend, this was a blessing as we live far apart and summer holidays normally drag laboriously.

I came to the realization that I do not want to be an Ambulance Chaser, personal injury law is incredibly jejune and dreary. It occurred to me that I wouldn't get to be Ted from scrubs, I would not be deliberating the ethics of a hospitals actions or a jehovas witness' right to martyr their children. Instead I would be dealing with reckless drivers suffering from acute whiplash who copious volumes of wonga so they don't have to work for a year. I couldn't possibly spend the rest of my life doing such monotonous work.

So instead, I've discovered an underlying passion for family law. My calling lies in divorces and child custody. Many view this as a nefarious and dastardly specialisation, it came as a surprise to my family having never gone through the trauma of a divorce myself, luckily no one in my family has ever filed for one. I'm a firm believer that many give up on marriage far too easily and unless there's been adultery or 

abuse then couples should try work through their problems. A man with inferiority complex issues because his wife earns more money than him is not a legitimate reason for divorce. So why would I want to go down this career path? Is it because I like a bit of gossip and want to feel like Jeremy Kyle on a Monday morning? possibly. But the truth is that such a sensitive practice needs someone compassionate yet headstrong, and that's what I am. 

So it was an invaluable learning experience, I gained far too much weight and am now the wrong side of 9stone, I blame the boyfriend for fine dining me but I cannot complain :) But it prevented me from making a huge mistake and going into the wrong practice. I've applied for training contracts in 2013 for a place as a family lawyer. I can see now why firms insist you have experience, how can you know law is the right career for you and what subject really ignites you if you haven't had first hand experience? I just wish more law students could have this chance, it's a poignant and vital opportunity for self understanding and growth that should not be denied to prospective lawyers. 

Man Vs Food.

This is, undoubtedly, the greatest show on television. Adam Richmond, a white, rather lardy, self-educated food expert and trained sushi chef, yank eating his way through America's food hot spots, devouring whole cows and phall chillies for sheer entertainment. "i'm just a regular guy, with a serious appetite" and takes on some of his countries greatest gluttony challenges. He has me salivating over meaty goodness- something that as a peskatarian I should NOT be doing! You can see the pure joy Adam experiences as he eats the most delicious looking foods. There's no etiquette spared for the camera, he literally shoves it down his throat as if he'd never eaten before, then rolls his eyes and head in Ecstasy and groans in an almost sexually suggestive way.

It's not just greasy foods, although this does make up the majority of the foods, there is much emphasis on quality. One memorable meal I witnessed was crab cakes, made with literally just crab. There was no potatoes or vegetables filling out the cake, just crab, crab, crab and some seasoning. Adam makes an effort to go behind the scenes and find out exactly how the food is prepared and cooked and the history behind the dishes and restaurants. He's not visiting commercial, fast food, microwave filled kitchens, these are REAL kitchens with unique methods, family recipes and proper ingredients. Often the diners look like run down shacks, not the sort of place I would visit, but it proves that my preconceptions are wrong. It goes to prove  there is more to america than corporate, mainstream, processed food. Okay, none of it is healthy, but it sure looks delicious. There's no avante gard or a la carte menus. It's all about size, layers, fillings and mightiness rather than delicate, small portions like we prefer over in England. We can't pretend that these foods won't give you a chronary heart attack, i'm surprised Adam isn't fatter than he is! Although research tells me Richman exercises twice a day while he is on the road. and When the schedule permits, he does not eat the day before a challenge and he tries to stay hydrated by drinking lots of water or club soda and forgoing coffee or soft drinks. It's quite sad that in america, the healthy option is probably subway. 

The highlight of the show is the challenge at the end where he attempts to eat either a ridiculous quantity of food or something unbearably hot withing a time limit, it's barbarically and highly entertaining to watch Richmond intensely struggle with  food. Examples include 13 pound pizzas, where one slice alone is the size of a baby, a 72 pound steak and curries where the chef has to wear hazard protection when cooking, with the heat of 70 phall chillies. He doesn't always win, but the crowd is always freverently cheering him on in a way that only America could. The boyfriend and I have decided to have Man v Food days, we are going to attempt to re create some of the challenges and will be posting photos online just to brag. Going to make giant burgers and ridiculously hot burritos. I will be starting with the crab with extra crab cakes...

TV overdose: Horrible Histories- with Steven Fry

It's totally acceptable for a 20 year old to watch Horrible Histories now Steven Fry hosts it, right??

As most people my age, I've read the horrible history books. I also bought my much younger brother the series in a hope to educate him out of his nerdy, computer obsessed ways. At first when I heard they were turning the books into a tv series I was slightly annoyed; as a passionate reader, to me the horrible histories books encouraged children to read worthwhile, relatively educational books. But when I first watched an episode it was like how I imagine taking your first hit of heroine would be- highly addictive. 

The show works on the hypothesis that children are vile creatures who only care about poo and macabre tales, and it undoubtedly works. It crams nuggets of worthwhile facts into peuney brains, although I'm sure they only remember the runny poo nuggets rather than the factual nuggets- although there's always the possibility that a few historical facts will seep through into their minuscule brains. I'm sure my A level history class would have been much more exciting if we'd been learning tales about Black Death paramedics paying small children to wee on people's heads. Rather than spend a whole year learning about the Russian revolution- We didn't even get to do Stalin!

Simon Farnaby as the grim reaper, singing Stooopid deaths, stoopid deaths, they're funny cause they're troooo. and the Simon Cowell-esque layout is one of the highlights of the show. But the winning sketch is without doubt the dainty summary of a tedious Cavalier vs Roundhead ample textbook into a delightful hip hop rap. 

"When Ollie died, the people said :

"Charlie, me hearty, Get rid of his dull laws, Come back we'd rather party" 

This action's what they call the monarchy restoration 

Which naturally was followed by a huge celebration "

It's now a Bafta and British Comedy Award-winning sketch show and has been given a new look and time slot, featuring the very best sketches from the first two series, with added insight and historical golden nuggets provided by Stephen Fry. Now it has gone mainstream, surely it's acceptable for older kids, parents and grandparents to watch this guilty pleasure? 

Having been an A graded history student once, I probably shouldn't be endorsing this simplified and moronic approach to history, but I love it. It's a fantastic blend on fact with entertainment.  I'm certain David Starkey is weeping into a history of British constitution textbook somewhere.  

Cheltenham food and drink festival.

An early morning, a train journey and a mile walk, a quick (not so quick) stop in the promenade, a long stay in Jack Wills and eventually we made it to Montpellier gardens for the Cheltenham food and drink festival. It's basically a fat, rich mans reading festival. Free samples of food and booze whilst strolling round to some soft jazz music. Luckily the weather just about held out. I am now also officially a member of the Cotswold's foodie club. I shall list the stalls which particularly stood out for us and some links :)

The Fluffle

http://www.fudgeheaven.co.uk/

the fluffle is a mixture of truffle and fudge. It's a melt in your mouth creamy texture with no grittiness that you normally find in fudge. As someone who usually prefers savouries to chocolate this was such a winner for me. Flavours include, baileys, vanilla, tia maria, coffee etc. 

The Fluffle, is it a truffle or fudge?

Black mountain smokery

http://www.smoked-foods.co.uk/

Traditionally smoked salmon, gourmet food hampers and gift baskets, all locally made, this includes the Finest traditionally smoked salmon. You can have gourmet smoked food hampers of fish, meats, poultry and cheese delivered directly to your door. The smoked salmon was beautiful. I also managed to scoff some smoked makeral- a few handfuls actually. I went back a fair few times for free fish. We are thinking of getting some lovely smoked salmon delivered to our door. If it weren't for the fact I had to train it back I would have bought some there and then. But I didn't want to stink out first great western. 

Fish in a box

http://www.fishinabox.co.uk/

This stall didn't do free samples. But I am 100% ordering their shellfish box at some point this summer, 350g fresh langoustines, 350g fresh uncooked King Prawns, 200g King Scallops, 1 Whitby Dressed Crab. YUM YUM. 

Fishy in a box

Bread Tree co. 

http://www.breadtree.co.uk/

A specialist in bruschetta toppings. They did an exquisite wild chicories and porcini mushroom spread. 

The Fabulous Vodka Company

http://www.fabulousvodka.co.uk/

We loved the Caramel vodka. Few too many shots of this. 

Hinton Marsh Farm

http://www.hintonmarshfarm.co.uk/

Hinton Marsh Farm is situated at the foot of the Wiltshire Chalkdownlands and has been a family run farm since 1956. They offer award-winning free range beef, pork, chicken and lamb to you online. My carnivorous friend fell in love with their Beef sausages which use lean, matured slow growing beef. There was many samples of the variations of sausages

Jimmy's farm 

http://www.jimmysfarm.com/

And talking of sausages, Anyone who watched the BBC TV series will be familiar with Jimmy’s ethos: using traditional farming methods to rear several breeds of rare pigs and produce quality pork for farmers’ markets.

Perfect Tipple

http://www.perfecttipple.com/

Sparkling Gold Cuvee this unique drink is produced with the finest Pinot grapes and infused with real, edible 23 carat gold flakes. 

Champers with real gold.

Smokehouse kippers- the winning stall!

http://www.polsco.co.uk

my personal favourite of the whole show was the smoked kippers. Yes I had seconds, thirds, fourths... possibly more. I took slight liberty of the free "samples". People need to give kippers a chance. As we are running low on Cod, tuna etc we should all be embracing these smokey bad boys. I loved how they were all hung like bats in some sort of wooden cupboard. I guess that's how they are mass cooked. But boy they smelt good. Proper fresh fish doesn't have a nasty odour, contrary to anti fish myths. God damn they were good.  

Fishy Fishy, look how happy is to have his face deep in fish. 

Pyman Pâtés

- link to website not working. it's a google jobby. 

These were gluten free, In fact, a lot of the foods here were gluten free, which is great because I'm not actually supposed to eat wheat. Then again the dipping breads were too good to resist so I deserve any crippling stomach pains. I also do not eat Pate. Anyone who knows about the immoral or unethical method used to make pate will understand why. But there was a trout pate and a salmon one which I sampled. I'm hoping the creation of seafood pate doesn't involve barbaric methods of feeding/torture as I'm sorely tempted to buy some. 

Snowdonia Cheese Co.

http://www.snowdoniacheese.co.uk/

I was already familiar with this brand of cheese. There was a vast variety of cheese stalls, and as a cheese connoisseur I sampled every type of cheese there- twice at least. Without a doubt I ate my own body weight in cheese, there's wasn't a single cheese I didn't like, which is why I'm not going to bother listing every cheese stall, I give them all the highest of accolades. But as my all time favourite cheese I'll give the Snowdonia Cheese company some golden prime time on this riveting blog with my millions of readers :p The Black Bomber truckle is something every one should buy at some point in their life if they like strong Cheddar's with a bite. I have actually bought this cheese when drunk before, that is how good it is. In 2010 it won the Silver Medal at the Nantwich International Cheese Show, 2007 World Cheese Award Bronze winner, It is Creamy & smooth and has a unique- almost crunchy- texture & taste that will entice.

Black bomber. Not racist. Not deadly. Damn Good.

Other highlights.

My friend was desperate to try one of the Kangaroo, Ostrich, Wild Boar, Zebra or Angus burgers. Me, not so much. But another highlight was all the fabulous chutneys to try. We steered clear of the overly spicy ones but there was many gorgeous caramelised onion chutneys, red pepper relishes, money and mustard chutney's etc. There was also another stall with sachets filled with goodness that turned normal mayonnaise into creamy garlic dips, but I cannot find the link to the stall. But they were genius. 

So that's my overview of the food and drink festival. It shall certainly be an annual thing now. Perhaps next year we will make the most of being in the beautiful town of Cheltenham Spa and go to a few bars in the night and get a hotel. I'd recommend in a heartbeat going if you are at all passionate about good quality, local foods. All the meats are organic and as ethically produced as possible (without being vegetarian). In a society where we care more about where our food is from and what goes into it, festivals like these will without a doubt be on the increase, and that's jolly good. :)

TV overdose: Injustice

As an overwrought and emotionally drained law student, the last thing you'd expect me to voluntarily watch is a legal drama. But it's almost a case of Stockholm syndrome, I have learned to love my oppressor, I just can't get enough of them. So when I was the advert for injustice, I knew I'd be spending every night this week, 9pm-10, watching this show. I have no intention of becoming a criminal barrister, but if I could be I would, it's tres difficult to make it as a barrister. even more so than a solicitor, and this show also highlighted the fact I probably couldn't cope with the psychological pressure that comes with being a criminal lawyer. Nevertheless, I find such shows fascinating and always scan the script for legal technicalities that the script writers have got wrong, allowing me to smugly tell my family "well under the Police and Criminal evidence act 1984 that wouldn't be allowed". But they got it all pretty spot on. 

Tasty Travers and Wanker Wenborn.

The show was based on a book by Anthony Horowitz (forgive me if this is the incorrect spelling) as a literature snob who favours the old classics over modern texts (George Orwell and Harper Lee are about a current as I get) I am not familiar with the novel, but I hear the tv producers toned down the action and explored the psychological aspects much more in depth, which is quite unheard of for tv drama, normally they Hollywood-ize perfectly decent books with excessive explosions and sex scenes.  

Basic plot line: Extremely competent and rather tasty defence Barrister, Travers, will only defend those he believes to be innocent, but when one client is acquitted and subsequently admits his guilt, Travers has mental breakdown and refuses to take on any more murder cases. But when he spots the defendant walking freely around a train station, he decides to correct the mistake he made and shoots him. Also an old university friend asks him to defend him on a murder trial, promising to be innocent despite copious amounts of incriminating evidence against him. Travers reluctantly takes on the case, and looks for evidence to acquit his old friend. Meanwhile, a Cop with a incessant hatred for lawyers, Wenborn is given the case of Spaull (the guy Travers killed- hope your following me) he seems to be close on the heels and claims he is ready to make an arrest. However his fatal flaw- besides being an abusive husband- is his inability to do any paperwork and reluctance to keep fellow co workers in the loop. Therefore when his poor wife in accidentally kills him in self defence (he was about to beat the living crap out of her) all his progress on Travers dies with him. Back to Travers then, he successfully gets his friend found "not guilty" of murdering his mistress, but soon after realises that he too had been lying to him and not only is his old friend a murderer, but also into a bit of child porn. So Traver's takes matters into his own hands, and corrects the injustice he has causes by shooting Martin's brains out. We finish with him about to take on another murder case and him asking the defendant not to lie to him and tell him "did you do it". There is a sub plot involving his wife who works as a teacher in a young offenders institutes who finds a promising student who's been writing a novel, but he hangs himself so there's not much more to add to that. 

The show explores perception of good vs evil, one of the many morally contentious questions which arise is "is it murder to kill a murderer?". Travers- the barrister, portrays all the qualities of a good moral entity, hardworking, a faithful and loving husband, a kind father, trusting and kind, yet he has committed murder, whereas the police man Wenborn demonstrates such ugly traits, violent towards his wife, unfaithful, discriminatory and vile towards collegues, and citizens, yet he has not committed such a heinous crime. It makes you question- who is the good man? Most viewers will take Travers side, arguably the people he killed deserved it, he was only correcting the mistakes of the English criminal justice system. However, we should remember it was Travers who'd gotten these people off in the first place. It was his wrongdoing in the first place. Is it wrong of him to expect his clients to be innocent? We should remember that in England, there is no death penalty, he's going beyong the realm of the penal system by killing his deceitful clients, are they getting what they really deserve or is he going too far beyond his authority? Because of Wenborn's death, Travers clients who are found not guilty will have their freedom restricted far more greatly than if they'd be found guilty. They are probably better off going to prison if they intend to lie to him. Is it justice? To kill those who have killed? Or if a jury has found someone not guilty, should we respect that, even if we know better? Even as I typed that it seems nonsensical to me- Travers is following the old maxim of "an eye for an eye". Which most people in this country to some extent agree with. But most people will probably think Traver's shouldn't be such a damn good lawyer in the first place if he can't handle the consequences of his job. 

The show was a slow burner on monday. It wasn't until 45 minutes had passed that I suddenly was really drawn in. As the show went on I began to think it was becoming predictable, in a pleasant way, i thought it was my legally inclined mind figuring out the shows plot, but come friday my mum outwitted my and predicted the client would be guilty, neither of us were expecting Wenborn's death nor were we expecting the child pornography story line.  It was compelling viewing and I will be buying it on DVD. Best tv I have seen in a long long time. 

Dr Who Overdoes: A Good Man Goes To War.

Most people I know have been seriously disappointed by this episode, however, I feel people are forgetting it wasn't a complete final, this was the mid series finale, there is obviously going to be unanswered questions to make you wait on the edge of your seat until Dr Who returns to our screens. I found this episode to be a compelling watch, it was a dark, psychological exploration of the Doctor, which delved further than Davies had ever dared to go. Although Davies lightly touched on the Doctor being perceived a a "fears warrior" the surface was never really scratched. Moffat has been waiting 16 years to give the word "Doctor" a new angle, it was a morally contentious and reflective episode.

 

 The highlights of the episode include the hilarious moment when the Doctor was being interrogated as to where little Melody was conceived. "I know how you blush"  his painful embarrassment and cluelessness was pant wetting material. And the moment when it turned out the Melody Amy has been protecting and hugging was actually a ganger and she suddenly dissolved into gooey flash- this produced the finest acting from Karen we have yet to see, I actually felt pangs of sadness for her, or perhaps I'm being all broody and maternal myself... don't tell the boyfriend. But the way she cried over a litre of yogurt really did pull the strings of my cold heart.

The big moment came, we finally found out who bloody River Song is. And it turns out that she is Melody Pond. This had been suggested to me but I'd tried to ignore this horrible accusation and as the terrible truth dawned on me I found all my broodiness for the baby dissolve almost as quickly as the ganger did and now all I feel is resentment for that baby. She will become the worlds most annoying plank ever.

Now although I wholeheartedly loved this episode, It was highly flawed and left many loose ends and unanswered questions, if this was a two part episode I could cope with it, but I have to keep telling myself that these questions will be answered when the show returns, but I have a small niggling feeling that some of them wont be. Many of the characters were completely pointless. We had a lesbian lizard that killed Jack the Ripper and an emasculated Sontaran nurse. For some reason Rory was dressed as a centurion and seriously, what was the point of the Thin Fat Gay Married Anglican Marines if you're just going to behead one of them and subsequently forget about them? Such conundrums meant little empathy or emotion was developed over the Doctors army, when they died I really felt nothing because I was that confused as to their purpose. Moffat has single handed abused all the established rules of time, dimensions, paradox and time lines within this episode alone. Furthermore, it's either a case of bad scripting or lack of communication between Davies and Moffat but if River Song is a time lord and can regenerate, why did she die when we first met her? Is it possible we will get to see a younger, different actress play River Song? Preferably one with less tendencies to look smug 24/7. Thankfully the ridiculous quotes such as "spoilers" or "hello sweetie" are becoming few and far in between. Is Amy effectively the Doctor's mother-in-law? There fore Dr Who has gone all Dorian Gray on us and smooched both mother and daughter. This also means that, presumably, Amy tried to shoot her child at the end of The Impossible Astronaut. It's all a bit chaotic.

Can we assume that River Song was the astronaut which killed the Doctor? RiverSong did once say she killed the greatest man she ever knew and she's obviously got a fetish for dressing up in space suits. However, since most girls think of their father as the greatest man they ever knew, could Rory be about to get it all over again? This is a most unconventional family, I couldn't feel happy for any of them, and it's not just my incessant hatred for River Song. It just felt wrong what with her being so much older than her respective parents. You couldn't feel any emotion during this poignant moment. I mean what must be running through Amy's head? something along the lines of  "my daughter is a total slut". 

 I cannot wait for Dr Who to return, "Let's Kill Hitler" sounds promising already. I can only hope that River Song gets less annoying the younger she's technically getting as it seems she's going to be around a long long time. Something has got to be done about Rory as he's just being a wet fish, unwanted third wheel that the writers cannot find anything useful to do with him but have no good reason to kill him off. He needs more direction and purpose.

Resident foodie: King Prawn Gamberetti overdose.

So we were heading towards the end of our final exam. We'd just have three consecutive exams and we only had tort law left, which was an open book exam- they want to test our application of the relevant law rather than memory, thus besides highlighting the textbook there was little else constructive for me to do during the next three days. As i'm approaching my 20th, myself and my favourite law friend went to celebrate this long awaited night off at our favourite eatarie in Aberystwyth, Little Italy. 

Little Italy is on the bottom of North Parade street, not far from where the incline of Penglais hill begins. It's a beautiful Italian resturant, that doesn't look like much from the outside but once you're inside it's wonderful. It's got wooden beams, candle light, operatic music and an all round fantastic atmosphere. 

Little Italy.

My friend has always raved about Little Italy, and since I went with my boyfriend a few months ago, I don't  want to eat anywhere else, I have to begrudginly accept that I just cannot afford to eat there weekly. Most people when going to an Italian will order pasta or pizza. There's nothing wrong with this and I've tried a few of their pasta dishes, they do fantastic vegetarian or fishy options, but it's the grilled section where this place excells everywhere else. Why would you have a pizza or pasta, which a competent cook could easily make at home, when their grill section is to die for. My meat eating friends have reccommended the Duck a la dolce which is duck in orange, lemon and brandy sauce or the Steak Rossini Served on a Crouton with Pate in a Red wine, Mushroom and Cream Sauce.

My personal reccommendation for a starter is Camembert Fritto for £5.75. It's a soft Cheese fried in Breadcrumbs with Cranberry Sauce. It's very delicate and beautifully done. But for mains within a heartbeat I'd suggest the King Prawn Gamberetti cooked with garlic, mushrooms and finished with creamy lobster sauce for £18.45. The best thing about this place is the portions. You really do get your moneys worth. You will get an entire huge plate of just king prawns in this beautiful sauce, and then you get the choice of either garlic, roast or chipped potatoes, which come in a seperate bowl and a choice of salad, vegetables or onion rings, which will come in another seperate bowl. I personally would get the garlic potatoes and the salad. It genuinely tastes like heaven. I couldn't stop smiling as I ate them. It might have been the wine going to my head but right then I just felt unbelievably happy to be eating such beauties. 

Well there you go. If you are going to eat out in Aberystwyth, I suggest you don't skimp on the spending. It really is worth digging deeper into your pockets for the atmosphere and the quality of food. If you are going to go, dont be a cheap skate and buy a pasta dish or pizza. Go for it, buy one of their special items and you will not regret it.