Tuesday 30 August 2011

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.  

Saturday 27 August 2011

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? 

Thursday 18 August 2011

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. 

Wednesday 17 August 2011

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.

Thursday 11 August 2011

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. 

Monday 8 August 2011

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.