Kerfuffle wrote:

"but only if a foreign law graduate has substantial knowledge of English and Welsh law".

From Wikipedia "English law is the legal system of England and Wales, and is the basis of common law legal systems used in most Commonwealth countries and the United States (as opposed to civil law or pluralist systems in use in other countries)".

The salient words there being "is the basis" - that does not necessarily equate to non-UK law graduates gaining a substantial knowledge of English and Welsh law.

@ Kerfuffle

Clutching at straws now, ain't we? :-)

No, I'm not Craig - you're just creating straw man arguments (at best).

Good gosh wrote:

"I don't see how this is discriminatory AT ALL. Why should you be allowed to do the LPC/BVC if you have not studied all the foundation subjects necessary in order to be allowed on to the course?

I think we should call a spade a spade. The requirement is plainly protectionist.

The common law is about principles, which any lawyer who has been through 4 years of law school should understand by then. Yes the specific rules will differ from jurisdiction by jurisdiction, but if you understand the principles, you should be able to adapt fairly quickly. I don't see any rationale to actually take a course just because the black letter rules might differ.

And even if you disagree with my above point, there are other ways of enforcing uniformity of standards besides making individuals sit through a compulsory one year course. You could just have conversion exams which several jurisdictions have implemented for example

There is more content to the foundational law courses than just common law subjects (eg. EU law).

"I think we should call a spade a spade. The requirement is plainly protectionist".

And, perhaps, a cosy nexus between the law society and the Universities/Colleges in the UK (imparting GDL/CPE programme) to fleece the non-UK law graduates from English common law countries and to waste their one full year by making them compulsorily do a programme meant for people with a non-law background.

Kerfuffle wrote:

"There is more content to the foundational law courses than just common law subjects (eg. EU law)".

Scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel now, ain't we? :-)

The idea that principle is all that matters in common law, and that specific national laws are less important, is rather reductionist. Would you want to hire a barrister/solicitor who was not appropriately familiar with British laws and British legal traditions if you had a legal problem in BRITAIN? Of course not! Every lawyer in the UK must meet minimum requirements in terms of knowledge of BRITISH law. The idea that British legal powers that be should just allow any law graduate from a common law country access to the UK legal market without forcing them to learn law specific to the UK in an academic setting is patently ridiculous. The fuss being made about this whole issue is way overblown. The current system is not perfect, but is not fatally flawed either. If you have a degree in US law, then you have the requisite knowledge of American - not British - law. Therefore if you want to be a lawyer in Britain, then you have to make it up. Yes the two legal systems are similar, but they are not identical, therefore you have to make it up. You are not being asked to read for another law degree, just the courses of law which you have not followed. Get over it.

Good Gosh

You have not bothered to reply to queries put to you yesterday but yet once again gone on a rather long rant....so tell me, is this outburst of petulance really required? Your posts seem to be high on hype rather than substance.

You wrote:

"Would you want to hire a barrister/solicitor who was not appropriately familiar with British laws and British legal traditions if you had a legal problem in BRITAIN? Of course not"!

You ask a question and then choose to answer the question on your own?

And international lawyers who cleared their QLTT in the past and were hired by firms in the UK....would you ask these firms now to remove them? Because, according to you, these international lawyers are "not appropriately familiar with British laws and British legal traditions". The world according to Good Gosh....

You further wrote:

"You are not being asked to read for another law degree".

You mean LPC/BVC has been abolished? Now when did this happen?

You then wrote:

"Get over it".

Some may even assume your shrill, belligerent tone is reminiscent to that of people from the BNP....Get over it.

i really don't have the time or inclination to engage in this child's play. just to take up two of your inane points: neither the lpc nor the bvc are law degrees. if you don't understand why, get someone else to explain it to you. if you don't know how rhetorical devices are used in English then look it up instead of embarrassing yourself. . the BNP thing is really funny too. just to assure you, i neither support griffin nor hate brown people. in any case have a nice life, and good luck with your campaign to have British regulations changed at your convenience,

"i really don't have the time or inclination to engage in this child's play".

Since you are sadly unable to communicate or debate like a matured adult, I just have two words of advice for you "GROW UP".

Good Gosh wrote:

"if you don't know how rhetorical devices are used in English then look it up instead of embarrassing yourself".

Do you? And how about practising yourself what you preach to others....all you have done so far is made a complete laughing stock of yourself on this thread.

Keff: Good point on EU law but I still don't see it as an obstacle. I done EU law and its just basically WTO law with some minor modifications. It's only a personal opinon but I really don't see how someone with a basic understanding of public international law and some wto background would have any problem with it.

Good Gosh

You want a free license to wind up others with over the top rhetoric? Moreover, your overbearing behavior hardly flatters you.

Kerfuffle wrote:

"There is more content to the foundational law courses than just common law subjects (eg. EU law)".

Scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel now, ain't we? :-)

Keff: Good point on EU law but I still don't see it as an obstacle. I done EU law and its just basically WTO law with some minor modifications. It's only a personal opinon but I really don't see how someone with a basic understanding of public international law and some wto background would have any problem with it.

EU law can simply be added as a module in the LPC programme.

Not really, Sid, You'd then be mixing an academic stage with the vocational stage. It would also be discriminatory to domestic students, who if failing EU Law would then claim as EU Law is available at LPC level it's no longer a foundational course prerequisite. But it's not only EU Law you'd have to slot into the LPC course - also, at the least, UK constitutional law (which is not going to be learnt by simply adapting common law 'principles').