User talk:Informed Owl

Userpage Barnstar

		The Excellent Userpage Award
		Awesome, humorous userpage :). J. Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for this edit [[1]] Thank-you for all your hard work on the wiki! RP459 (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for the Inner Temple barnstar:). Is that sort of area one that interests you, then? Ironholds (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very much so. The other three Inns of Court need some attention. I may well have a go soon! Informed Owl (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Informed Owl[reply]

Ooh, a lawyer? Excellent. With the help of User:Bencherlite, I got Gray's Inn to featured article; it's my Inn, I'll be damned if I'll have it languishing at start-class. Next in line is Middle Temple, although I have a draft for Lincoln's Inn in my userspace. I can't seem to find much historical stuff, though. If you're a member of either MT or LI, library scavenging would certainly be useful. Ironholds (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am LI. I am tempted to have a go. Forgive me for saying so, but you have set a rather high standard though with your work on Inner! I am not sure that lists of famous members have any place on the respective pages. I see that Inner does not have one. Did you delete it? My feeling is that "famous" is a somewhat opaque term and a list of members in any event serves no real purpose.Informed Owl (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Informed Owl[reply]

Thank you kindly! Feel free to hack away at my draft work so far. As a member, you should have access to some nice stuff in the library - I assume they have the abridged Black Books there? Any commentary from those would be useful. In regards to famous members; I take famous members as "anyone notable enough for an article". As I've done with Gray's Inn here, I move them into a separate page set up similar to an "alumni of X" article. Ironholds (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Counsels on the Bench

It is my understanding that QCs that join the Senior Courts do not stop being QCs; rather, the fact of their being QCs is no longer relevant as they are disqualified from practicing while continuing to serve as a judge. Thus, once the judge leaves the bench, he or she would be able to practice as a barrister and would continue to do so as a QC, not a junior. Do you have evidence to the contrary? -Rrius (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall post something as soon as I can. Circuit judges who were QCs retain the honour when on the bench and they too are disqualified from practising while continuing to serve as a judge. The difference lies in Senior Court judges no longer being members of the bar, while circuit judges are still barristers and are therefore entitled to retain their QC status. It is certainly the case that no Senior Court judge has "QC" after his or her name and Wikipedia should certainly reflect that. See this link: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/keyfacts/list_judiciary/senior_judiciary_list.htm

You will see that in no case does "QC" appear. Although most of them were QCs on appointment to the bench, not all of them were (for example Sir John Laws in the Court of Appeal) so it is not as though the official list does not mention QC because it can be taken as read. Other honours are mentioned (note Sir Robert Carnwath's CVO and the DBE's of all female appointments). Serving judges should not therefore be cited as QC. See also the part of the list headed "Retired Senior Judiciary under the age of 75". All have stopped serving, but are eligible to sit if called upon because under the age of 75. None of them is listed as "QC".

I accept that the reason why senior court judges are not QCs should be the subject of a reference, so in the meantime shall not revert the instances where you have reinstated the QC. That said, by the same token, as your inclusion of QC is against the official list which I have just cited, you should perhaps put up a source for that! :-)Informed Owl (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Informed Owl[reply]

See also http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about_judiciary/forms_of_address/index.htm which notes the difference between circuit judges ("QC if appropriate") and Senior Court Judges (no such reference)Informed Owl (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Informed Owl[reply]

On any understanding, Lord Judge, who is very much still serving, should not be listed as QC. Do you agree to deleting reference to it on his page?Informed Owl (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Informed Owl[reply]

Your point about the senior judiciary list is not at all persuasive. None are listed as privy counsellors, but many are. The judiciary form of address argument is slightly persuasive, but not even close to conclusive. I have a question in to the MoJ; if they support your position, I'll drop my opposition. On the other hand, if they say you are wrong, I'll oppose you until the end of time. If you wish to make progress in the meantime, I would suggest finding actual sources that say Senior Court judges lose the right to style themselves with 'QC'. -Rrius (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has the Ministry of Justice come back to you following your request?Informed Owl (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Informed Owl[reply]

Did the Ministry of Justice respond to your request? In the absence of justification for keeping the QC suffix (given that it is not used in any of their entries in Who's Who, I note, I propose deleting them Informed Owl (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Informed Owl[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Informed Owl. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Informed Owl. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Informed Owl. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]