Legal Cheek talks… comments

Katie King and Tom Connelly go below the line and respond to the readers

In our latest live Facebook broadcast, Legal Cheek’s Katie King and Tom Connelly — against their better judgement — delve below the line, and analyse some of this week’s more thought-provoking comments.

Our resident journos talk white, male, Oxbridge-educated judges being elevated to the Court of Appeal, and Slaughter and May’s first bold steps into the weird and wonderful world of artificial intelligence. Even our newly installed Lady Chancellor Liz Truss receives the Legal Cheek treatment.

Be sure to keep your comments coming!

37 Comments

Nathan

Guys, you two must have had many nights out together or pub seshes. Have you ever got it on? Seriously.

(28)(1)
Anonymous

The question we have all asked. They would make a cute couple I reckon.

(7)(1)
Trumpenkrieg

They would throw dinner parties dominated by the most painfully right on talking points!

(4)(0)
Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(5)(0)
Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)
Anonymous

Really interesting – a great summary and helpful commentary on the bigger stories. Thank you.

The technique is much improved. And because you both look good on camera the result is very watchable.

Please keep making these. They’re enjoyable and make the site stand out.

Declaration (for the cynical commenters): I am not Katie’s mum and I’ve only been to Scotland once. And I’m not Alex.

(7)(10)
Anonymous

Nope. No relation to any Legal Cheek person ever. Including Occupy, Niteowl and Not Amused.

(1)(6)
Anonymous

If my son was a journalist for them I would read it as much as you do too, I suppose.

(3)(0)
Anonymous

Which part of “no relation to any Legal Cheek person ever” are you struggling with?

(2)(3)
Anonymous

Really? I get bored after a minute or two as I don’t think these videos really add anything to the earlier stories they are discussing, which I know I could read in the time it takes to listen to their ramblings.

I might work better if they had people contributing who actually had some insight/expertise into what they are discussing – although I can’t see anyone willing to do that.

(7)(5)
Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(3)(0)
Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(2)(0)
Anonymous

Katie could try to look less bored. Tom did a reasonable job.

When is Leah going to write her first article on the top 10 lawyer Instagram accounts relating to the lack of gender diversity in Lord Harley’s SRA case?

(2)(4)
Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(2)(0)
Anonymous

Looked like a hostage video at points. I we expected to hear Alex pipe up in his faux posh accent “kiss her now”.

(18)(0)
Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)
Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(5)(1)
Anonymous

Those Denning t-shirts rule!! Good shit. Please add the link on your twitter so I can buy one.

(3)(3)
Anonymous

Any chance of a Lord Harley t-shirt?
Or Proudman?
Or NA, carrying suitable quote about “poor born kids”?
Or one with the least windy pronouncements of Simon Myerson QC, written in 6 point font? (The last one would have to be a king-size duvet cover.)

(3)(0)
Anonymous

I’d love a tshirt with the comment most seen on LC on it:

“This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.”

(12)(1)
Lord Lyle

The personal comments by LC and commentators are deplorable and infantile.

Can we have some legal content please?.

Nobody cares what two unleading , low flying , under bagging , gossiping , tittle taling , bottom people have to twaddley fiddley tosh about.

Some gravitas please?

(4)(12)
Lord Lyle

As for crazy commentators, you LC let them on.
You have people with inter alia, autistic spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy , mild to severe retards , which you are responsible for. I might single out the sub dural haemorage victim , incapable of uttering only 3 words: “Let’s go champ” which you subject qualified and in some cases experienced lawyers to.

Is LC an exercise in the aggrandisement of your unqualified and rejected egos?

(2)(12)
Anonymous

Lord Lyle

The life and soul of the party. If the party has no guests. And the party is in his house. With Lord Lyle the only guest. Sitting their quietly. Typing furiously on Legal Cheek.

That kind of life and soul of the party.

(10)(0)
Anonymous

Aynd da comments ain’t closed yet?

Dis mud be a record!

Btw iss RAYSISS dat dere is jus two honkeys presentin’ it, innit?

(7)(1)
Lord Lyle

As for giving legal advice to law students when unqualified to do so, misleads law students and gulls them into the PC pipe dream you fantasise the law to be about.

Get some qualified people to do that please and not just PC people

(1)(5)
Anonymous

Lord Lyle.

The hatiest hater that ever hated.

LET’S GO CHAMP!

(6)(0)
Anonymous

The defence of the view on Oxbridge was poor.

Oxbridge remains the best unis we have. The phrase “twenty years ago” is too vague and too tempting for children and young people. Believe me, 20 years is not a long time. It was 1996. The entrance to Oxbridge was then as it is now. Meritocratic. Twenty years is not a long time.

I’m afraid Katie’s thinking is still disappointingly woolly. I wish she had had the benefit of 3 years of Oxbridge. Her’s is a good mind, made fat and woolly by a lack of rigour.

You should name the very impressive women. I could. I won’t. You should. They are QCs now. They are red and purple judges now. A news website should name and praise those women. If Katie cares then she should track those people down and promote them.

Tom … Well. It’s nice Katie has someone to talk to. But does she actually need him? I’m afraid the immediate response to almost anything he says is “yes? and?”.

Liz Truss is bad. It’s sad she is. But there we are.

(6)(5)

Comments are closed.