We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Can we have a similar breakup for other colleges that recently concluded day zero as well?
SAM- 6
Trilegal- 2
Argus- 2
Khaitan- 1
AZB- 1
Indus- 1
Saraf- 1
Panag & Babu- 1
ICICI- 1
You'd be laughed out of the park by academics in those places. I believe that the rule is that something like 50 pages of reading is the maximum that should be set per class at NLSIU or something like that, and going over the limit should be the exception rather than the rule. Do you know that the foreign universities that you so covet as graduate destinations have no such rules, and make their students work much harder? Do you also know that many academics at Oxford - yes, Oxford - say that they aren't getting their students to work hard enough? (Fact: a video created by the Faculty of Law at Oxford of which Tarunab Khaitan was a part called 'De-mistifying Oxford' said that members of academic staff should expect that students are estimated to take thirty hours to do the preparation (reading and essay writing) for each tutorial, think about that.) A professor there once wrote that during his Oxford studies, he had gotten so used to reading an entire book in preparation for one weekly tutorial in one of his course modules, that he had developed reading speed and comprehension capabilities that allowed him to read (and properly take in, in order to write an essay on the material and discuss it thoroughly in his tutorial and in the exam) 200 pages per hour. The complain-boxes of Legally India would be toast, no, not even toast, less than the dust beneath the chariot wheels, of people like that. Is that something you really take pride in? Please think about that.
*Don't get law firm jobs
what did you actually to control the fish market ????
1) NUJS Online Lecture - Political Obligations During a Health Emergency (April 2020)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UEhIonu_t8
2) Beyond Law CLC Series - Interpreting Legal Materials in a Purposive Manner (January 2021)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl-ZJYbfwrI
I also remember that he was offering online classes on Legal Philosophy as part of the Virtual Law School initiative during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. You can just write to him and he will share the recordings.
It’s not about satisfying me personally you numpty. It’s about whether the IOC is interested in protecting womens sport and in protecting fairness and equality and safety for female athletes.
There is a big difference between conversation and physical combat. Males have documented proven advantage in sports and especially in physical combat. This isn’t about “ proving womanhood” for some aesthetic reasons. I don’t give a tiny rats ass if khelif wants to go live his life in dresses and marry a guy and be very stereotypically feminine. He’s welcome to. This is about whether or not khelif is male and has an unfair male advantage that makes it unfair and unsafe to put him in the ring with females. Khelif has been tested twice - by a lab Istanbul and one in New Delhi and those tests said XY - other competitors have complained- nearly every competitor against khelif complained at the Olympic a regardless of which country they were from. And the IOC did nothing to clear up concerns with a simple once in a lifetime cheek swab for all the players.
If the argument is that khelifs right to not be tested and medical privacy trumps any female opponents right to fairness and equality and safety. Someone has to explain to me why we drug test all athletes. Why do we weigh them within an inch of their lives ? How is that not about privacy? We clearly think juicing and weight advantages are unacceptable and make the sport unfair and unsafe. We used to think that having men beat on women was unfair and unsafe too but we don’t anymore ? If there is a total denial of male advantage and science - let’s do away with these male female categories all together and then we’ll see who wins what and why we need a female category.
I’m done explaining basic stuff to people who refuse to see what’s right in front of their face. If you don’t care about women just say so and we can all move on.
2. No. Her recent better claims recusal.
3. Yes but not a crime (as made out to be )
4. Yes but investigation needed. Specially in the Singapore one.
Note- from a tier-5 college with no legal background
Tried everything starting from Linkedin, iimjobs, indeed, naukri but unfortunately nothing has helped.
Rule 2: Follow Rule 1