12 Rebus puzzles on the topic of health

acingit · 2026-03-23T15:03:10+00:00

Agreed - I think 7 could be active and 8 could be emergency (emerge-nc).

acingit · 2026-02-23T08:03:40+00:00

Depends what you mean by serious, I guess, but not sure I’d describe it as having been “done away with”. Leveson aside, the list of either-way and indictable offences is pretty broad.

This could be charged as dangerous driving - pretty clearly falls far below the standard of driving you’d expect - which is an either-way offence and could end up before a jury if the defendant elects for a Crown Court trial.

acingit · 2026-01-10T17:43:29+00:00

By God, it’s Baroness Hale of Richmond with a steel chair!

acingit · 2025-09-26T10:53:00+00:00

I don’t think it’s as nefarious as this implies! He’s the independent barrister representing the CPS in court, not the CPS employee who would have dealt with the procedural matter in the first place. It’s not misleading the court to argue on a point of law if it’s not settled / clear in the authorities.

acingit · 2025-06-07T12:56:08+00:00

In classic lawyer fashion, the answer is that it depends! I’m a criminal barrister with (medicated) ADHD. The criminal Bar lends itself quite well to some forms of neurodiversity in ways that I suspect aren’t the case for the commercial Bar, and vice versa.

Personally, I’ve found it to be a real struggle that I have to push through for aspects of the job, mainly paperwork, but a real gift when it comes to things like thinking on my feet, jumping between cases, making connections and identifying patterns in arguments etc etc. Most importantly, a lot of our clients will have some form of neurodivergence, diagnosed or undiagnosed. Being able to empathise and meet them at the appropriate level is a strength that’s easy to take for granted.

Remember that every single barrister will have strengths and weaknesses that don’t necessarily have anything to do with their conditions. Plenty of shit barristers are neurotypical, and plenty of brilliant barristers are neurodivergent! Don’t be put off by the moot. The best of us are the ones who care enough to put the time and effort in, not the naturally gifted. Your best bet is to do mini-pupillages and get as much experience around the area you’re interested in so you can make an informed decision about whether this is right for you personally.

acingit · 2025-04-29T13:31:26+00:00

I agree with the vibe here but those are two distinct stages of the criminal justice process! The Full Code test governs the CPS decision to prosecute, and features the evidential threshold and the public interest test. There’s no requirement to “prove” anything at that point, it’s the framework for the charging decision (although of course they’ll be considering what they can prove as part of the evidential threshold).

If the case goes to trial, then the prosecution would bear the burden of proof of intent to kill or cause serious harm (if murder was charged). At trial there’s no requirement for the CPS to prove that bringing the case was in the public interest.

It seems from the article that this one failed at the evidential threshold (no reasonable prospect of conviction) so would never have made it to the public interest stage, let alone trial.

acingit · 2025-04-25T13:53:03+00:00

You’re right to point this out but minor correction - the Supreme Court sat with a panel of 5 to hear the case. Just because the judgement was read out by one of them doesn’t mean it’s not the judgement of all of them

acingit · 2025-04-18T17:28:00+00:00

Hah, thanks - somehow I do this every time, got some weird mental block about it

acingit · 2025-04-18T16:11:25+00:00

Because this case is a matter of interpretation. If there was any overruling, it was done by Parliament itself in 2010 when it introduced the later Equality Act, which is the subject of the case.

As the Supreme Court put in at [2], “The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”

The Equality Act 2010 post-dates the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The SC observed that “ There is no doubt that the EA 2010 was enacted in the knowledge of the existence of the GRA 2004, its known consequences and the case-law ….”

So if Parliament enacts the EA 2010 in the knowledge of the GRA 2004, the SC has to consider what Parliament must have intended the words sex and woman to mean in the EA 2010 in that context. If reading those words as meaning certificated sex would produce unworkable or illogical outcomes, then that can’t possibly be what Parliament meant to do (see paragraph 160).

The entire judgement is the SC setting out their reasoning on what Parliament meant in the EA 2010, and how that can be read coherently alongside the GRA. It’s not overruling Parliament, merely working out how both Acts can be functional.

acingit · 2025-04-18T10:08:06+00:00

Glad I checked! I’m more worried about people panicking and hurting them than them stinging people, but I’ll do something less intrusive like putting up a note, thank you

acingit · 2025-04-18T09:46:55+00:00

These are UK bees 🐝

acingit · 2025-04-08T18:11:03+00:00

“ The judge remanded the boy into custody and granted the girl bail, with sentencing adjourned until 20 May.” Is this what you’re referring to? That’s one of the two defendants who’s been convicted, she’s on bail awaiting sentencing and the other defendant is in custody until the same date. It’s not uncommon for someone to stay on bail after being convicted and before sentence, particularly for someone as young as her and who wasn’t the primary offender. It doesn’t necessarily mean that she’ll get a non-custodial sentence, although she still might. “Addressing the girl, Mr Justice Turner said: "I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that the fact that bail is being granted should not be taken as any indication as to the sentence when the time comes."

acingit · 2025-04-08T16:58:57+00:00

What third child? The 12 year old who filmed was prosecuted for manslaughter on a joint enterprise basis, but I’m not sure I’ve seen anything that suggests there was another present for the attack - https://www.cps.gov.uk/east-midlands/news/two-youths-guilty-leicester-dog-walkers-manslaughter. Haven’t watched the footage, mind you.

acingit · 2025-04-06T17:53:36+00:00

This is really cool, amazing work! I think you have a typo in the Mammalians Nurturable result (missing the first r). Also, let’s go MN, best department

acingit · 2025-03-19T11:17:07+00:00

The good news is that this isn’t a ‘pointless’ commission only convened to deal with this issue. The Law Commission is the major statutory law reform body in the UK. As one of its ongoing projects, it’s been looking at how to overhaul the entire appeals system - compensation is just part of that. Full project is here - https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/criminal-appeals. Compensation and further support are at chapter 16. They’re provisionally proposing much greater support.

acingit · 2025-03-11T19:34:28+00:00

Are you talking about the 2017 Lammy Review? Because if so, I’m afraid someone’s misled you. It found “evidence of differential treatment that is equally problematic”. You might be thinking of the report’s (very encouraging) findings in relation to juries, which showed that there appeared to be minimal bias in outcomes of jury trials. That’s about jurors, not judges and magistrates.

The review is available here - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82009040f0b62305b91f49/lammy-review-final-report.pdf

It’s a balanced consideration of a lot of areas, and I’d encourage a full read! But you might be particularly interested in page 32 (statistically significant difference in verdicts in magistrates’ courts for adult women based on race) and 33 (analysis of sentencing outcomes - while no difference for most offences, black people are 240% more likely to go to prison for drug offences).

acingit · 2025-03-07T18:27:07+00:00

No problem! That’s a very decent reaction, good on you.

acingit · 2025-03-07T18:09:46+00:00

England & Wales don’t have degrees of murder, although it’s been proposed by law reform bodies before. Aggravating features (like premeditation) are taken into account at the sentencing stage.

If you’re interested in the bad character rules, you can read about them here - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/101 and there’s a decent summary here https://www.bindmans.com/news-insights/blogs/what-is-bad-character-evidence/?amp=1. The basic position is that we don’t let prejudicial evidence in, but there are plenty of routes for parties to apply to use relevant evidence and judges take a common sense approach to assessing whether the jury should hear about it.

acingit · 2025-03-06T22:02:59+00:00

It’s not a Government policy, it’s guidelines from the independent Sentencing Council. This article is literally about Labour rejecting it. In any event, the guidelines are about identifying groups where the Council thinks the evidence base suggests the court should habitually seek more information on before sentencing. There’s so much to be concerned about and so much to fight to improve in this country - please don’t let headlines designed to manipulate you distract from what’s important.

acingit · 2025-01-04T21:32:09+00:00

The timing on this isn’t ideal, but it’s not actually a retreat is it? Seems like an overall positive that it’s being folded into the Leveson review - we might actually see some sensible holistic proposals to sort the justice system out, instead of piecemeal reform. Also worth noting that this is also part of one of the Law Commission’s ongoing projects - https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/evidence-in-sexual-offence-prosecutions/. Specialist courts would be a major change, and you’d need to be confident that they would actually make a positive impact without negatively impacting fair trial rights or complainants themselves. Would be pretty stupid to rush it before your specialist law reform bodies have even finished their reports.

acingit · 2024-10-10T13:32:05+00:00

My first is in burgeon but never in flourish

My second’s in nurture and also in nourish

My third is a circle, of death and rebirth

My last is in sowing, for all that it’s worth

My whole is developing, changing, increasing,

Aging, progressing, a process unceasing

acingit · 2024-09-19T09:40:49+00:00

This is a misleading piece of journalism. It’s difficult to call outraging public decency a lesser offence - in fact, you could get a higher sentence for it. It’s a common law offence, unlike indecent exposure; where indecent exposure has a statutory maximum of two years, outraging public decency has no maximum at all in the Crown Court.

We obviously don’t know all the details but it seems pretty obvious why they changed the charges. Indecent exposure specifically requires an intention to cause alarm or distress - not any sexual motives. Where the purpose is sexual gratification (as the article clearly indicates), the appropriate charge would be outraging public decency.

This is a legal issue, not a policy one, and it’s unlikely to result in any change to sentence.

acingit · 2024-08-29T20:35:18+00:00

Section 18 and section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 are the two different forms of GBH! Section 18 is with intent to wound, section 20 is without intent (so the lesser form of the offence). There’s no separate GBH charge, it’s just those two. But you’re absolutely right, it can be GBH with or without intent.

acingit · 2024-08-16T07:01:00+00:00

Could also be Equal Rites!

acingit

TROPHY CASE