Hollywood studios feel impact of rapid shift to online film and TV viewing DVD sales plunged 20% in the US in the first quarter of 2011, with Hollywood studios blaming the timing of Easter and a glut of blockbuster releases in the same period last year for the $500m (£303m) year-on-year revenue slump. The sale of DVDs and Blu-ray discs fell from $2.58bn to just more than $2bn in the first three months of the year, according to a report by industry body the Digital Entertainment Group. The DEG study also found rentals of DVDs through outlets such as Blockbuster plunged 36% year on year to $440m. However, consumer spending on streaming and subscription services such as Netflix rose 33% to $695m. The increase is from a relatively low base and the growth in digital revenues failed to cover a 10% fall in US home entertainment spending in the first quarter to $4.18bn. DEG’s latest figures highlight how the Hollywood studios are feeling the impact of the rapid shift to digital consumption of film and TV content. The movie industry is struggling with the same issues faced by the music sector a decade ago, with digital revenues not yet enough to compensate for the decline in sales of traditional physical products. “The industry has proven resilient, with modest gains posted in a number of key areas,” the report said. The report pointed out that there were four “tentpole” cinema releases in the first quarter last year, which accounted for $1bn in revenues, for which there was “no such equivalent” in the first three months of 2011. “The second quarter is off to a strong start, with sell-through [sales of DVDs and Blu-ray discs] up 20% in the first few weeks alone,” the report said. Overall an “impressive array of blockbuster theatrical releases” later this year will “help to round out 2011, with consumer spend flat, or slightly up, and transactions up by the end of the year”. • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook . Digital media Media business Film industry Television industry Online TV Internet Mark Sweney guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Cabinet row sees energy secretary asking prime minister if he will disown no campaign literature that criticises Nick Clegg The row about David Cameron’s endorsement of no campaign tactics in the referendum on the future of the voting system reached cabinet on Tuesday when Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, demanded to know if Cameron would disown the tactics. He demanded to know whether Cameron endorsed some of the claims being made by the no campaign, saying he believed some of its campaign literature smeared the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg. Huhne has already accused Cameron in public of trashing Clegg’s leadership by allowing the no campaign to send out leaflets accusing Clegg of breaking promises and sell-outs. Huhne directly raised the issue at the start of cabinet under parliamentary business with Cameron and the chancellor, George Osborne. Both men replied that they were only responsible for the no campaign being run by the Conservative party. One source discounted claims that the chancellor countered that the issue was not appropriate for cabinet. They said the issue did not last that long. Tory sources were accused of leaking the row. Some cabinet sources then claimed Huhne had not been supported by his Liberal Democrat colleagues in cabinet, but one senior Liberal Democrat said he merely said in private to their faces what he has been saying in the papers. It is known that Huhne does have the support of many senior Liberal Democrats, although there is a division over the extent to which the yes campaign should be doing anything to divert from the positive case for AV. The anger boiling over for weeks has intensified by the way in which Cameron has continually disowned responsibility for the no campaign propaganda even though 80% of its declared donors are also Conservative party backers. Cameron said he was directly responsible only for the official Conservative party no campaign, but he stood by the no campaign’s claims that AV would make it “very likely” that electronic counting machines would have to be purchased. Huhne told the Guardian over the bank holiday weekend that some of the literature trashing Clegg is incredibly short-sighted since it undermines Clegg for making compromises sought by Cameron to put him into power, and to address the issue of Britain’s debt. The conflict turns on the fact that the no campaign attacks the concept of coalitions, even though Cameron is leading one. Asked to condemn posters suggesting babies’ and soldiers’ lives would be put at risk if AV was introduced, Cameron said: “I choose to support my own campaign, which has not made that argument but the fact is if you move to a new voting system it will cost money.” Cameron has yet to condemn the posters in public. One Liberal Democrat cabinet minister said: “This smacks of all the old tactics of the nasty party. It is juvenile and will end up damaging the more than us. It has all the hallmarks of George Osborne”. In a Guardian interview Clegg insisted he was not angry about the literature, but said he would not accept that he had broken promises. Clegg told the BBC that “perhaps naively” he had expected the referendum campaign not to feature politicians so prominently, and he and Cameron could take a more “standoffish” stance. The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said he did not accept that the AV result was a “foregone conclusion” – amid opinion polls suggestions that the yes campaign is heading for defeat. The yes campaign is desperately trying to stoke an anti-Cameron mood to counter the anti-Clegg mood being fired by the no campaign. Miliband also defended his decision to refuse to share a yes campaign platform with Clegg due to his perceived unpopularity with voters: “There’s a reason the no campaign want to make Nick Clegg the poster child for their campaign,” he said. AV referendum Alternative vote Liberal-Conservative coalition Chris Huhne David Cameron Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Cabinet row sees energy secretary asking prime minister if he will disown no campaign literature that criticises Nick Clegg The row about David Cameron’s endorsement of no campaign tactics in the referendum on the future of the voting system reached cabinet on Tuesday when Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, demanded to know if Cameron would disown the tactics. He demanded to know whether Cameron endorsed some of the claims being made by the no campaign, saying he believed some of its campaign literature smeared the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg. Huhne has already accused Cameron in public of trashing Clegg’s leadership by allowing the no campaign to send out leaflets accusing Clegg of breaking promises and sell-outs. Huhne directly raised the issue at the start of cabinet under parliamentary business with Cameron and the chancellor, George Osborne. Both men replied that they were only responsible for the no campaign being run by the Conservative party. One source discounted claims that the chancellor countered that the issue was not appropriate for cabinet. They said the issue did not last that long. Tory sources were accused of leaking the row. Some cabinet sources then claimed Huhne had not been supported by his Liberal Democrat colleagues in cabinet, but one senior Liberal Democrat said he merely said in private to their faces what he has been saying in the papers. It is known that Huhne does have the support of many senior Liberal Democrats, although there is a division over the extent to which the yes campaign should be doing anything to divert from the positive case for AV. The anger boiling over for weeks has intensified by the way in which Cameron has continually disowned responsibility for the no campaign propaganda even though 80% of its declared donors are also Conservative party backers. Cameron said he was directly responsible only for the official Conservative party no campaign, but he stood by the no campaign’s claims that AV would make it “very likely” that electronic counting machines would have to be purchased. Huhne told the Guardian over the bank holiday weekend that some of the literature trashing Clegg is incredibly short-sighted since it undermines Clegg for making compromises sought by Cameron to put him into power, and to address the issue of Britain’s debt. The conflict turns on the fact that the no campaign attacks the concept of coalitions, even though Cameron is leading one. Asked to condemn posters suggesting babies’ and soldiers’ lives would be put at risk if AV was introduced, Cameron said: “I choose to support my own campaign, which has not made that argument but the fact is if you move to a new voting system it will cost money.” Cameron has yet to condemn the posters in public. One Liberal Democrat cabinet minister said: “This smacks of all the old tactics of the nasty party. It is juvenile and will end up damaging the more than us. It has all the hallmarks of George Osborne”. In a Guardian interview Clegg insisted he was not angry about the literature, but said he would not accept that he had broken promises. Clegg told the BBC that “perhaps naively” he had expected the referendum campaign not to feature politicians so prominently, and he and Cameron could take a more “standoffish” stance. The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said he did not accept that the AV result was a “foregone conclusion” – amid opinion polls suggestions that the yes campaign is heading for defeat. The yes campaign is desperately trying to stoke an anti-Cameron mood to counter the anti-Clegg mood being fired by the no campaign. Miliband also defended his decision to refuse to share a yes campaign platform with Clegg due to his perceived unpopularity with voters: “There’s a reason the no campaign want to make Nick Clegg the poster child for their campaign,” he said. AV referendum Alternative vote Liberal-Conservative coalition Chris Huhne David Cameron Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …• Newspaper seller ‘unlawfully killed’ at G20 protests • Jury took just over three hours to reach verdict • Family breaks down in tears at news • Read our news story on the Tomlinson verdict • Follow live updates and reaction here 3.55pm: Ian Tomlinson’s family will be giving a statement in about 25 minutes. I’ll post an update with the details here. 3.53pm: We’ve just published my news story on the verdict , which recaps the evidence from the hearing and explains how jurors were given two divergent explanations of Tomlinson’s death. The first pathologist to conduct a postmortem examination on the body, Dr Freddy Patel, said he died of a heart attack as a result of coronary heart disease. He was contradicted by three other pathologists who examined Tomlinson’s body, all of whom found he died of internal bleeding in the abdomen. Starmer said last July that complications with medical evidence led him to believe prosecutors were unlikely to prove a cause of death. His decision was supported by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve. Both will now have to consider how a jury of seven men and four women concluded Tomlinson died as a result of being pushed by Harwood. 3.47pm: A quick word on the importance of “unlawful killing” as a verdict. To reach an unlawful killing conclusion, the jury were required to have been satisfied to a higher burden of proof than the other possible verdicts, which could have been reached “on the balance of probabilities”. But to reach the unlawful killing verdict, the jury had to be convinced “beyond reasonable doubt”, the same threshold used in criminal trials. 3.45pm: For legal reasons, the jury was not permitted to name “the police officer”, but we know that he was PC Simon Harwood, a member of the Metropolitan Police’s Territorial Support Group. The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, who decided in July last year not to prosecute Harwood for manslaughter, will now be under intense pressure to reverse that decision. An official Crown Prosecution Service review of the decision not to prosecute Harwood is now under way. 3.42pm: The court was caught unaware by the jury’s quick decision. They returned to the room and answered four short questions, known as the inquisition. What was the name of the deceased? Ian Tomlinson. What was the cause of his death? Injury or disease? Abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with cirrhosis of the liver. If the person died of injury, what were the circumstances? Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on the 1st of April 2009 during the G20 demonstration. He was fatally injured at around 19.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings … This was the result of a baton strike from behind and a push by the officer which caused Ian Tomlinson to fall heavily. The jury said both the baton strike and the push were “unreasonable”. “As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death.” The jury decided that at the time of the strike and push Tomlinson was was walking away from the officer and “posed no threat”. What is the jury’s conclusion as to the death? Unlawful killing. 3.37pm: Ian Tomlinson’s family could be heard shouting “yes” at the verdict. His wife, Julia, six of their children are present at the hearing and have broken down, crying. 3.34pm: The jury has concluded Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed by a police officer at the G20 protests. 3.32pm: The jury has taken just three hours and fifteen minutes to reach their verdict. 3.30pm: Welcome back to the Ian Tomlinson inquest blog. The verdict is now imminent. For five weeks eleven men and women have heard detailed evidence about Tomlinson’s death at the G20 protests on April 1, 2009. They heard how he was struck with a baton and pushed to the ground by Metropolitan police officer Simon Harwood at 7.20pm. Tomlinson collapsed just under three minutes later. They retired to deliberate their findings at 11.15am. They are about to come back and deliver their verdict. Police Metropolitan police Protest London G20 Ian Tomlinson Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …• Newspaper seller ‘unlawfully killed’ at G20 protests • Jury took just over three hours to reach verdict • Family breaks down in tears at news • Read our news story on the Tomlinson verdict • Follow live updates and reaction here 3.55pm: Ian Tomlinson’s family will be giving a statement in about 25 minutes. I’ll post an update with the details here. 3.53pm: We’ve just published my news story on the verdict , which recaps the evidence from the hearing and explains how jurors were given two divergent explanations of Tomlinson’s death. The first pathologist to conduct a postmortem examination on the body, Dr Freddy Patel, said he died of a heart attack as a result of coronary heart disease. He was contradicted by three other pathologists who examined Tomlinson’s body, all of whom found he died of internal bleeding in the abdomen. Starmer said last July that complications with medical evidence led him to believe prosecutors were unlikely to prove a cause of death. His decision was supported by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve. Both will now have to consider how a jury of seven men and four women concluded Tomlinson died as a result of being pushed by Harwood. 3.47pm: A quick word on the importance of “unlawful killing” as a verdict. To reach an unlawful killing conclusion, the jury were required to have been satisfied to a higher burden of proof than the other possible verdicts, which could have been reached “on the balance of probabilities”. But to reach the unlawful killing verdict, the jury had to be convinced “beyond reasonable doubt”, the same threshold used in criminal trials. 3.45pm: For legal reasons, the jury was not permitted to name “the police officer”, but we know that he was PC Simon Harwood, a member of the Metropolitan Police’s Territorial Support Group. The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, who decided in July last year not to prosecute Harwood for manslaughter, will now be under intense pressure to reverse that decision. An official Crown Prosecution Service review of the decision not to prosecute Harwood is now under way. 3.42pm: The court was caught unaware by the jury’s quick decision. They returned to the room and answered four short questions, known as the inquisition. What was the name of the deceased? Ian Tomlinson. What was the cause of his death? Injury or disease? Abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with cirrhosis of the liver. If the person died of injury, what were the circumstances? Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on the 1st of April 2009 during the G20 demonstration. He was fatally injured at around 19.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings … This was the result of a baton strike from behind and a push by the officer which caused Ian Tomlinson to fall heavily. The jury said both the baton strike and the push were “unreasonable”. “As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death.” The jury decided that at the time of the strike and push Tomlinson was was walking away from the officer and “posed no threat”. What is the jury’s conclusion as to the death? Unlawful killing. 3.37pm: Ian Tomlinson’s family could be heard shouting “yes” at the verdict. His wife, Julia, six of their children are present at the hearing and have broken down, crying. 3.34pm: The jury has concluded Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed by a police officer at the G20 protests. 3.32pm: The jury has taken just three hours and fifteen minutes to reach their verdict. 3.30pm: Welcome back to the Ian Tomlinson inquest blog. The verdict is now imminent. For five weeks eleven men and women have heard detailed evidence about Tomlinson’s death at the G20 protests on April 1, 2009. They heard how he was struck with a baton and pushed to the ground by Metropolitan police officer Simon Harwood at 7.20pm. Tomlinson collapsed just under three minutes later. They retired to deliberate their findings at 11.15am. They are about to come back and deliver their verdict. Police Metropolitan police Protest London G20 Ian Tomlinson Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Glenn Beck just couldn’t resist. Even as he is giving credit to the President, he says “Kill Obama…” It’s not accidental on the part of these idiots. They do it on purpose, and one day some wingnut is going to take them up on it. Bonus: He finds tape of President Obama using the term “caliphate”, and thinks it justifies his own whacko conspiracy theories . All in the span of 1 minute, 14 seconds. It may be a new record.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Glenn Beck just couldn’t resist. Even as he is giving credit to the President, he says “Kill Obama…” It’s not accidental on the part of these idiots. They do it on purpose, and one day some wingnut is going to take them up on it. Bonus: He finds tape of President Obama using the term “caliphate”, and thinks it justifies his own whacko conspiracy theories . All in the span of 1 minute, 14 seconds. It may be a new record.
Continue reading …Jason Burke , south Asia correspondent for the Guardian and al-Qaida expert, will be online from 2pm (GMT) to answer your questions on the fallout from Osama bin Laden’s death Question 3 russellbrand asks: Do you think Bin Laden’s death will allow the USA to as such clear the history of their previous relationship and dealings with him? To which Jason responds: Total myth that CIA created OBL. just not true. CIA had no direct dealings with him in 80s, had barely heard of him, dealt just with Pakistanis who dealt with the Afghans not the international brigade (whose military contribution was negligible anyway). How do I know this? lots and lots of footwork in Peshawar and in the US. Absolutely no one – American officials, Pakistanis, former Mujahideen, no one – accepts the whole “blowback” thesis. Question 2 Reader gablac says : My concerns are mainly on “What now?”. The finding of communication equipments in Osama bin Laden’s compound and the tracking of a “courier” to find him out, could prove that OBL was not just a charismatic leader, but also a “strategic” leader. Moreover, he was the focus point fro the fundraiser from the Gulf. So now, what you think could be the future of the linkage between al-Qaida and the Taliban Pakistani groups and the direction of the funding from the Gulf? And, moreover, could a person like Awlaki, that till now, has had a minimum role in the Af/Pak context, take a leading role in the global radicalisation, without a reference point like OBL? Jason answers: Gablac, I wrote about Awlaki in this morning’s paper. I think he’s more likely to move into the spot of most known leader overall if you look at the general jihad movement/phenomenon rather than any formal position within al-Qaida (which he’s not really a part of anyway). As for linkage of AQ and Pak groups – all very ad hoc and personal anyway. So I think very fragmented in the future, based on individual networks etc/room for cooperation, but pragmatic rather than ideological or strategic. Does that make sense? Question 1 Jason Burke is online and starting to respond to your questions. He’ll get through as many as he can, he says, but is also available after the Q&A on Twitter at @burke_jason . A question from citizenbird to start off with: In the recently released Guantanamo files regarding Abu Faraj Libi [al-Libi] , it has been “revealed” for want of a better term that according to Sharif al Masri, that Al Qaeda supposedly has a nuclear device in Europe (which it was alleged that Libi knew the location of) which it will transfer to America in the occurrence of Bin Laden’s capture or death. Is this a viable possibility, or is this yet another case of the Guantanamo files being more of interest in inventiveness rather than actual fact? Jason responds: I think actually, from memory, it was in the file of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, who was very good at saying exactly what he thought his interrogators wanted to hear and inventing a tonne of plots to get security services all over the world to run around after red herrings … so I don’t know for certain but I’d be willing to bet a substantial amount of money that no bomb in Europe – or anywhere else – ever existed. As reaction to the death of Osama bin Laden continues to fill the world’s news pages Jason Burke, the south Asia correspondent of The Guardian and The Observer newspapers, will be online from 2pm (GMT) to answer your questions about the fallout of the terrorist leader’s death and what this means for the future of al-Qaida. One of the main subjects today looks set to be accusations that Pakistan had been harbouring Bin Laden . Pakistan’s president Asif Ali Zardari dismissed such charges as “baseless speculation”. Jason is the author of Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror and On the Road to Kandahar: Travels through Conflict in the Islamic World. Jason will be ready to answer your questions on this and more: • Will there be a successor to Osama bin Laden? • Does it matter? • Are we too fixated on leadership figures? Leave your questions in the comments below and Jason will join in the discussion from 2pm (GMT) Osama bin Laden al-Qaida Middle East Pakistan Laura Oliver guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As we watched President Obama tell us Sunday evening of Osama bin Laden's death, we knew the media would be starting the Mother of all victory laps. Not surprisingly out ahead of the cheering throngs was Huffington Post's senior politics editor Howard Fineman with his Monday love letter ” Obama Gets Osama: Goodbye Vietnam “: By calmly and meticulously overseeing the successful targeting of Osama bin Laden, President Barack Obama just proved himself — vividly, in almost Biblical terms — to be an effective commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States. Good night, Vietnam. Goodbye, George McGovern's anti-war campaign of 1972. Goodbye, Jimmy Carter's pathetically inept hostage-rescue mission in 1980. Goodbye, Bill Clinton and the draft. Or so Democrats have at least some reason to hope. “This is a definitional moment for voters,” said Democratic polltaker and strategist Geoffrey Garin. “There's no question that the Republicans will make a 'national security' run at the president in 2012,” he said. “But the most tangible thing for voters will be that Obama got the central job done. A lot of people were involved in baking the cake, going back years, but the cake turned out well and voters will notice.” In Fineman's view, the murder of bin Laden Sunday erased decades of failed military strategies by Democrat presidents going back to Lyndon Baines Johnson, and voters can now rest assured that a liberal Commander-in-Chief can be just as strong on defense as a conservative one. He even found a few Democrats to support his theory: “This was done for national security reasons, not political ones,” said Democratic strategist Mark Mellman, “but the political impact is clear. “No one is going to be able to run on a theme that the president is 'weak on defense' or 'weak on terrorism.'” To be sure, Obama deserves a lot of credit for what happened Sunday, but what Fineman and the Democrat strategists that helped him create this love letter forgot was that it appears quite likely policies the former junior senator from Illinois opposed – like torture and waterboarding for example – may have led to information about bin Laden's whereabouts. If the current White House resident and much of his Party had their way, and such practices didn't exist, it's quite conceivable America's public enemy number one would still be alive and well in that Islamabad compound, and Fineman along with the rest of Obama's sycophants in the media would be looking for other ways to express their affection for the man they lifted into his current position. While media do their predictable victory lap, and more information comes out about this mission, it's not a certainty Americans will be so quick to see this as an almost Biblical transformation of liberals into trustworthy experts on national defense. And, without appearing overly cynical, it's also not a certainty taking out bin Laden was that big of a deal almost ten years after 9/11. Stocks actually went down slightly on the news Monday, crude oil dropped a meager 41 cents, and gold rose by 70 cents. If traders across the globe saw the removal of bin Laden as an almost Biblical improvement to international security, stocks would have exploded in value as oil and gold plummeted. Let's understand that there is a terrorist/security risk premium in such things as oil and gold, as well as a terrorist/security risk discount in stocks. This became quite evident after 9/11, and has dramatically reappeared since hostilities began in the Middle East and Africa earlier this year. Gold is up $250 since January, oil almost $25. Some of the rise in both is due to our budget deficits and threats of a downgrade on our debt, but the worsening international security condition caused by uprisings throughout the Muslim world are also a huge factor. The man seen by some as the biggest threat to international security was taken out Sunday, and markets collectively yawned. Quite contrary to Fineman's raves, this was hardly Biblical. Traders of oil – and, in particular, gold – certainly didn't feel our world suddenly became safer without bin Laden's existence. But that's not going to stop Fineman and his ilk from doing their victory lap; I don't know what would.
Continue reading …With average tuition fees set to hit £8,700, here’s how to minimise the financial damage while maximising CV gains So much for the government’s estimate that average tuition fees would be £7,500. With the majority of universities set to charge the full £9,000 when the fee cap is removed next year, the actual average currently stands more than £1,000 higher than anticipated – at almost £8,700. Such amounts may have little impact on those destined for elite City law firms and leading commercial barristers’ chambers, which pay trainees about £40,000 a year. But law students who pursue careers in areas such as legal aid, where entry-level earnings are among the lowest of any graduate job, look set to be weighed down by their university debts for years to come. How, then, can prospective lawyers keep the financial damage to a minimum, while at the same time gain CV-boosting experience to help them stand out in a graduate job market that’s more competitive than ever? Do a “vac scheme” – even if you have no intention of joining up full time Corporate law firms’ formal work experience programmes – which pay up to £300 a week – have traditionally been the preserve of City types. But the impressive breadth of some “vac schemes” make them worthwhile for students planning careers in other areas of law, where paid work experience is much harder to come by. Clifford Chance and Linklaters, for example, offers interns the opportunity to do pro bono – good experience for those who want to go into publicly funded legal practice. Herbert Smith and Hill Dickinson allows placement students to spend time in their specialist advocacy units, which employ in-house barristers – an excellent opportunity for bar wannabes who miss out on one of the few paid chambers work experience gigs (the handful of chambers offering funded mini-pupillages include One Gray’s Inn Square, 2 Temple Gardens, Pump Court Tax and 5 Stone Buildings). A word of warning, though: “Commercial firms want vac scheme students who are committed to their core business,” says Edward Walker, graduate recruitment manager at national law firm Pinsent Masons. “Those who aren’t may get found out during interview.” Don’t undervalue unglamorous part-time jobs Walker thinks a good strategy for law students is to find regular paid part-time work – however unglamorous – to help them survive, then weave what they have learned from it into their CVs in a thoughtful way. “A student working on the checkout at Sainsbury’s is more impressive than they often realise,” he says, adding that law firms have become slightly tired of CVs featuring “a long list of exciting-sounding, yet not especially substantial, jobs”. Walker continues: “Let’s not forget that companies like Sainsbury’s are law firms’ core clients. Understanding how their business works from the bottom up is very useful.” The experience of first-year Manchester University law student Joseph Tomlinson bears this out: “To my amazement, barristers’ chambers have been impressed by the fact I worked as a chef during my A-levels, because of the transferable skills it gave me. Despite this I have been repeatedly told by my careers service to leave this role off my CV because it has no relevance to law.” Find time for unpaid pro bono While law firms and barristers’ chambers value exposure to the commercial world, they are also keen on applicants with hands-on experience advising clients on legal matters. “Pro bono shows commitment to being a lawyer,” says Pinsent Masons’ Walker. But how do students fit in pro bono work – which often involves the time-consuming process of getting your head around new areas of law – when their evenings are spent at Sainsbury’s and their holidays full of work-experience placements? One way is to select a degree course where pro bono work is included as part of the curriculum. The law schools at the Universities of Kent (which won best law school at the annual LawWorks and Attorney General Student pro bono awards), Hull and Northumbria are all known for their “clinical” approach to legal education. Students at the former are encouraged to base their dissertations on issues arising from the real-life cases on which they have acted. “Pro bono works best when it’s not an add-on,” says Elaine Heslop, a lecturer and clinic solicitor at the University of Kent. Compete Like pro bono work, mooting (mock advocacy conducted in a courtroom setting) is time-consuming. “I won’t pretend that I haven’t lost a lot of sleep preparing bundles and skeleton arguments,” says Karamvir Chadha, who won the 2009 English Speaking Union-Essex Court Chambers national mooting competition. Unlike pro bono work, though, mooting can offer substantial financial rewards: for his triumph Chadha picked up a cash prize of £1,000; a similar sum is awarded to the winner of the other main national mooting event, the Oxford University Press & BPP national mooting competition. For those who prefer to make their arguments on paper – and are sufficiently motivated to spend their free time writing yet more essays – the rewards can be even greater. The annual Times and One Essex Court legal essay competition pays out £10,000 worth of prizes, out of which £3,500 goes to the writer of the winning piece. Take a gap year and hope a law firm will do a KPMG Earlier this year, accountants KPMG launched an initiative to sponsor students through undergraduate degrees while they work part-time for the firm, which will see it cover tuition fees, pay them a salary and give them a full-time job at the end of the course. Law firms have been looking on with interest. James Furber, senior partner at Farrer & Co, is in favour of his firm adopting a similar initiative “to keep a route into the profession open for students from less well off backgrounds”, as is Michael Shaw, head of national law firm Cobbetts. And College of Law chief executive Nigel Savage says he has “meetings lined up” with several magic circle (the five leading London-based) law firms about sponsoring students through its recently launched two-year accelerated undergraduate law degree. Those not keen on parting with £9,000 a year will hope that other firms follow KPMG’s lead. Alex Aldridge is a freelance journalist who writes about law and education Law University funding Tuition fees Alex Aldridge guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …