Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Removal of automatic exemption for Blackhall entrance for Law Graduates

  • 27-01-2015 6:10pm
    #1
    Mr. Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭


    How did this happen- It was well before my time so I was always curious- I ws aware that someone took a court case and as a result of it ALL applicants had to sit the entrance exams

    Anyone know the full circumstances?


Comments

  • #2
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Bloomer v Law Society 1995 3 ir 14 and Abrahamson v Law Society 1996 1 ir 403 have a lot of the background. Basically the plaintiffsnin bloomer were Northern Irish students who wanted parity of exemption as southern Irish students but the court felt that it couldnt extend the exemption to Nordies but could only criticise the exemption for Mexicans. The law society then said no exemptions everyone sits the exams. Abrahamson was where they said those students who were studying law in the south when bloomer was decided has a legitimate expectation of an exemption and theN McCracken said "ah sure Jaysus".


  • #3
    Dandelion6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭Dandelion6


    Bloomer must have been the most unpopular student in his/her class on the PPC.


  • #4
    Arbiter of Good Taste
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,200 ✭✭✭Arbiter of Good Taste


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Bloomer v Law Society 1995 3 ir 14 and Abrahamson v Law Society 1996 1 ir 403 have a lot of the background. Basically the plaintiffsnin bloomer were Northern Irish students who wanted parity of exemption as southern Irish students but the court felt that it couldnt extend the exemption to Nordies but could only criticise the exemption for Mexicans. The law society then said no exemptions everyone sits the exams. Abrahamson was where they said those students who were studying law in the south when bloomer was decided has a legitimate expectation of an exemption and theN McCracken said "ah sure Jaysus".

    Bloody Nordies wouldn't teach Irish Constitutional law but still wanted exemption. So we all got screwed over.


  • #5
    sunshine and showers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭sunshine and showers


    Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »
    Bloody Nordies wouldn't teach Irish Constitutional law but still wanted exemption. So we all got screwed over.

    Never a truer word spoken.

    *Glares at FE-1 manuals*


  • #6
    Dandelion6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭Dandelion6


    Was Mary McAleese involved in one of those cases or is that just a vicious rumour?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement