In a series for the BBC News website, Celebrities and news-makers are grilled by Matthew Stadlen in precisely five minutes. In this video, Matt talks to Jonathan Sumption QC.
Matt Stadlen had clearly done his homework and made the best of the five minutes. Sumption meanwhile grasped the format with neat and apposite answers.
KLKMedia I was a bit harsh with you. I attended as a member of the public on two occasions. I have always been interested in the Soviet Union and its break up. I had been reading about the case in the Telegraph and I thought that I would attend. It was an amazing experience to be in the same room as some of the finest legal minds in the business as well as the FSB monitoring the proceedings, the SAS and the foreign legion protecting Abramovich and Berezovsky. It was in many respects the most paranoid room that I have ever been in. I am glad that I went though. I even witnessed a legal precedent when I was there.
That's very interesting, did the case at any point seem close or was sumption clearly winning the whole time and had the better arguments? Boris berezovsky would later hang himself, allegedly, do you think that was a real suicide or something funny went on. Do you remember any interesting anecdotes from the case? PS: What was the legal precedent set?
He does it because he's an interesting person to listen to. He is fair minded, eloquent, and able to explain an idea without being patronising or full of himself, a gift indeed. People like to listen to intelligent people, especially those who might impart nuggets of wisdom here and there
Why is Sumption shaking and twitching so ,much? He looked like he was on mini roller coaster at some points. But what a bum kiss first question. 'Are you the cleverest man in England?' (rolls eyes)
Two guys faced with the same opportunity. One guy runs with it and makes a million bucks, the other fucks it up royally. That's why. We all see the world through different eyes.
He appeared to be nervous, was that an act (I read barristers must also be good actors)?! He said "The law is common sense with knobs on" = hmmm... (not referring to male body parts - as laws have been and still are mostly created by men?! He said "our legal system is too expensive" = YES: wasteful, was too complicated & inaccessible to far too many (apparently, from what I've read/been told). Clinical (medical) negligence is an obvious culprit here: doctors control the medical records/information and lie, deny and cause massive delays because that favours them and they are allowed to get away with this immoral (but 'legal'?) behaviour; when they deny the indefensible this causes massive excess costs, prevents injured patients from being able to access remedial care and rehab+ and causes extreme misery, distress and stress/anxiety which affects friends/families and the while of society = world, these costs of all kinds cannot be justified: justice (IF you can get it, far too many can't) delayed is justice denied (who said that first?) and ensures the guilty may get away with murder due to 'the passage of time' and apparent (often illogical and different rules for different things/wrongs) 'limitation' periods. I read that lawyers must rely on old case law/judgements - which would be very silly if now it can be seen those earlier judgements were wrong/bad - I'm unsure how the law can evolve if they're forever having to refer to these old judgements (& abide by/follow them?) = it must waste an awful lot of time/resources if they ('must'?) do this rather than examine the facts (try to find out the truth of) of the present case here and now - I'm sure they must do that really?! I think good QCs must be excellent orators: very quick-witted & able to remember vast amounts of material/facts/case laws, shame there aren't more women in senior & well-paid positions - and I bet very few have illnesses/injuries/disabilities? Before my brain injury I would have been better at all these barrister-like skills but now I've lost a lot of them, so sad. I wish everyone who needs good help/representation got the best, shockingly I read that criminal QCs are paid far less than in some other areas of law: this must change because states must provide everyone with the best advocates there are (fair trials - well at present that isn't actually possible because laws aren't fair+) and nobody should 'win' because they can afford the best legal advice and help - as I think must be the case. He said there's a difficulty wth the line between the law and politics = there always has been of course (bias/better protections and special exclusions for some = especially for states/the wealthy/land-owners/employers/religions and so on) but he didn't mention religion which has warped so many of our laws - and still does, this must change. Thank you.
Problem with law in the UK is it is classist as is everything else in this country. This man knows nothing of this country if he really thinks it is true what he says about class here. Not least any comparison with other countries. He is smug.
If he's so clever why does he not realise that equality of opportunity is a non starter in a class society Sure if you have 2 children with well off connected parents child one might do better than child 2 But the child from working-class background how can that person compete with either well off child with all his or her advantages of education health and social . connections
Grammar schools used to bridge that gap, with many bright people from working class backgrounds receiving a proper education. It was the doorway through which they were admitted into educated circles. Comprehensives and state schools, which are now pervasive, quell these opportunities with their selection by wealth systems. At all events, the standards dropped when O-levels were replaced by the GSCE in the 1980's. Lord Sumption comes from an era where education standards were much more rigorous than they are now.
@@Liam-yr4uf if you're talking about the competition between working class and middle class and upper classes then the system was weighted against working class The grammar schools where the preserve of the middle classes. Introduction of comprehensive has done nothing to make education decline in Britain what is the decline is in funding The children of wealthy parents just like this judge is can still afford to buy an education. If you have a spare moment look at the prospectus of Eton college that's where all the judges top civil government ministers get their education from the age of about 8 or 10 It contains a map of the college. Buildings and facilities It is so rich it looks like a small university!
He says he believes in equality of opportunity. He doesn't say it's possible or impossible in a class society. Believing in something means you support it in principal. Actually, I am sure you believe in equality of opportunity. I take it you don't want an unfair class system.
He is a very clever guy but not the cleverest. I would say Henry Marsh is up there in the polymath stakes Did PPE at Oxford before turning to medicine.
He attracts me with his grace, dignity and knowledge! Lovely man!
Matt Stadlen had clearly done his homework and made the best of the five minutes. Sumption meanwhile grasped the format with neat and apposite answers.
1.55 "Have you ever been in front of a judge and thought; this just doesn't get it?" "Not often"
In another word, yes.
I never tire of listening to the wisdom of this man.
Actually, the illegal lockdown did make him very angry, just like most of us non-zombified people.
prove it was illegal or retract
@@bobdavenport5190 He/she didn't have to. You lost.
Incredibly intelligent man and a lockdown sceptic too
They often say the best lawyers don't often make the best judges the same cannot be said of Justice Sumption
A true inspiration and admire his emphasis on factual analysis
such an enjoyable watch. He's such a lovely person!
A charming and cultured man!
I have just heard a little of the chap on the radio. Quite obviously a person worth listening to.
A very wise man with amazing prescience in his comment at 1.30 to 1.40. Came to roost with the Supreme court ruling against prorogation during Brexit.
Ian Potter Sumption has expressed his opinion on the prorogation in quite strong terms. You may wish to investigate.
One of my most favorite legal scholars.
And became a great supreme court judge
A very engaging man. I saw him in action at his last case as a QC on two occasions back in 2011 when he was representing Roman Abramovich.
what was it like to attend that and why were you there?
Lol. Why do you think that I need to answer your questions?
o i was just curious
KLKMedia I was a bit harsh with you. I attended as a member of the public on two occasions. I have always been interested in the Soviet Union and its break up. I had been reading about the case in the Telegraph and I thought that I would attend. It was an amazing experience to be in the same room as some of the finest legal minds in the business as well as the FSB monitoring the proceedings, the SAS and the foreign legion protecting Abramovich and Berezovsky. It was in many respects the most paranoid room that I have ever been in. I am glad that I went though. I even witnessed a legal precedent when I was there.
That's very interesting, did the case at any point seem close or was sumption clearly winning the whole time and had the better arguments? Boris berezovsky would later hang himself, allegedly, do you think that was a real suicide or something funny went on. Do you remember any interesting anecdotes from the case?
PS: What was the legal precedent set?
One guy who really deserves his earnings: genius.
"I believe in equality of opportunity, not in equality of results."👍👍👍👍👍
What a lovely man ~ top class 🥇
I would love to meet Jonathan Sumption
Is that a record for the most questions answered in 5 minutes?
Knowledge, wisdom, and some humility for good measure
smart man no doubt
At the end..
Interviewer "really good to meet you"
Sumption "thanks"
haha
Wow his mind blowed my mind 😮 amazing man❤
Five minutes with Lord Sumption............ "yer alrite luv.
Could marry this man!
This guy would make a good judge...
What a guy.
For that 5 mins. Lord Sumption would have wanted thousands of pounds in fees.
i agree with some of his points but is he doing this for fairness, or ego?
He does it because he's an interesting person to listen to. He is fair minded, eloquent, and able to explain an idea without being patronising or full of himself, a gift indeed. People like to listen to intelligent people, especially those who might impart nuggets of wisdom here and there
Why is Sumption shaking and twitching so ,much? He looked like he was on mini roller coaster at some points.
But what a bum kiss first question. 'Are you the cleverest man in England?' (rolls eyes)
Initial framing of conversation easily established in interview.
Please if you don't mind
Excellent- so, equal opportunity doesn't always equal same result- why is that?
Precisely.
Human difference, family circumstances, luck...
Because everyone’s different and are individuals?
Two guys faced with the same opportunity. One guy runs with it and makes a million bucks, the other fucks it up royally. That's why. We all see the world through different eyes.
One has a fart, waiting to come out, of one's arse. Please forgive me Lord. +++
Court adjourned!
Rainbow Rose Pitiful punctuation. You multicoloured flower. X
Go interview Mr. Beast or something
😊
Give the man a curry sandwich........immediately......or bake bean, whichever he prefers. I wonder if he thinks egg custards are hideous.
What does that have to do with anything.
@@jwadaow I was wondering the same thing.
Brain size of planet
If I trumped right next to him. Believe me he would be very very angry..... very very very angry. Aaaaaaaannnnnddd sleep.
He appeared to be nervous, was that an act (I read barristers must also be good actors)?!
He said "The law is common sense with knobs on" = hmmm... (not referring to male body parts - as laws have been and still are mostly created by men?!
He said "our legal system is too expensive" = YES: wasteful, was too complicated & inaccessible to far too many (apparently, from what I've read/been told). Clinical (medical) negligence is an obvious culprit here: doctors control the medical records/information and lie, deny and cause massive delays because that favours them and they are allowed to get away with this immoral (but 'legal'?) behaviour; when they deny the indefensible this causes massive excess costs, prevents injured patients from being able to access remedial care and rehab+ and causes extreme misery, distress and stress/anxiety which affects friends/families and the while of society = world, these costs of all kinds cannot be justified: justice (IF you can get it, far too many can't) delayed is justice denied (who said that first?) and ensures the guilty may get away with murder due to 'the passage of time' and apparent (often illogical and different rules for different things/wrongs) 'limitation' periods.
I read that lawyers must rely on old case law/judgements - which would be very silly if now it can be seen those earlier judgements were wrong/bad - I'm unsure how the law can evolve if they're forever having to refer to these old judgements (& abide by/follow them?) = it must waste an awful lot of time/resources if they ('must'?) do this rather than examine the facts (try to find out the truth of) of the present case here and now - I'm sure they must do that really?!
I think good QCs must be excellent orators: very quick-witted & able to remember vast amounts of material/facts/case laws, shame there aren't more women in senior & well-paid positions - and I bet very few have illnesses/injuries/disabilities? Before my brain injury I would have been better at all these barrister-like skills but now I've lost a lot of them, so sad.
I wish everyone who needs good help/representation got the best, shockingly I read that criminal QCs are paid far less than in some other areas of law: this must change because states must provide everyone with the best advocates there are (fair trials - well at present that isn't actually possible because laws aren't fair+) and nobody should 'win' because they can afford the best legal advice and help - as I think must be the case.
He said there's a difficulty wth the line between the law and politics = there always has been of course (bias/better protections and special exclusions for some = especially for states/the wealthy/land-owners/employers/religions and so on) but he didn't mention religion which has warped so many of our laws - and still does, this must change.
Thank you.
Lol I learn nathing
Problem with law in the UK is it is classist as is everything else in this country. This man knows nothing of this country if he really thinks it is true what he says about class here. Not least any comparison with other countries. He is smug.
Im not impressed with Sumption at all! He just gives 2 word answers. Google his speech of judicial diversity to see what outdated views he has.
+Charlotte Louise it's a 5 minute show he can't give court room length answers so what did you expect?
+Charlotte Louise I have just googled him and he's spot on. More people needed like him
Sumption is correct.
diversity is a pile of tosh. merit is what matters.
"Outdated" is high praise in a time where people are so fond of rubbishing experience or describing things they don't like as old-fashioned.
If he's so clever why does he not realise that equality of opportunity is a non starter in a class society
Sure if you have 2 children with well off connected parents child one might do better than child 2
But the child from working-class background how can that person compete with either well off child with all his or her advantages of education health and social . connections
Grammar schools used to bridge that gap, with many bright people from working class backgrounds receiving a proper education. It was the doorway through which they were admitted into educated circles. Comprehensives and state schools, which are now pervasive, quell these opportunities with their selection by wealth systems. At all events, the standards dropped when O-levels were replaced by the GSCE in the 1980's. Lord Sumption comes from an era where education standards were much more rigorous than they are now.
@@Liam-yr4uf if you're talking about the competition between working class and middle class and upper classes then the system was weighted against working class
The grammar schools where the preserve of the middle classes.
Introduction of comprehensive has done nothing to make education decline in Britain what is the decline is in funding
The children of wealthy parents just like this judge is can still afford to buy an education. If you have a spare moment look at the prospectus of Eton college that's where all the judges top civil government ministers get their education from the age of about 8 or 10 It contains a map of the college. Buildings and facilities It is so rich it looks like a small university!
He says he believes in equality of opportunity. He doesn't say it's possible or impossible in a class society. Believing in something means you support it in principal. Actually, I am sure you believe in equality of opportunity. I take it you don't want an unfair class system.
@@GariSullivan can you try to rephrase this
comment so that it makes some sense
@@philthompson8574 Rephrased! There was a typo. I wrote he does say and it should have been doesn't. Hope it makes sense now.
Smarmy
He is a very clever guy but not the cleverest. I would say Henry Marsh is up there in the polymath stakes Did PPE at Oxford before turning to medicine.
mattbod he is also an incompetent surgeon...
Henry Marsh??? Utterly pedestrian