This paper argues that the Law Commission's discussion paper Monetary Remedies in Public Law was vitiated by three flaws prevalent in the critical literature that it surveyed. The first, and most significant, flaw is a tendency to proceed by dislocating legal rules from their context then comparing them as abstract verbal formulae. This is made apparent through a comparison between unreasonableness in the tort of negligence and Wednesbury unreasonableness. The second flaw is the presentation of evaluative conclusions without a sufficient defence of the criteria used to reach them. The third flaw is the adoption of an unhelpfully static perspective as to the purpose of public-law liability rules, which neglects the positive role that they play in structuring good public decision making. The paper concludes by providing a sketch for the design of a research project which transcends these flaws.

The Communications Act 2003 can be seen as yet another attempt to reconcile the contradictions resulting from the great schism between Market and Social Liberalism that dominated twentieth-century political discourse in the West, in this case applied to the intricacies of media regulation. In this respect, the Act is simply the latest manifestation of an on-going process of philosophical accommodation that has been characteristic of British media policy, at least since World War II, if not before. This accommodation has always been imperfect, and the debates over the Act's more controversial provisions indicate that the tensions between the competing schools of liberalism will persist well into the twenty-first century.

This paper examines the interplay and tension between housing law and policy and property law, in the specific context of the right to buy (RTB). It focuses on funding arrangements between the RTB tenant and another party. It first examines how courts determine the parties’ respective entitlements in the home, highlighting the difficulty of categorising, under traditional property law principles, a contribution in the form of the statutory discount conferred on the RTB tenant. Secondly, it considers possible exploitation of the RTB scheme, both at the macro level of exploitation of the policy underpinning the legislation and, at the micro level, of exploitation of the tenant. The measures contained in the Housing Act 2004 intended to curb exploitation of the RTB are analysed to determine what can be considered to be legitimate and illegitimate uses of the scheme. It is argued that, despite the government's implicit approval, certain funding arrangements by non-resident relatives fail to give effect to the spirit of the scheme.

Although sex education lessons have been provided in our schools for many years, concerns about the sexual health and practices of the nation's youth remain centre stage. In recent years, a number of initiatives have been introduced, with varying degrees of success, to increase young people's awareness of sexual matters and to reduce the high number of unplanned teenage pregnancies. One particularly controversial idea is that parents should be divested of the right to withdraw their children from sex education classes. In this paper, I consider the implications of this proposal, paying special attention to the response of those conservative religious organisations most likely to oppose it. My central thesis is that, while the state should be careful not to ride rough-shod over the wishes of parents in what is an extremely emotive area, the interests of the child are paramount and all young people in maintained secondary schools should have access to comprehensive sex education programmes.

In an earlier paper in this journal I criticised the British Medical Association Guidance on withholding and withdrawing treatment on the ground that it undermines the principle of the sanctity/inviolability of life. Professor David Price responded with a paper criticising the principle. This reply to my learned colleague respectfully contends that his criticisms are based on a caricatured misunderstanding of the principle.