An interesting read, 29 Nov 2008
I quite enjoyed this outing from Prof. Grayling.
It is a brief overwiew of the struggles for freedom and liberty over the past 500 years, for a non-specialist, it is an easy read. Not dry at all in my opinion.
I have to agree with his conclusions about the state of British and US democracy since 2001.
Our freedoms and liberties were hard won and we have to be eternally vigilant against their erosion by an over-powerful centralist state.

Grayling is not a historian. And it shows., 18 Nov 2008
I am a huge fan of Grayling's philosophical writings, and as far as I am aware, I have read (and enjoyed) all of his published books. But this really was disappointing, despite my own active interest in human rights.

The main problem is this: Grayling is not a historian. And, more importantly, it shows. The author trudges through key figures and events in his "story of the struggles for liberty and rights" offering very little historical analysis along the way. His key point is this: all the rights and liberties we enjoy, only exist because of the struggles and sacrfices of those who have gone before us. Further, we would do well to remember this at a time when our governments seem determined to erode our liberties in the name of security. This, of course, is a worthy point, but I'm not sure that 272 long pages, which merely outline the factual circumstances of each struggle, individual and collective, is the most effective way to make this point.

Grayling has offered interesting and powerful, historically focused works in the past. "Among the Dead Cities" looks at the historical evidence and asks whether the allied policy of carpet bombing German cities during WWII was a moral crime. As with all his philosophical works, the result is a fascinating, thought-provoking read. But the difference between that and the current book is that in "Among the Dead Cities" he never takes his eye off his central philosophical question. As such, it is not a historical work, so much as a philosophical look at a particular historical episode.

Unfortunately, the same just cannot be said of this book. It is dry, uninspiring and, frankly, hard work. While Grayling's premise may be correct, the main lesson I took from the book is this: Grayling is not a historian. He should stick to what he does best.


A sorely needed refresher course, 11 Jan 2008
I have no hesitation in giving Professor Grayling's book five stars.

It is an education and vigorous refresher for anyone like myself who recognises names like Spinoza, Locke, Voltaire, Milton, de Tocqueville, but has only a hazy understanding of what they stand for, and only a patchy idea of the significance of the Glorious English Revolution of 1688 and the American and French revolutions, but has now in these times an uneasy feeling that the ideas and principles underpinning free societies are neglected. In as little as three hundred well written pages he explains it all.

I will let others extol the virtues of the book and here draw attention to one serious flaw, or to be kind to the author, to draw attention to an issue on which I wish he had said a lot more.

His priorities are wrong.

The book is exactly what it says it is "The Story of the Struggles for Liberty & Rights" but the opening and closing chapters discuss the threats to Liberty that we face today.

In the opening chapter he poses the question, in relation to the growing Muslim population in Europe, of how we deal with those whose ideas on Liberty and Rights are different from ours and who if they got their way would bring an end to the Liberty that we have painfully gained over the last 500 years. He doesn't answer this question.

Mistakenly, in my view, in these opening and closing chapters he concentrates on the threats to Liberty posed by the anti-terrorist measures taken by the US and UK governments.

As awful and as worrying some of these anti-terrorist measures are [1][2] they can at least be discussed. Your life will not be threatened, the Politically Correct (PC) roof will not fall on your head, respected national figures can and do state their views. But, these measures and the terrorism that brings them about are only symptoms, symptoms of an underlying religious malaise, and that is Islam as it mainly manifests itself in the world today.

He could say a lot more about the threat to Liberty from Islam. Perhaps his views are constrained by the observations he makes in relation to the persecution of minorities in Nazi Germany.

Religion is a very sensitive subject [3]. It is a sobering thought that a US presidential candidate who said openly that he wasn't too sure about God or that he was an atheist, wouldn't stand a chance. Could it be that the authors of the American Constitution, a beacon of Liberty, would be rejected by today's American voters?

Could we discuss openly and have a debate at a respected political level of the problems and potential problems caused by Islam in Liberal societies, and in the way we discuss measures to combat terrorism, discuss what we should and will do about it. I fear not.

We have started 2008 in the UK with a prime example of the difficulties. The Bishop of Rochester has drawn attention to the voluntary segregation of Muslims in the UK and the enclaves they have created which he says have become "no go" areas for Christians.

Of course, the bishop's use of the term "no-go" was a mistake. It has too many wrong meanings. The PC roof has fallen on his head, political figures from right, left and centre are falling over themselves to criticise or distance themselves from the bishop.

But the bishop is essentially right. There are a growing number of places which are growing in size in the UK where the culture around you is Islamic. Mohamed in its various spellings is now the most popular name for a boy in the UK. The bishop didn't say it, so I will say it for him. It wont be long before these Islamic communities will be demanding Sharia law. What then Liberty?

Not all Muslims, perhaps only a minority, believe and practice the aspects of their religion that are so inimical to free societies. But these beliefs and practices

- women are essentially male possessions

- death is a just punishment for apostasy and insulting Islam or the prophet

- that Islam trumps all other religions

- Muslims have a sacred duty to impose Islam everywhere, by force if necessary

to name a few of the worst, cast a dark shadow wherever Muslims live.

The bodies that represent Muslims are a cause of concern. Western suits and PR officers are no guarantee of a modern outlook or reasonableness. The secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain when asked if stoning was a bad thing said it "depended on the stones". He also thinks arranged marriages are a good idea and we in the UK should have them. His predecessor, whom the UK government rubbed shoulders with, is notorious for having said of Salman Rushdie that death was too good for him.

Perhaps a very great danger is not having a clear idea of what or who represents a form of Islam that can truly be part of a Liberal society [4]

These are the sorts of issues and threats that I wish Professor Grayling had given more space to and, from his philosophical standpoint, offered some ideas on how they can be dealt with.

Notes

[1] That a high American official made out a case for torture must have had Torquemada laughing in his grave.

[2] Professor Grayling is spot on in his criticism of the UK ID card scheme. I speak with some authority having studied the subject. Prof Grayling refers readers to the press in general to learn more about this nonsense, to which I would add and strongly recommend the Report and Evidence published by the UK Parliamentary Committee concerned with home affairs. The pages of my copy are stained with tears of laughter and rage.

[3] Having read this book I checked out Amazon readers comments on other works by Prof Grayling. I was shocked at the virulence of some of the attacks on him because he is, apparently, an atheist.

[4] Irshad Manjii in an excellent review of "Arguing the Just War in Islam" a recent book by John Kelsay, writes:

The moderates whom Kelsay has studied "do not in fact dissent from the militant judgement that current political arrangements are illegitimate. Some moderates agree with militants that "democracy" implies a kind of moral equivalence between Islam and other perspectives. And such a situation is dangerous not only for the standing of the Muslim community, but for the moral life of humankind"

[International Herald Tribune, 5-6 January, 2008]

I would add to this that 25 percent of UK Muslims sympathised with the London bombers.

An interesting read, 29 Nov 2008
I quite enjoyed this outing from Prof. Grayling.
It is a brief overwiew of the struggles for freedom and liberty over the past 500 years, for a non-specialist, it is an easy read. Not dry at all in my opinion.
I have to agree with his conclusions about the state of British and US democracy since 2001.
Our freedoms and liberties were hard won and we have to be eternally vigilant against their erosion by an over-powerful centralist state.

Grayling is not a historian. And it shows., 18 Nov 2008
I am a huge fan of Grayling's philosophical writings, and as far as I am aware, I have read (and enjoyed) all of his published books. But this really was disappointing, despite my own active interest in human rights.

The main problem is this: Grayling is not a historian. And, more importantly, it shows. The author trudges through key figures and events in his "story of the struggles for liberty and rights" offering very little historical analysis along the way. His key point is this: all the rights and liberties we enjoy, only exist because of the struggles and sacrfices of those who have gone before us. Further, we would do well to remember this at a time when our governments seem determined to erode our liberties in the name of security. This, of course, is a worthy point, but I'm not sure that 272 long pages, which merely outline the factual circumstances of each struggle, individual and collective, is the most effective way to make this point.

Grayling has offered interesting and powerful, historically focused works in the past. "Among the Dead Cities" looks at the historical evidence and asks whether the allied policy of carpet bombing German cities during WWII was a moral crime. As with all his philosophical works, the result is a fascinating, thought-provoking read. But the difference between that and the current book is that in "Among the Dead Cities" he never takes his eye off his central philosophical question. As such, it is not a historical work, so much as a philosophical look at a particular historical episode.

Unfortunately, the same just cannot be said of this book. It is dry, uninspiring and, frankly, hard work. While Grayling's premise may be correct, the main lesson I took from the book is this: Grayling is not a historian. He should stick to what he does best.


A sorely needed refresher course, 11 Jan 2008
I have no hesitation in giving Professor Grayling's book five stars.

It is an education and vigorous refresher for anyone like myself who recognises names like Spinoza, Locke, Voltaire, Milton, de Tocqueville, but has only a hazy understanding of what they stand for, and only a patchy idea of the significance of the Glorious English Revolution of 1688 and the American and French revolutions, but has now in these times an uneasy feeling that the ideas and principles underpinning free societies are neglected. In as little as three hundred well written pages he explains it all.

I will let others extol the virtues of the book and here draw attention to one serious flaw, or to be kind to the author, to draw attention to an issue on which I wish he had said a lot more.

His priorities are wrong.

The book is exactly what it says it is "The Story of the Struggles for Liberty & Rights" but the opening and closing chapters discuss the threats to Liberty that we face today.

In the opening chapter he poses the question, in relation to the growing Muslim population in Europe, of how we deal with those whose ideas on Liberty and Rights are different from ours and who if they got their way would bring an end to the Liberty that we have painfully gained over the last 500 years. He doesn't answer this question.

Mistakenly, in my view, in these opening and closing chapters he concentrates on the threats to Liberty posed by the anti-terrorist measures taken by the US and UK governments.

As awful and as worrying some of these anti-terrorist measures are [1][2] they can at least be discussed. Your life will not be threatened, the Politically Correct (PC) roof will not fall on your head, respected national figures can and do state their views. But, these measures and the terrorism that brings them about are only symptoms, symptoms of an underlying religious malaise, and that is Islam as it mainly manifests itself in the world today.

He could say a lot more about the threat to Liberty from Islam. Perhaps his views are constrained by the observations he makes in relation to the persecution of minorities in Nazi Germany.

Religion is a very sensitive subject [3]. It is a sobering thought that a US presidential candidate who said openly that he wasn't too sure about God or that he was an atheist, wouldn't stand a chance. Could it be that the authors of the American Constitution, a beacon of Liberty, would be rejected by today's American voters?

Could we discuss openly and have a debate at a respected political level of the problems and potential problems caused by Islam in Liberal societies, and in the way we discuss measures to combat terrorism, discuss what we should and will do about it. I fear not.

We have started 2008 in the UK with a prime example of the difficulties. The Bishop of Rochester has drawn attention to the voluntary segregation of Muslims in the UK and the enclaves they have created which he says have become "no go" areas for Christians.

Of course, the bishop's use of the term "no-go" was a mistake. It has too many wrong meanings. The PC roof has fallen on his head, political figures from right, left and centre are falling over themselves to criticise or distance themselves from the bishop.

But the bishop is essentially right. There are a growing number of places which are growing in size in the UK where the culture around you is Islamic. Mohamed in its various spellings is now the most popular name for a boy in the UK. The bishop didn't say it, so I will say it for him. It wont be long before these Islamic communities will be demanding Sharia law. What then Liberty?

Not all Muslims, perhaps only a minority, believe and practice the aspects of their religion that are so inimical to free societies. But these beliefs and practices

- women are essentially male possessions

- death is a just punishment for apostasy and insulting Islam or the prophet

- that Islam trumps all other religions

- Muslims have a sacred duty to impose Islam everywhere, by force if necessary

to name a few of the worst, cast a dark shadow wherever Muslims live.

The bodies that represent Muslims are a cause of concern. Western suits and PR officers are no guarantee of a modern outlook or reasonableness. The secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain when asked if stoning was a bad thing said it "depended on the stones". He also thinks arranged marriages are a good idea and we in the UK should have them. His predecessor, whom the UK government rubbed shoulders with, is notorious for having said of Salman Rushdie that death was too good for him.

Perhaps a very great danger is not having a clear idea of what or who represents a form of Islam that can truly be part of a Liberal society [4]

These are the sorts of issues and threats that I wish Professor Grayling had given more space to and, from his philosophical standpoint, offered some ideas on how they can be dealt with.

Notes

[1] That a high American official made out a case for torture must have had Torquemada laughing in his grave.

[2] Professor Grayling is spot on in his criticism of the UK ID card scheme. I speak with some authority having studied the subject. Prof Grayling refers readers to the press in general to learn more about this nonsense, to which I would add and strongly recommend the Report and Evidence published by the UK Parliamentary Committee concerned with home affairs. The pages of my copy are stained with tears of laughter and rage.

[3] Having read this book I checked out Amazon readers comments on other works by Prof Grayling. I was shocked at the virulence of some of the attacks on him because he is, apparently, an atheist.

[4] Irshad Manjii in an excellent review of "Arguing the Just War in Islam" a recent book by John Kelsay, writes:

The moderates whom Kelsay has studied "do not in fact dissent from the militant judgement that current political arrangements are illegitimate. Some moderates agree with militants that "democracy" implies a kind of moral equivalence between Islam and other perspectives. And such a situation is dangerous not only for the standing of the Muslim community, but for the moral life of humankind"

[International Herald Tribune, 5-6 January, 2008]

I would add to this that 25 percent of UK Muslims sympathised with the London bombers.

Great Book and correct information, 22 Jan 2008
This is well writen and give great dadvice and the correct information. Its up to date. It also cover banking, schools and visa's and 'How To" this is the perfect book if you are thinking of moving to Australia.

Hi, 22 Oct 2005
We found this very useful if you are considering an application. It lists the points you will gain for your skills and professions etc, so you know in advance if you've a chance of successfull immigration. Everything else (the low down on each state etc) is pretty dull & in some cases inaccurate. But we bought this with the pure expectation of the book telling us what we needed to have to get australia citizenship, and it did that 100%.

An interesting read, 29 Nov 2008
I quite enjoyed this outing from Prof. Grayling.
It is a brief overwiew of the struggles for freedom and liberty over the past 500 years, for a non-specialist, it is an easy read. Not dry at all in my opinion.
I have to agree with his conclusions about the state of British and US democracy since 2001.
Our freedoms and liberties were hard won and we have to be eternally vigilant against their erosion by an over-powerful centralist state.

Grayling is not a historian. And it shows., 18 Nov 2008
I am a huge fan of Grayling's philosophical writings, and as far as I am aware, I have read (and enjoyed) all of his published books. But this really was disappointing, despite my own active interest in human rights.

The main problem is this: Grayling is not a historian. And, more importantly, it shows. The author trudges through key figures and events in his "story of the struggles for liberty and rights" offering very little historical analysis along the way. His key point is this: all the rights and liberties we enjoy, only exist because of the struggles and sacrfices of those who have gone before us. Further, we would do well to remember this at a time when our governments seem determined to erode our liberties in the name of security. This, of course, is a worthy point, but I'm not sure that 272 long pages, which merely outline the factual circumstances of each struggle, individual and collective, is the most effective way to make this point.

Grayling has offered interesting and powerful, historically focused works in the past. "Among the Dead Cities" looks at the historical evidence and asks whether the allied policy of carpet bombing German cities during WWII was a moral crime. As with all his philosophical works, the result is a fascinating, thought-provoking read. But the difference between that and the current book is that in "Among the Dead Cities" he never takes his eye off his central philosophical question. As such, it is not a historical work, so much as a philosophical look at a particular historical episode.

Unfortunately, the same just cannot be said of this book. It is dry, uninspiring and, frankly, hard work. While Grayling's premise may be correct, the main lesson I took from the book is this: Grayling is not a historian. He should stick to what he does best.


A sorely needed refresher course, 11 Jan 2008
I have no hesitation in giving Professor Grayling's book five stars.

It is an education and vigorous refresher for anyone like myself who recognises names like Spinoza, Locke, Voltaire, Milton, de Tocqueville, but has only a hazy understanding of what they stand for, and only a patchy idea of the significance of the Glorious English Revolution of 1688 and the American and French revolutions, but has now in these times an uneasy feeling that the ideas and principles underpinning free societies are neglected. In as little as three hundred well written pages he explains it all.

I will let others extol the virtues of the book and here draw attention to one serious flaw, or to be kind to the author, to draw attention to an issue on which I wish he had said a lot more.

His priorities are wrong.

The book is exactly what it says it is "The Story of the Struggles for Liberty & Rights" but the opening and closing chapters discuss the threats to Liberty that we face today.

In the opening chapter he poses the question, in relation to the growing Muslim population in Europe, of how we deal with those whose ideas on Liberty and Rights are different from ours and who if they got their way would bring an end to the Liberty that we have painfully gained over the last 500 years. He doesn't answer this question.

Mistakenly, in my view, in these opening and closing chapters he concentrates on the threats to Liberty posed by the anti-terrorist measures taken by the US and UK governments.

As awful and as worrying some of these anti-terrorist measures are [1][2] they can at least be discussed. Your life will not be threatened, the Politically Correct (PC) roof will not fall on your head, respected national figures can and do state their views. But, these measures and the terrorism that brings them about are only symptoms, symptoms of an underlying religious malaise, and that is Islam as it mainly manifests itself in the world today.

He could say a lot more about the threat to Liberty from Islam. Perhaps his views are constrained by the observations he makes in relation to the persecution of minorities in Nazi Germany.

Religion is a very sensitive subject [3]. It is a sobering thought that a US presidential candidate who said openly that he wasn't too sure about God or that he was an atheist, wouldn't stand a chance. Could it be that the authors of the American Constitution, a beacon of Liberty, would be rejected by today's American voters?

Could we discuss openly and have a debate at a respected political level of the problems and potential problems caused by Islam in Liberal societies, and in the way we discuss measures to combat terrorism, discuss what we should and will do about it. I fear not.

We have started 2008 in the UK with a prime example of the difficulties. The Bishop of Rochester has drawn attention to the voluntary segregation of Muslims in the UK and the enclaves they have created which he says have become "no go" areas for Christians.

Of course, the bishop's use of the term "no-go" was a mistake. It has too many wrong meanings. The PC roof has fallen on his head, political figures from right, left and centre are falling over themselves to criticise or distance themselves from the bishop.

But the bishop is essentially right. There are a growing number of places which are growing in size in the UK where the culture around you is Islamic. Mohamed in its various spellings is now the most popular name for a boy in the UK. The bishop didn't say it, so I will say it for him. It wont be long before these Islamic communities will be demanding Sharia law. What then Liberty?

Not all Muslims, perhaps only a minority, believe and practice the aspects of their religion that are so inimical to free societies. But these beliefs and practices

- women are essentially male possessions

- death is a just punishment for apostasy and insulting Islam or the prophet

- that Islam trumps all other religions

- Muslims have a sacred duty to impose Islam everywhere, by force if necessary

to name a few of the worst, cast a dark shadow wherever Muslims live.

The bodies that represent Muslims are a cause of concern. Western suits and PR officers are no guarantee of a modern outlook or reasonableness. The secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain when asked if stoning was a bad thing said it "depended on the stones". He also thinks arranged marriages are a good idea and we in the UK should have them. His predecessor, whom the UK government rubbed shoulders with, is notorious for having said of Salman Rushdie that death was too good for him.

Perhaps a very great danger is not having a clear idea of what or who represents a form of Islam that can truly be part of a Liberal society [4]

These are the sorts of issues and threats that I wish Professor Grayling had given more space to and, from his philosophical standpoint, offered some ideas on how they can be dealt with.

Notes

[1] That a high American official made out a case for torture must have had Torquemada laughing in his grave.

[2] Professor Grayling is spot on in his criticism of the UK ID card scheme. I speak with some authority having studied the subject. Prof Grayling refers readers to the press in general to learn more about this nonsense, to which I would add and strongly recommend the Report and Evidence published by the UK Parliamentary Committee concerned with home affairs. The pages of my copy are stained with tears of laughter and rage.

[3] Having read this book I checked out Amazon readers comments on other works by Prof Grayling. I was shocked at the virulence of some of the attacks on him because he is, apparently, an atheist.

[4] Irshad Manjii in an excellent review of "Arguing the Just War in Islam" a recent book by John Kelsay, writes:

The moderates whom Kelsay has studied "do not in fact dissent from the militant judgement that current political arrangements are illegitimate. Some moderates agree with militants that "democracy" implies a kind of moral equivalence between Islam and other perspectives. And such a situation is dangerous not only for the standing of the Muslim community, but for the moral life of humankind"

[International Herald Tribune, 5-6 January, 2008]

I would add to this that 25 percent of UK Muslims sympathised with the London bombers.

Great Book and correct information, 22 Jan 2008
This is well writen and give great dadvice and the correct information. Its up to date. It also cover banking, schools and visa's and 'How To" this is the perfect book if you are thinking of moving to Australia.

Hi, 22 Oct 2005
We found this very useful if you are considering an application. It lists the points you will gain for your skills and professions etc, so you know in advance if you've a chance of successfull immigration. Everything else (the low down on each state etc) is pretty dull & in some cases inaccurate. But we bought this with the pure expectation of the book telling us what we needed to have to get australia citizenship, and it did that 100%.

Good Read, 27 May 2008
Right up to date and written with a very readable style. A great book and nicely laid out.

Easy to understand, precise and well structured, 09 Apr 2008
I am writting an appeal on an employment law issue and wanted to refresh my understanding of direct effect and the way you can enforce rights in EC law that are not available in UK law. This book was very clear and precise. It was well structured so I found the part I wanted to know straight away.
It was well written, no waffle, had all the revelant cases and was a pleasure to read. It was easy to understand and left me wondering why I had disliked Admin Law during my undergrad days.
Worth every single penny.

A great buy, 23 Dec 2006
Public (or constitutional) law is a core subject and this book is great to get you through the exam with a decent score. Very readable and clearly presented,it gives you the historical and practical perspectives along with recent developments. It starts from the basics and builds up on it. A very useful book, covering all the aspects of the conventionl public law course, and more.
Just one fault:the binding is not the best so it comes apart pretty easily, mine is in pieces.

A pain in the neck, 06 Feb 2004
Here's one the compulsory textbooks UoL intermediate students must buy: one wonders why. Boring, redundant, slow to get to the point, lacking summaries and clear chapter objectives. This is a complete waste of money. The author also co-wrote the UoL study guide which is as bad as the textbook.
Fortunately, it can be used in conjunction with many other good texts such as Butterworths Core Text, Hood Phillips or Alex Carroll.
Avoid.

Fantastic Book that is Wonderfully Written!, 21 Oct 2000
Great Text that has just been updated with all the recent influential changes. The book is also supported by free updates, which are available via the web, making it good value for money, as well as a necessity. The text is clear and easy to understand making it a joy to read. It includes most of the relevant material one needs to pursue a course in Public Law; Hilaire Barnett (the author) is also a lecturer of mine... Great Lady... Great Book... This book by many people's standards is hard to fault.

An interesting read, 29 Nov 2008
I quite enjoyed this outing from Prof. Grayling.
It is a brief overwiew of the struggles for freedom and liberty over the past 500 years, for a non-specialist, it is an easy read. Not dry at all in my opinion.
I have to agree with his conclusions about the state of British and US democracy since 2001.
Our freedoms and liberties were hard won and we have to be eternally vigilant against their erosion by an over-powerful centralist state.

Grayling is not a historian. And it shows., 18 Nov 2008
I am a huge fan of Grayling's philosophical writings, and as far as I am aware, I have read (and enjoyed) all of his published books. But this really was disappointing, despite my own active interest in human rights.

The main problem is this: Grayling is not a historian. And, more importantly, it shows. The author trudges through key figures and events in his "story of the struggles for liberty and rights" offering very little historical analysis along the way. His key point is this: all the rights and liberties we enjoy, only exist because of the struggles and sacrfices of those who have gone before us. Further, we would do well to remember this at a time when our governments seem determined to erode our liberties in the name of security. This, of course, is a worthy point, but I'm not sure that 272 long pages, which merely outline the factual circumstances of each struggle, individual and collective, is the most effective way to make this point.

Grayling has offered interesting and powerful, historically focused works in the past. "Among the Dead Cities" looks at the historical evidence and asks whether the allied policy of carpet bombing German cities during WWII was a moral crime. As with all his philosophical works, the result is a fascinating, thought-provoking read. But the difference between that and the current book is that in "Among the Dead Cities" he never takes his eye off his central philosophical question. As such, it is not a historical work, so much as a philosophical look at a particular historical episode.

Unfortunately, the same just cannot be said of this book. It is dry, uninspiring and, frankly, hard work. While Grayling's premise may be correct, the main lesson I took from the book is this: Grayling is not a historian. He should stick to what he does best.


A sorely needed refresher course, 11 Jan 2008
I have no hesitation in giving Professor Grayling's book five stars.

It is an education and vigorous refresher for anyone like myself who recognises names like Spinoza, Locke, Voltaire, Milton, de Tocqueville, but has only a hazy understanding of what they stand for, and only a patchy idea of the significance of the Glorious English Revolution of 1688 and the American and French revolutions, but has now in these times an uneasy feeling that the ideas and principles underpinning free societies are neglected. In as little as three hundred well written pages he explains it all.

I will let others extol the virtues of the book and here draw attention to one serious flaw, or to be kind to the author, to draw attention to an issue on which I wish he had said a lot more.

His priorities are wrong.

The book is exactly what it says it is "The Story of the Struggles for Liberty & Rights" but the opening and closing chapters discuss the threats to Liberty that we face today.

In the opening chapter he poses the question, in relation to the growing Muslim population in Europe, of how we deal with those whose ideas on Liberty and Rights are different from ours and who if they got their way would bring an end to the Liberty that we have painfully gained over the last 500 years. He doesn't answer this question.

Mistakenly, in my view, in these opening and closing chapters he concentrates on the threats to Liberty posed by the anti-terrorist measures taken by the US and UK governments.

As awful and as worrying some of these anti-terrorist measures are [1][2] they can at least be discussed. Your life will not be threatened, the Politically Correct (PC) roof will not fall on your head, respected national figures can and do state their views. But, these measures and the terrorism that brings them about are only symptoms, symptoms of an underlying religious malaise, and that is Islam as it mainly manifests itself in the world today.

He could say a lot more about the threat to Liberty from Islam. Perhaps his views are constrained by the observations he makes in relation to the persecution of minorities in Nazi Germany.

Religion is a very sensitive subject [3]. It is a sobering thought that a US presidential candidate who said openly that he wasn't too sure about God or that he was an atheist, wouldn't stand a chance. Could it be that the authors of the American Constitution, a beacon of Liberty, would be rejected by today's American voters?

Could we discuss openly and have a debate at a respected political level of the problems and potential problems caused by Islam in Liberal societies, and in the way we discuss measures to combat terrorism, discuss what we should and will do about it. I fear not.

We have started 2008 in the UK with a prime example of the difficulties. The Bishop of Rochester has drawn attention to the voluntary segregation of Muslims in the UK and the enclaves they have created which he says have become "no go" areas for Christians.

Of course, the bishop's use of the term "no-go" was a mistake. It has too many wrong meanings. The PC roof has fallen on his head, political figures from right, left and centre are falling over themselves to criticise or distance themselves from the bishop.

But the bishop is essentially right. There are a growing number of places which are growing in size in the UK where the culture around you is Islamic. Mohamed in its various spellings is now the most popular name for a boy in the UK. The bishop didn't say it, so I will say it for him. It wont be long before these Islamic communities will be demanding Sharia law. What then Liberty?

Not all Muslims, perhaps only a minority, believe and practice the aspects of their religion that are so inimical to free societies. But these beliefs and practices

- women are essentially male possessions

- death is a just punishment for apostasy and insulting Islam or the prophet

- that Islam trumps all other religions

- Muslims have a sacred duty to impose Islam everywhere, by force if necessary

to name a few of the worst, cast a dark shadow wherever Muslims live.

The bodies that represent Muslims are a cause of concern. Western suits and PR officers are no guarantee of a modern outlook or reasonableness. The secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain when asked if stoning was a bad thing said it "depended on the stones". He also thinks arranged marriages are a good idea and we in the UK should have them. His predecessor, whom the UK government rubbed shoulders with, is notorious for having said of Salman Rushdie that death was too good for him.

Perhaps a very great danger is not having a clear idea of what or who represents a form of Islam that can truly be part of a Liberal society [4]

These are the sorts of issues and threats that I wish Professor Grayling had given more space to and, from his philosophical standpoint, offered some ideas on how they can be dealt with.

Notes

[1] That a high American official made out a case for torture must have had Torquemada laughing in his grave.

[2] Professor Grayling is spot on in his criticism of the UK ID card scheme. I speak with some authority having studied the subject. Prof Grayling refers readers to the press in general to learn more about this nonsense, to which I would add and strongly recommend the Report and Evidence published by the UK Parliamentary Committee concerned with home affairs. The pages of my copy are stained with tears of laughter and rage.

[3] Having read this book I checked out Amazon readers comments on other works by Prof Grayling. I was shocked at the virulence of some of the attacks on him because he is, apparently, an atheist.

[4] Irshad Manjii in an excellent review of "Arguing the Just War in Islam" a recent book by John Kelsay, writes:

The moderates whom Kelsay has studied "do not in fact dissent from the militant judgement that current political arrangements are illegitimate. Some moderates agree with militants that "democracy" implies a kind of moral equivalence between Islam and other perspectives. And such a situation is dangerous not only for the standing of the Muslim community, but for the moral life of humankind"

[International Herald Tribune, 5-6 January, 2008]

I would add to this that 25 percent of UK Muslims sympathised with the London bombers.

Great Book and correct information, 22 Jan 2008
This is well writen and give great dadvice and the correct information. Its up to date. It also cover banking, schools and visa's and 'How To" this is the perfect book if you are thinking of moving to Australia.

Hi, 22 Oct 2005
We found this very useful if you are considering an application. It lists the points you will gain for your skills and professions etc, so you know in advance if you've a chance of successfull immigration. Everything else (the low down on each state etc) is pretty dull & in some cases inaccurate. But we bought this with the pure expectation of the book telling us what we needed to have to get australia citizenship, and it did that 100%.

Good Read, 27 May 2008
Right up to date and written with a very readable style. A great book and nicely laid out.

Easy to understand, precise and well structured, 09 Apr 2008
I am writting an appeal on an employment law issue and wanted to refresh my understanding of direct effect and the way you can enforce rights in EC law that are not available in UK law. This book was very clear and precise. It was well structured so I found the part I wanted to know straight away.
It was well written, no waffle, had all the revelant cases and was a pleasure to read. It was easy to understand and left me wondering why I had disliked Admin Law during my undergrad days.
Worth every single penny.

A great buy, 23 Dec 2006
Public (or constitutional) law is a core subject and this book is great to get you through the exam with a decent score. Very readable and clearly presented,it gives you the historical and practical perspectives along with recent developments. It starts from the basics and builds up on it. A very useful book, covering all the aspects of the conventionl public law course, and more.
Just one fault:the binding is not the best so it comes apart pretty easily, mine is in pieces.

A pain in the neck, 06 Feb 2004
Here's one the compulsory textbooks UoL intermediate students must buy: one wonders why. Boring, redundant, slow to get to the point, lacking summaries and clear chapter objectives. This is a complete waste of money. The author also co-wrote the UoL study guide which is as bad as the textbook.
Fortunately, it can be used in conjunction with many other good texts such as Butterworths Core Text, Hood Phillips or Alex Carroll.
Avoid.

Fantastic Book that is Wonderfully Written!, 21 Oct 2000
Great Text that has just been updated with all the recent influential changes. The book is also supported by free updates, which are available via the web, making it good value for money, as well as a necessity. The text is clear and easy to understand making it a joy to read. It includes most of the relevant material one needs to pursue a course in Public Law; Hilaire Barnett (the author) is also a lecturer of mine... Great Lady... Great Book... This book by many people's standards is hard to fault.

A Political must, 19 Jun 2001
The Federalist Papers are a collection of writing by Madison, Hamilton and Jay, the architects of the constitution of the US, written analysing the reasons for its formation and content. This book is a must for anyone living within the US and living under the consititution. I myself don't live in the US and still find the philisophical and political concepts raised intriguing and intelligent. Anyone with an interest in the rule of the government, or in the evolution of a federal Europe, really ought to read this. The content in its self can be hard to follow, being a collection of articles to a newspaper, rather than a work intended to be read in continuous form. The concepts are also complicated and require some political knowledge before reading, reading it is occasionally hard work, but definitely worth the effort.

Every American should know passsages from this book by heart, 24 Sep 1998
The essential commentary on our system of government. The U.S. Constitution is a brilliantly constructed document. But for those who are unable to fully understand its simplicity, read "The Federalist Papers." It makes clear the basis for our system of government (Natural Law). It also explains why the Constitution is a document from the people telling the government what rights it has to govern rather than a government document telling the people what rights are available to them.

Government gridlock is not a bad thing according to "The Federalist Papers." The Constitution is written in such a way that the government can't easily pass laws. Remember, for every law passed, we loose some of our natural rights.

"The Federalist Papers" was written to encourage the people of the time to support a new constitution (as opposed to keeping the Articles of Confederation). However, there is not a more modern explanation of why our current system is very flawed but the most viable option of self-rule anybody has ever devised.

An interesting read, 29 Nov 2008
I quite enjoyed this outing from Prof. Grayling.
It is a brief overwiew of the struggles for freedom and liberty over the past 500 years, for a non-specialist, it is an easy read. Not dry at all in my opinion.
I have to agree with his conclusions about the state of British and US democracy since 2001.
Our freedoms and liberties were hard won and we have to be eternally vigilant against their erosion by an over-powerful centralist state.

Grayling is not a historian. And it shows., 18 Nov 2008
I am a huge fan of Grayling's philosophical writings, and as far as I am aware, I have read (and enjoyed) all of his published books. But this really was disappointing, despite my own active interest in human rights.

The main problem is this: Grayling is not a historian. And, more importantly, it shows. The author trudges through key figures and events in his "story of the struggles for liberty and rights" offering very little historical analysis along the way. His key point is this: all the rights and liberties we enjoy, only exist because of the struggles and sacrfices of those who have gone before us. Further, we would do well to remember this at a time when our governments seem determined to erode our liberties in the name of security. This, of course, is a worthy point, but I'm not sure that 272 long pages, which merely outline the factual circumstances of each struggle, individual and collective, is the most effective way to make this point.

Grayling has offered interesting and powerful, historically focused works in the past. "Among the Dead Cities" looks at the historical evidence and asks whether the allied policy of carpet bombing German cities during WWII was a moral crime. As with all his philosophical works, the result is a fascinating, thought-provoking read. But the difference between that and the current book is that in "Among the Dead Cities" he never takes his eye off his central philosophical question. As such, it is not a historical work, so much as a philosophical look at a particular historical episode.

Unfortunately, the same just cannot be said of this book. It is dry, uninspiring and, frankly, hard work. While Grayling's premise may be correct, the main lesson I took from the book is this: Grayling is not a historian. He should stick to what he does best.


A sorely needed refresher course, 11 Jan 2008
I have no hesitation in giving Professor Grayling's book five stars.

It is an education and vigorous refresher for anyone like myself who recognises names like Spinoza, Locke, Voltaire, Milton, de Tocqueville, but has only a hazy understanding of what they stand for, and only a patchy idea of the significance of the Glorious English Revolution of 1688 and the American and French revolutions, but has now in these times an uneasy feeling that the ideas and principles underpinning free societies are neglected. In as little as three hundred well written pages he explains it all.

I will let others extol the virtues of the book and here draw attention to one serious flaw, or to be kind to the author, to draw attention to an issue on which I wish he had said a lot more.

His priorities are wrong.

The book is exactly what it says it is "The Story of the Struggles for Liberty & Rights" but the opening and closing chapters discuss the threats to Liberty that we face today.

In the opening chapter he poses the question, in relation to the growing Muslim population in Europe, of how we deal with those whose ideas on Liberty and Rights are different from ours and who if they got their way would bring an end to the Liberty that we have painfully gained over the last 500 years. He doesn't answer this question.

Mistakenly, in my view, in these opening and closing chapters he concentrates on the threats to Liberty posed by the anti-terrorist measures taken by the US and UK governments.

As awful and as worrying some of these anti-terrorist measures are [1][2] they can at least be discussed. Your life will not be threatened, the Politically Correct (PC) roof will not fall on your head, respected national figures can and do state their views. But, these measures and the terrorism that brings them about are only symptoms, symptoms of an underlying religious malaise, and that is Islam as it mainly manifests itself in the world today.

He could say a lot more about the threat to Liberty from Islam. Perhaps his views are constrained by the observations he makes in relation to the persecution of minorities in Nazi Germany.

Religion is a very sensitive subject [3]. It is a sobering thought that a US presidential candidate who said openly that he wasn't too sure about God or that he was an atheist, wouldn't stand a chance. Could it be that the authors of the American Constitution, a beacon of Liberty, would be rejected by today's American voters?

Could we discuss openly and have a debate at a respected political level of the problems and potential problems caused by Islam in Liberal societies, and in the way we discuss measures to combat terrorism, discuss what we should and will do about it. I fear not.

We have started 2008 in the UK with a prime example of the difficulties. The Bishop of Rochester has drawn attention to the voluntary segregation of Muslims in the UK and the enclaves they have created which he says have become "no go" areas for Christians.

Of course, the bishop's use of the term "no-go" was a mistake. It has too many wrong meanings. The PC roof has fallen on his head, political figures from right, left and centre are falling over themselves to criticise or distance themselves from the bishop.

But the bishop is essentially right. There are a growing number of places which are growing in size in the UK where the culture around you is Islamic. Mohamed in its various spellings is now the most popular name for a boy in the UK. The bishop didn't say it, so I will say it for him. It wont be long before these Islamic communities will be demanding Sharia law. What then Liberty?

Not all Muslims, perhaps only a minority, believe and practice the aspects of their religion that are so inimical to free societies. But these beliefs and practices

- women are essentially male possessions

- death is a just punishment for apostasy and insulting Islam or the prophet

- that Islam trumps all other religions

- Muslims have a sacred duty to impose Islam everywhere, by force if necessary

to name a few of the worst, cast a dark shadow wherever Muslims live.

The bodies that represent Muslims are a cause of concern. Western suits and PR officers are no guarantee of a modern outlook or reasonableness. The secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain when asked if stoning was a bad thing said it "depended on the stones". He also thinks arranged marriages are a good idea and we in the UK should have them. His predecessor, whom the UK government rubbed shoulders with, is notorious for having said of Salman Rushdie that death was too good for him.

Perhaps a very great danger is not having a clear idea of what or who represents a form of Islam that can truly be part of a Liberal society [4]

These are the sorts of issues and threats that I wish Professor Grayling had given more space to and, from his philosophical standpoint, offered some ideas on how they can be dealt with.

Notes

[1] That a high American official made out a case for torture must have had Torquemada laughing in his grave.

[2] Professor Grayling is spot on in his criticism of the UK ID card scheme. I speak with some authority having studied the subject. Prof Grayling refers readers to the press in general to learn more about this nonsense, to which I would add and strongly recommend the Report and Evidence published by the UK Parliamentary Committee concerned with home affairs. The pages of my copy are stained with tears of laughter and rage.

[3] Having read this book I checked out Amazon readers comments on other works by Prof Grayling. I was shocked at the virulence of some of the attacks on him because he is, apparently, an atheist.

[4] Irshad Manjii in an excellent review of "Arguing the Just War in Islam" a recent book by John Kelsay, writes:

The moderates whom Kelsay has studied "do not in fact dissent from the militant judgement that current political arrangements are illegitimate. Some moderates agree with militants that "democracy" implies a kind of moral equivalence between Islam and other perspectives. And such a situation is dangerous not only for the standing of the Muslim community, but for the moral life of humankind"

[International Herald Tribune, 5-6 January, 2008]

I would add to this that 25 percent of UK Muslims sympathised with the London bombers.

Great Book and correct information, 22 Jan 2008
This is well writen and give great dadvice and the correct information. Its up to date. It also cover banking, schools and visa's and 'How To" this is the perfect book if you are thinking of moving to Australia.

Hi, 22 Oct 2005
We found this very useful if you are considering an application. It lists the points you will gain for your skills and professions etc, so you know in advance if you've a chance of successfull immigration. Everything else (the low down on each state etc) is pretty dull & in some cases inaccurate. But we bought this with the pure expectation of the book telling us what we needed to have to get australia citizenship, and it did that 100%.

Good Read, 27 May 2008
Right up to date and written with a very readable style. A great book and nicely laid out.

Easy to understand, precise and well structured, 09 Apr 2008
I am writting an appeal on an employment law issue and wanted to refresh my understanding of direct effect and the way you can enforce rights in EC law that are not available in UK law. This book was very clear and precise. It was well structured so I found the part I wanted to know straight away.
It was well written, no waffle, had all the revelant cases and was a pleasure to read. It was easy to understand and left me wondering why I had disliked Admin Law during my undergrad days.
Worth every single penny.

A great buy, 23 Dec 2006
Public (or constitutional) law is a core subject and this book is great to get you through the exam with a decent score. Very readable and clearly presented,it gives you the historical and practical perspectives along with recent developments. It starts from the basics and builds up on it. A very useful book, covering all the aspects of the conventionl public law course, and more.
Just one fault:the binding is not the best so it comes apart pretty easily, mine is in pieces.

A pain in the neck, 06 Feb 2004
Here's one the compulsory textbooks UoL intermediate students must buy: one wonders why. Boring, redundant, slow to get to the point, lacking summaries and clear chapter objectives. This is a complete waste of money. The author also co-wrote the UoL study guide which is as bad as the textbook.
Fortunately, it can be used in conjunction with many other good texts such as Butterworths Core Text, Hood Phillips or Alex Carroll.
Avoid.

Fantastic Book that is Wonderfully Written!, 21 Oct 2000
Great Text that has just been updated with all the recent influential changes. The book is also supported by free updates, which are available via the web, making it good value for money, as well as a necessity. The text is clear and easy to understand making it a joy to read. It includes most of the relevant material one needs to pursue a course in Public Law; Hilaire Barnett (the author) is also a lecturer of mine... Great Lady... Great Book... This book by many people's standards is hard to fault.

A Political must, 19 Jun 2001
The Federalist Papers are a collection of writing by Madison, Hamilton and Jay, the architects of the constitution of the US, written analysing the reasons for its formation and content. This book is a must for anyone living within the US and living under the consititution. I myself don't live in the US and still find the philisophical and political concepts raised intriguing and intelligent. Anyone with an interest in the rule of the government, or in the evolution of a federal Europe, really ought to read this. The content in its self can be hard to follow, being a collection of articles to a newspaper, rather than a work intended to be read in continuous form. The concepts are also complicated and require some political knowledge before reading, reading it is occasionally hard work, but definitely worth the effort.

Every American should know passsages from this book by heart, 24 Sep 1998
The essential commentary on our system of government. The U.S. Constitution is a brilliantly constructed document. But for those who are unable to fully understand its simplicity, read "The Federalist Papers." It makes clear the basis for our system of government (Natural Law). It also explains why the Constitution is a document from the people telling the government what rights it has to govern rather than a government document telling the people what rights are available to them.

Government gridlock is not a bad thing according to "The Federalist Papers." The Constitution is written in such a way that the government can't easily pass laws. Remember, for every law passed, we loose some of our natural rights.

"The Federalist Papers" was written to encourage the people of the time to support a new constitution (as opposed to keeping the Articles of Confederation). However, there is not a more modern explanation of why our current system is very flawed but the most viable option of self-rule anybody has ever devised.

Tom, Tom the tailor's son, 05 Dec 2006
Alfred Thompson Denning was a man who, while accepting that his first name was Alfred, preferred to be addressed as Tom.

Though he became one of the leading judges of his time, he came from modest roots - the town of Whitchurch in Hampshire where his Dad was a tailor. To this day, his old home town boasts a silk mill on a clear chalkstream - the river Test.

'The Discipline of Law' is part of a series of five, which he described as 'the Christmas books'. He did that because they had been written in successive years during the Christmas vacation. Another in the series is 'Landmarks in the Law'.

For me, these books were like meeting Tom Denning down the pub, off-duty, and getting him to explain to you the background to the way the law works and how you can somehow make a difference to justice within the framework of the process of the law.

There's not much about the theatrical side of the law. The series mainly addresses the issues which had moved him personally in the course of his work and the features of the legal landscape which became clearer to him as his career developed.

If he had been an angler, he would have been like George Skues. Methodical, innovative and just a little bit mischeivous.

An interesting read, 29 Nov 2008
I quite enjoyed this outing from Prof. Grayling.
It is a brief overwiew of the struggles for freedom and liberty over the past 500 years, for a non-specialist, it is an easy read. Not dry at all in my opinion.
I have to agree with his conclusions about the state of British and US democracy since 2001.
Our freedoms and liberties were hard won and we have to be eternally vigilant against their erosion by an over-powerful centralist state.

Grayling is not a historian. And it shows., 18 Nov 2008
I am a huge fan of Grayling's philosophical writings, and as far as I am aware, I have read (and enjoyed) all of his published books. But this really was disappointing, despite my own active interest in human rights.

The main problem is this: Grayling is not a historian. And, more importantly, it shows. The author trudges through key figures and events in his "story of the struggles for liberty and rights" offering very little historical analysis along the way. His key point is this: all the rights and liberties we enjoy, only exist because of the struggles and sacrfices of those who have gone before us. Further, we would do well to remember this at a time when our governments seem determined to erode our liberties in the name of security. This, of course, is a worthy point, but I'm not sure that 272 long pages, which merely outline the factual circumstances of each struggle, individual and collective, is the most effective way to make this point.

Grayling has offered interesting and powerful, historically focused works in the past. "Among the Dead Cities" looks at the historical evidence and asks whether the allied policy of carpet bombing German cities during WWII was a moral crime. As with all his philosophical works, the result is a fascinating, thought-provoking read. But the difference between that and the current book is that in "Among the Dead Cities" he never takes his eye off his central philosophical question. As such, it is not a historical work, so much as a philosophical look at a particular historical episode.

Unfortunately, the same just cannot be said of this book. It is dry, uninspiring and, frankly, hard work. While Grayling's premise may be correct, the main lesson I took from the book is this: Grayling is not a historian. He should stick to what he does best.


A sorely needed refresher course, 11 Jan 2008
I have no hesitation in giving Professor Grayling's book five stars.

It is an education and vigorous refresher for anyone like myself who recognises names like Spinoza, Locke, Voltaire, Milton, de Tocqueville, but has only a hazy understanding of what they stand for, and only a patchy idea of the significance of the Glorious English Revolution of 1688 and the American and French revolutions, but has now in these times an uneasy feeling that the ideas and principles underpinning free societies are neglected. In as little as three hundred well written pages he explains it all.

I will let others extol the virtues of the book and here draw attention to one serious flaw, or to be kind to the author, to draw attention to an issue on which I wish he had said a lot more.

His priorities are wrong.

The book is exactly what it says it is "The Story of the Struggles for Liberty & Rights" but the opening and closing chapters discuss the threats to Liberty that we face today.

In the opening chapter he poses the question, in relation to the growing Muslim population in Europe, of how we deal with those whose ideas on Liberty and Rights are different from ours and who if they got their way would bring an end to the Liberty that we have painfully gained over the last 500 years. He doesn't answer this question.

Mistakenly, in my view, in these opening and closing chapters he concentrates on the threats to Liberty posed by the anti-terrorist measures taken by the US and UK governments.

As awful and as worrying some of these anti-terrorist measures are [1][2] they can at least be discussed. Your life will not be threatened, the Politically Correct (PC) roof will not fall on your head, respected national figures can and do state their views. But, these measures and the terrorism that brings them about are only symptoms, symptoms of an underlying religious malaise, and that is Islam as it mainly manifests itself in the world today.

He could say a lot more about the threat to Liberty from Islam. Perhaps his views are constrained by the observations he makes in relation to the persecution of minorities in Nazi Germany.

Religion is a very sensitive subject [3]. It is a sobering thought that a US presidential candidate who said openly that he wasn't too sure about God or that he was an atheist, wouldn't stand a chance. Could it be that the authors of the American Constitution, a beacon of Liberty, would be rejected by today's American voters?

Could we discuss openly and have a debate at a respected political level of the problems and potential problems caused by Islam in Liberal societies, and in the way we discuss measures to combat terrorism, discuss what we should and will do about it. I fear not.

We have started 2008 in the UK with a prime example of the difficulties. The Bishop of Rochester has drawn attention to the voluntary segregation of Muslims in the UK and the enclaves they have created which he says have become "no go" areas for Christians.

Of course, the bishop's use of the term "no-go" was a mistake. It has too many wrong meanings. The PC roof has fallen on his head, political figures from right, left and centre are falling over themselves to criticise or distance themselves from the bishop.

But the bishop is essentially right. There are a growing number of places which are growing in size in the UK where the culture around you is Islamic. Mohamed in its various spellings is now the most popular name for a boy in the UK. The bishop didn't say it, so I will say it for him. It wont be long before these Islamic communities will be demanding Sharia law. What then Liberty?

Not all Muslims, perhaps only a minority, believe and practice the aspects of their religion that are so inimical to free societies. But these beliefs and practices

- women are essentially male possessions

- death is a just punishment for apostasy and insulting Islam or the prophet

- that Islam trumps all other religions

- Muslims have a sacred duty to impose Islam everywhere, by force if necessary

to name a few of the worst, cast a dark shadow wherever Muslims live.

The bodies that represent Muslims are a cause of concern. Western suits and PR officers are no guarantee of a modern outlook or reasonableness. The secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain when asked if stoning was a bad thing said it "depended on the stones". He also thinks arranged marriages are a good idea and we in the UK should have them. His predecessor, whom the UK government rubbed shoulders with, is notorious for having said of Salman Rushdie that death was too good for him.

Perhaps a very great danger is not having a clear idea of what or who represents a form of Islam that can truly be part of a Liberal society [4]

These are the sorts of issues and threats that I wish Professor Grayling had given more space to and, from his philosophical standpoint, offered some ideas on how they can be dealt with.

Notes

[1] That a high American official made out a case for torture must have had Torquemada laughing in his grave.

[2] Professor Grayling is spot on in his criticism of the UK ID card scheme. I speak with some authority having studied the subject. Prof Grayling refers readers to the press in general to learn more about this nonsense, to which I would add and strongly recommend the Report and Evidence published by the UK Parliamentary Committee concerned with home affairs. The pages of my copy are stained with tears of laughter and rage.

[3] Having read this book I checked out Amazon readers comments on other works by Prof Grayling. I was shocked at the virulence of some of the attacks on him because he is, apparently, an atheist.

[4] Irshad Manjii in an excellent review of "Arguing the Just War in Islam" a recent book by John Kelsay, writes:

The moderates whom Kelsay has studied "do not in fact dissent from the militant judgement that current political arrangements are illegitimate. Some moderates agree with militants that "democracy" implies a kind of moral equivalence between Islam and other perspectives. And such a situation is dangerous not only for the standing of the Muslim community, but for the moral life of humankind"

[International Herald Tribune, 5-6 January, 2008]

I would add to this that 25 percent of UK Muslims sympathised with the London bombers.

Great Book and correct information, 22 Jan 2008
This is well writen and give great dadvice and the correct information. Its up to date. It also cover banking, schools and visa's and 'How To" this is the perfect book if you are thinking of moving to Australia.

Hi, 22 Oct 2005
We found this very useful if you are considering an application. It lists the points you will gain for your skills and professions etc, so you know in advance if you've a chance of successfull immigration. Everything else (the low down on each state etc) is pretty dull & in some cases inaccurate. But we bought this with the pure expectation of the book telling us what we needed to have to get australia citizenship, and it did that 100%.

Good Read, 27 May 2008
Right up to date and written with a very readable style. A great book and nicely laid out.

Easy to understand, precise and well structured, 09 Apr 2008
I am writting an appeal on an employment law issue and wanted to refresh my understanding of direct effect and the way you can enforce rights in EC law that are not available in UK law. This book was very clear and precise. It was well structured so I found the part I wanted to know straight away.
It was well written, no waffle, had all the revelant cases and was a pleasure to read. It was easy to understand and left me wondering why I had disliked Admin Law during my undergrad days.
Worth every single penny.

A great buy, 23 Dec 2006
Public (or constitutional) law is a core subject and this book is great to get you through the exam with a decent score. Very readable and clearly presented,it gives you the historical and practical perspectives along with recent developments. It starts from the basics and builds up on it. A very useful book, covering all the aspects of the conventionl public law course, and more.
Just one fault:the binding is not the best so it comes apart pretty easily, mine is in pieces.

A pain in the neck, 06 Feb 2004
Here's one the compulsory textbooks UoL intermediate students must buy: one wonders why. Boring, redundant, slow to get to the point, lacking summaries and clear chapter objectives. This is a complete waste of money. The author also co-wrote the UoL study guide which is as bad as the textbook.
Fortunately, it can be used in conjunction with many other good texts such as Butterworths Core Text, Hood Phillips or Alex Carroll.
Avoid.

Fantastic Book that is Wonderfully Written!, 21 Oct 2000
Great Text that has just been updated with all the recent influential changes. The book is also supported by free updates, which are available via the web, making it good value for money, as well as a necessity. The text is clear and easy to understand making it a joy to read. It includes most of the relevant material one needs to pursue a course in Public Law; Hilaire Barnett (the author) is also a lecturer of mine... Great Lady... Great Book... This book by many people's standards is hard to fault.

A Political must, 19 Jun 2001
The Federalist Papers are a collection of writing by Madison, Hamilton and Jay, the architects of the constitution of the US, written analysing the reasons for its formation and content. This book is a must for anyone living within the US and living under the consititution. I myself don't live in the US and still find the philisophical and political concepts raised intriguing and intelligent. Anyone with an interest in the rule of the government, or in the evolution of a federal Europe, really ought to read this. The content in its self can be hard to follow, being a collection of articles to a newspaper, rather than a work intended to be read in continuous form. The concepts are also complicated and require some political knowledge before reading, reading it is occasionally hard work, but definitely worth the effort.

Every American should know passsages from this book by heart, 24 Sep 1998
The essential commentary on our system of government. The U.S. Constitution is a brilliantly constructed document. But for those who are unable to fully understand its simplicity, read "The Federalist Papers." It makes clear the basis for our system of government (Natural Law). It also explains why the Constitution is a document from the people telling the government what rights it has to govern rather than a government document telling the people what rights are available to them.

Government gridlock is not a bad thing according to "The Federalist Papers." The Constitution is written in such a way that the government can't easily pass laws. Remember, for every law passed, we loose some of our natural rights.

"The Federalist Papers" was written to encourage the people of the time to support a new constitution (as opposed to keeping the Articles of Confederation). However, there is not a more modern explanation of why our current system is very flawed but the most viable option of self-rule anybody has ever devised.

Tom, Tom the tailor's son, 05 Dec 2006
Alfred Thompson Denning was a man who, while accepting that his first name was Alfred, preferred to be addressed as Tom.

Though he became one of the leading judges of his time, he came from modest roots - the town of Whitchurch in Hampshire where his Dad was a tailor. To this day, his old home town boasts a silk mill on a clear chalkstream - the river Test.

'The Discipline of Law' is part of a series of five, which he described as 'the Christmas books'. He did that because they had been written in successive years during the Christmas vacation. Another in the series is 'Landmarks in the Law'.

For me, these books were like meeting Tom Denning down the pub, off-duty, and getting him to explain to you the background to the way the law works and how you can somehow make a difference to justice within the framework of the process of the law.

There's not much about the theatrical side of the law. The series mainly addresses the issues which had moved him personally in the course of his work and the features of the legal landscape which became clearer to him as his career developed.

If he had been an angler, he would have been like George Skues. Methodical, innovative and just a little bit mischeivous.


Well worth it!, 01 Apr 2002
This book is very worthwhile for the LLB student. It deals with all the main issues of Public Law in a thought provoking manner, as well as covering the basic tenets of the subkects.

A bible for those studying public law, 20 Oct 2000
This book is very good and it is especially useful at university as a guide,

An interesting read, 29 Nov 2008
I quite enjoyed this outing from Prof. Grayling.
It is a brief overwiew of the struggles for freedom and liberty over the past 500 years, for a non-specialist, it is an easy read. Not dry at all in my opinion.
I have to agree with his conclusions about the state of British and US democracy since 2001.
Our freedoms and liberties were hard won and we have to be eternally vigilant against their erosion by an over-powerful centralist state.

Grayling is not a historian. And it shows., 18 Nov 2008
I am a huge fan of Grayling's philosophical writings, and as far as I am aware, I have read (and enjoyed) all of his published books. But this really was disappointing, despite my own active interest in human rights.

The main problem is this: Grayling is not a historian. And, more importantly, it shows. The author trudges through key figures and events in his "story of the struggles for liberty and rights" offering very little historical analysis along the way. His key point is this: all the rights and liberties we enjoy, only exist because of the struggles and sacrfices of those who have gone before us. Further, we would do well to remember this at a time when our governments seem determined to erode our liberties in the name of security. This, of course, is a worthy point, but I'm not sure that 272 long pages, which merely outline the factual circumstances of each struggle, individual and collective, is the most effective way to make this point.

Grayling has offered interesting and powerful, historically focused works in the past. "Among the Dead Cities" looks at the historical evidence and asks whether the allied policy of carpet bombing German cities during WWII was a moral crime. As with all his philosophical works, the result is a fascinating, thought-provoking read. But the difference between that and the current book is that in "Among the Dead Cities" he never takes his eye off his central philosophical question. As such, it is not a historical work, so much as a philosophical look at a particular historical episode.

Unfortunately, the same just cannot be said of this book. It is dry, uninspiring and, frankly, hard work. While Grayling's premise may be correct, the main lesson I took from the book is this: Grayling is not a historian. He should stick to what he does best.


A sorely needed refresher course, 11 Jan 2008
I have no hesitation in giving Professor Grayling's book five stars.

It is an education and vigorous refresher for anyone like myself who recognises names like Spinoza, Locke, Voltaire, Milton, de Tocqueville, but has only a hazy understanding of what they stand for, and only a patchy idea of the significance of the Glorious English Revolution of 1688 and the American and French revolutions, but has now in these times an uneasy feeling that the ideas and principles underpinning free societies are neglected. In as little as three hundred well written pages he explains it all.

I will let others extol the virtues of the book and here draw attention to one serious flaw, or to be kind to the author, to draw attention to an issue on which I wish he had said a lot more.

His priorities are wrong.

The book is exactly what it says it is "The Story of the Struggles for Liberty & Rights" but the opening and closing chapters discuss the threats to Liberty that we face today.

In the opening chapter he poses the question, in relation to the growing Muslim population in Europe, of how we deal with those whose ideas on Liberty and Rights are different from ours and who if they got their way would bring an end to the Liberty that we have painfully gained over the last 500 years. He doesn't answer this question.

Mistakenly, in my view, in these opening and closing chapters he concentrates on the threats to Liberty posed by the anti-terrorist measures taken by the US and UK governments.

As awful and as worrying some of these anti-terrorist measures are [1][2] they can at least be discussed. Your life will not be threatened, the Politically Correct (PC) roof will not fall on your head, respected national figures can and do state their views. But, these measures and the terrorism that brings them about are only symptoms, symptoms of an underlying religious malaise, and that is Islam as it mainly manifests itself in the world today.

He could say a lot more about the threat to Liberty from Islam. Perhaps his views are constrained by the observations he makes in relation to the persecution of minorities in Nazi Germany.

Religion is a very sensitive subject [3]. It is a sobering thought that a US presidential candidate who said openly that he wasn't too sure about God or that he was an atheist, wouldn't stand a chance. Could it be that the authors of the American Constitution, a beacon of Liberty, would be rejected by today's American voters?

Could we discuss openly and have a debate at a respected political level of the problems and potential problems caused by Islam in Liberal societies, and in the way we discuss measures to combat terrorism, discuss what we should and will do about it. I fear not.

We have started 2008 in the UK with a prime example of the difficulties. The Bishop of Rochester has drawn attention to the voluntary segregation of Muslims in the UK and the enclaves they have created which he says have become "no go" areas for Christians.

Of course, the bishop's use of the term "no-go" was a mistake. It has too many wrong meanings. The PC roof has fallen on his head, political figures from right, left and centre are falling over themselves to criticise or distance themselves from the bishop.

But the bishop is essentially right. There are a growing number of places which are growing in size in the UK where the culture around you is Islamic. Mohamed in its various spellings is now the most popular name for a boy in the UK. The bishop didn't say it, so I will say it for him. It wont be long before these Islamic communities will be demanding Sharia law. What then Liberty?

Not all Muslims, perhaps only a minority, believe and practice the aspects of their religion that are so inimical to free societies. But these beliefs and practices

- women are essentially male possessions

- death is a just punishment for apostasy and insulting Islam or the prophet

- that Islam trumps all other religions

- Muslims have a sacred duty to impose Islam everywhere, by force if necessary

to name a few of the worst, cast a dark shadow wherever Muslims live.

The bodies that represent Muslims are a cause of concern. Western suits and PR officers are no guarantee of a modern outlook or reasonableness. The secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain when asked if stoning was a bad thing said it "depended on the stones". He also thinks arranged marriages are a good idea and we in the UK should have them. His predecessor, whom the UK government rubbed shoulders with, is notorious for having said of Salman Rushdie that death was too good for him.

Perhaps a very great danger is not having a clear idea of what or who represents a form of Islam that can truly be part of a Liberal society [4]

These are the sorts of issues and threats that I wish Professor Grayling had given more space to and, from his philosophical standpoint, offered some ideas on how they can be dealt with.

Notes

[1] That a high American official made out a case for torture must have had Torquemada laughing in his grave.

[2] Professor Grayling is spot on in his criticism of the UK ID card scheme. I speak with some authority having studied the subject. Prof Grayling refers readers to the press in general to learn more about this nonsense, to which I would add and strongly recommend the Report and Evidence published by the UK Parliamentary Committee concerned with home affairs. The pages of my copy are stained with tears of laughter and rage.

[3] Having read this book I checked out Amazon readers comments on other works by Prof Grayling. I was shocked at the virulence of some of the attacks on him because he is, apparently, an atheist.

[4] Irshad Manjii in an excellent review of "Arguing the Just War in Islam" a recent book by John Kelsay, writes:

The moderates whom Kelsay has studied "do not in fact dissent from the militant judgement that current political arrangements are illegitimate. Some moderates agree with militants that "democracy" implies a kind of moral equivalence between Islam and other perspectives. And such a situation is dangerous not only for the standing of the Muslim community, but for the moral life of humankind"

[International Herald Tribune, 5-6 January, 2008]

I would add to this that 25 percent of UK Muslims sympathised with the London bombers.

Great Book and correct information, 22 Jan 2008
This is well writen and give great dadvice and the correct information. Its up to date. It also cover banking, schools and visa's and 'How To" this is the perfect book if you are thinking of moving to Australia.

Hi, 22 Oct 2005
We found this very useful if you are considering an application. It lists the points you will gain for your skills and professions etc, so you know in advance if you've a chance of successfull immigration. Everything else (the low down on each state etc) is pretty dull & in some cases inaccurate. But we bought this with the pure expectation of the book telling us what we needed to have to get australia citizenship, and it did that 100%.

Good Read, 27 May 2008
Right up to date and written with a very readable style. A great book and nicely laid out.

Easy to understand, precise and well structured, 09 Apr 2008
I am writting an appeal on an employment law issue and wanted to refresh my understanding of direct effect and the way you can enforce rights in EC law that are not available in UK law. This book was very clear and precise. It was well structured so I found the part I wanted to know straight away.
It was well written, no waffle, had all the revelant cases and was a pleasure to read. It was easy to understand and left me wondering why I had disliked Admin Law during my undergrad days.
Worth every single penny.

A great buy, 23 Dec 2006
Public (or constitutional) law is a core subject and this book is great to get you through the exam with a decent score. Very readable and clearly presented,it gives you the historical and practical perspectives along with recent developments. It starts from the basics and builds up on it. A