About Law & Religion UK

Welcome

Law & Religion UK was conceived as a forum for the academically-rigorous exploration of the interactions between law and religion – broadly defined – together with the human rights issues associated with them. It is co-edited by Frank Cranmer and David Pocklington, both of whom are Honorary Research Fellows at the Centre for Law & Religion, Cardiff Law School, and have been posting on L&RUK since 2012.

The Editors are always interested in guest posts from colleagues in the field of law and religion. We also welcome pertinent comments on current developments that reflect the views and opinions of their respective authors and meet the General Conditions applying to the site. However, those that do not meet those criteria or which are otherwise unidentifiable are unlikely to be published, especially comments that are abusive or defamatory. For more information see our comments policy below.

Statistics

We started regular posting in June 2012 and our milestone 2.0 million page-views was achieved in January 2021. The site has over 900 subscribers and the L&RUK Twitter account Law & Religion UK @FCranmer has ~1,800 followers. Readership of the blog is issue driven, and we have an average of 700 page-views per day.

Comments policy

We welcome comments, subject to the following conditions:

  • We will not publish comments that, in our opinion, are abusive, racist, homophobic, potentially defamatory or otherwise capable of offending the laws against hate speech – or common decency.
  • Since L&RUK is intended as a blog for academic comment, those that add little to the academic debate on a particular issue are unlikely to be published.
  • As a rule of thumb, we will not normally publish comments received more than fourteen days from the original day of posting.
  • Anonymous comments will not be published.

Our decision as to whether or not a comment should be published is final.

The Billable Hour

We write this blog because we’re passionate about our subject and – unlike some legal resources – it’s free to access and we aim to keep it that way. However: if you’ve found the blog useful, might we suggest that you consider making a small donation to The Billable Hour? It’s the lawyers’ charity that raises money for Save the Children – and even a billable five minutes would help some of the most deprived children on the planet.

Frank Cranmer & David Pocklington

7 thoughts on “About Law & Religion UK

  1. Pingback: About Law & Religion UK

  2. Pingback: Law and religion round-up – 1 May | Law & Religion UK

  3. Pingback: About Law & Religion UK – World's Thought

  4. Dear Mr. Pocklington,
    I wonder whether you or any of your readers could help. I am a well retired lawyer, assisting my granddaughter in a claim for damages against the PCC and Incumbent of a CofE Church. In an extremely cold bout of weather in January of 1921 she slipped on black ice formed on a short flight of granite steps leading from the rear entrance to the church to the adjacent roadway, resulting in two fractures to her right arm and a split elbow. The Church maintains that it is not liable in negligence as the steps form part of the ‘closed’ churchyard and that, therefore, ss. 215(1) & (2) of the Local Government Act 1972 applies and the body responsible is the local Town Council. The Town Council are denying responsibility stating that their duty of maintenance does not cover the steps (only the monuments in the grounds) and keeping the grass cut and in a tidy condition. Indeed, s.215(1) of the Act clearly states that, in the circumstances, the Council in taking over the maintenance of the closed churchyard is only required to “maintain it by keeping it in decent order and the walls and fences in decent repair”. The Church Insurers, however, have ‘dug their feet in’ and strongly maintain that the Council is responsible and not their Insured. I have scoured the interned for any cases that may have defined the difference between a ‘churchyard’ and ‘church grounds’ and also as to the extent of a Council’s responsibility under s. 215(1) of the Act (i.e. whether it would extend to keeping granite steps to the rear entrance of the Church gritted, or otherwise safe, in freezing weather conditions). I am wondering, therefore, whether any of your prior articles, or case discussions have dealt with this, or with anything similar.
    If my request is beyond the scope of your blog, I will, of course, fully understand.

    Many thanks. Sincerely,
    John Stacey-Hibbert, LLB, LLM.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *