I thought the paper was ok, no real problems to complain about...can't say much else about it! I did find the essay re good name a bit vague though and i suspect that he was inviting you to challenge the question...
One matter did concern me which i found out afterwards...apparently, the attorney general was a "hot tip" and expected to come up...I didn't even know it was examinable! Very strange and i fail to believe that this just came to someone in a vision! On Oct 2, 7:27 pm, Bee <[email protected]> wrote: > God ya that was a god send! The last q was one that was taken right > out of a previous paper on equality which is surprising enough. What > was the second last q on? > > On Oct 2, 7:22 pm, Wendy Lyon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I don't have the paper to hand but was that the one about the civil > > servant? All I could get out of it was that the statute was vague, it > > was a serious offence (penalty-wise) but triable summarily and there > > also seemed to be a mens rea issue there but I'm not sure if that's > > what a Constitutional examiner would be looking for ... so I decided > > to skip it :) > > > Thought the paper was mostly ok apart from that, I was praying for > > that Article 26 question!!! > > > On 02/10/2009, Bee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey, > > > > So what did everyone think of Constitutional? Pretty rough paper I > > > thought. Can anyone tell me what was question 3 about???!!! I did it > > > as my last question and put in any old rubbish I could think of that > > > was relevant. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/fe-1-study-group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
