Dyson to fill Neuberger’s shoes as Master of the Rolls By Katy Dowell 29 August 2012 15:36 17 December 2015 12:32 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 29 August 2012 at 20:58 It’s not surprising that he has hoovered up this role Reply Link Anonymous 30 August 2012 at 11:35 Well, there was a bit of a vacuum in Neuberger’s absence. Reply Link Anonymous 30 August 2012 at 12:34 I remember him when he was plain old David Nueberger with hair. Reply Link electrolux 30 August 2012 at 14:19 always the best candidate after the dust had settled Reply Link Anonymous 30 August 2012 at 17:17 Probably didn’t think he’d have it in the bag Reply Link electrolux 31 August 2012 at 09:01 I’m sure he’ll have a ball Reply Link Radar 31 August 2012 at 09:04 This is great news and I am delighted it has not been brushed under the carpet. Reply Link Anonymous 31 August 2012 at 10:32 Carpet Diem Mr Dyson. Reply Link electrolux 31 August 2012 at 12:32 and as for the other candiates – suck it up! Reply Link Angie 31 August 2012 at 14:43 I’ve always wondered why do judges need to move like that between the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It seems impossible that no other judge from the Court of Appeal was good enough to fill in the vacancy felt. Of course we don’t have the names of the other candidates, but I am sure all of them would be able to do an excellent job had they been chosen to become Master of the Rolls. No doubt though Dyson will be a very good Master of the Rolls. I also have the same problem regarding the replacement of Lord Phillips by Lord Neuberger. Surely Lady Hale or Lord Mance would make good presidents so why choose someone who hasn’t been a Supreme Court justice and presumably doesn’t know much about the inner workings of the court? Neuberger left to become Master of the Rolls because he thought (as he reportedly has claimed) that the creation of the Supreme Court was a decision taken “during a glass of brandy”! What changed during these last two years and he decided that now it would be good to join the Supreme court bench again? Why was he chosen over Hale and Mance? It would really be interesting to know how these decisions are taken and why the lucky applicant is chosen over the others. Reply Link Radar 31 August 2012 at 15:51 Good point Angie but can I remind you that these posts are about hoovers and other domestic appliances. Thank you. Reply Link Anonymous 31 August 2012 at 16:10 I don’t think Dyson is the man for the job. There is a good chance he will make a right miele of it. Reply Link Muhammad Haque 2 October 2012 at 18:03 If Neuberger DID INDEED TELL THE TRUTH about the role of a glass of brandy in the creation of the Supreme court then that must be celebrated as the moment that finally came to be noted as confirming the truth about English law! Writing this comment on the Tuesday when most Fleet Street titles are certainly very downbeat about Ed Miliband as a future leader of the Country, it is a most sobering season for the sinking Society. So surel is the sinking trend that the Daily Mail has now run as many as three big feature pieces on aspects of the Uncaring Britain. The allegedly drunken origins of the Supreme Court’s creation merely confirm the fact that in all spheres of Society, universal ethical and moral standards are either getting very thin or are not even traceable any more. If Ed Miliband sinks as the Blaired Party leader then that will not constitute either a shocking thing nor will that mark a real difference in the political fortunes of the party whose banner this Miliband flaunts. Most people in society are held to ransom buy corrupt self seeking professionals poising as officers and gentle people male and female who are doing a good job. Most ordinary people have lost all confidence in post holders everywhere. The view that the judiciary is nakedly self-serving and callously placed and prompted shows that the late Professor Griffith of the London School of Economics was absolutely right in his very well known skepticism about the parasites in the Judiciary. Question is who will create a just [sic] environment in the various installations that are kept in place under guises of justice! 1804 Hrs Tuesday 02 Oct 2012 Reply Link Anonymous 12 November 2013 at 21:37 Thanks Muhammad. But look on the bright side, you can always Shake-n-Vac and put the freshness back into our judiciary. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.