A wee tip for Boris Johnson. Starmer is cross-examining you. If he puts a statistic to you he will not be pulling it out of the air. It will be on a piece of paper in front of him and it will be your statistic.
The trouble with having barristers wear face coverings in court is that 400 years from now we’ll still be wearing an ornate silken chinstrap fastened at the ears with only a vague recollection why we do it whilst insisting that it’s essential to the dignity of the profession.
Unless I’m missing something, the position of both candidates is that after 12 years of their party being in power the country is pretty much on its knees and the only thing that can save it is to keep doing the same things only harder.
Listening to Sir James Timpson's interview, it is clear that he would like to see a sea-change in sentencing policy. If the new PM supports such a change, I think it would have very significant ramifications for our political culture. Let me explain. /1
I must be misunderstanding this. Having been shamed out of holding a big wedding party at Chequers for all his friends, he’s now holding a big farewell party at Chequers for all his friends?
For non-lawyers wondering where today’s news falls on the metaphorical Richter scale, it’s like hearing your dad announcing he’s divorcing your mum ... during his speech at your wedding.
If you’ve reached a point where you are denouncing the City and the IMF as left wing it may be worth just taking a breath and asking yourself how right wing you have become.
So Johnson has:
1. Resigned over the proposed WA
2. "Re-negotiated" it
3. Run around saying what a triumph it was
4. Decided that his renegotiation had resulted in a worse deal, and
5. Decided to overturn it in the midst of negotiations in which we're asking the EU to trust us.
The police advice seems to be based on the idea that a woman can tell a policeman is a rapist and murderer at first sight whereas no amount of working closely alongside him will let his colleagues spot it.
I understand the rule that you should not call someone a liar in the House of Commons, but if you are compelled to say that you believe someone has "inadvertently misled" the House when you believe they have done it deliberately, do the rules compel you to mislead the House?
Tory offer to young people:
1. We’ll take away your smartphones;
2. Compulsory maths exams until 18; and
3. “Compulsory voluntary” service thereafter.
They just need:
4. You’re not going out looking like that; and
5. Don’t use that tone of voice with me.
For me the problem is the willingness of Govt figures to sew confusion about their own rules and guidance to provide him with cover. Those rules are supposed to be keeping us safe and gambling with our safety to avoid an apology is, to me, absolutely unforgiveable. /end
When a Govt denigrates the legal profession, the question you should ask is not why it is trying to hurt lawyers’ feelings but rather what is it that the Govt wants to do that they are worried lawyers stand in the way of?
An MP complains that he was threatened that, unless he voted the right way, funding for a school in his constituency would be withdrawn and Twitter promptly fills with MPs saying that’s normal. Not one of them explains why it’s acceptable to hold kids’ futures to ransom.
You're probably following the thread in which Cummings unwisely patronises people, but having waded through it what strikes me is:
1. He cannot see that the GFA and the border might be important to others, because it is not important to him; /1
That fact that there are men who think women should be allocated against their will to men for the latter’s sexual gratification strongly suggests to me that the problem is not too much feminism.
Cut through. Phoned my mum tonight. To say she has no interest in politics is an understatement. She lives on the deep Tory blue Essex coast. I asked her how Boris was going down amongst her friends. Her response:
1. He only cares about himself. /1
Attorney General has replied to my letter. I sought assurances she would uphold the rule of law, in the light of her tweeting in favour of accepting Cummings' account. She gives no assurance. Instead she gives a disingenuous account of her earlier tweet.
Dear British Press please don't crush her: either with relentless demands for success or with scoop-chasing prurience. Please just let her live her life.
Anyone who gets arrested having attacked or tried to attack a lawyer will themselves be represented at trial by lawyers who are committed to the principle that *everyone* should be entitled to representation. Access to justice is a fundamental principle not a “lefty” indulgence.
What if the EU’s stubborn refusal to accept that they need us more than we need them is because they have performed their own economic and political analyses and they have not been relying on articles in the Daily Mail written by ERG MPs?
The second thing is his line about "not looking back". That is a weak argument for a couple of reasons. First to insist you cannot undo a mistake is not wisdom, it's stupid. It's like taking a wrong turn on the way home and deciding to make living somewhere else work. /9
It was hoped that "Remainers" would lose heart and find a way to see Brexit as a success. But they conspicuously haven't. Scepticism is stronger. Starmer says he'll make it work because it has to work for his kids and ours. But that's just "believe harder" with a red rosette /5
Why the conspiracy theories about the supposedly “convenient” timing of the birth of the PM’s child? They could be born on absolutely any day of the year and be sure to coincide with a scandal.
This is where years of stoking division and mainstreaming far right tropes about foreigners, metropolitan elites and pride in empire gets you: beered-up facists coming to London for a thug’s day out, attacking people in parks and convinced you’ve got their back.
Second, Brexit is the very epitome of looking back. It is shot through with confected nostalgia for a Britain that never existed. It is about ignoring economic and geopolitical realities in favour of misty, exceptionalist histories. /10
Braverman has scrapped diversity training in her department. That's going to make running a s. 109(4) defence very interesting if anyone brings discrimination proceedings.
The Brexit referendum vote was honoured. Those wanting the hardest form of Brexit got what they wanted with little debate and now control Govt. They’ve had a proper opportunity to make it work. Now we must free to ask ourselves bluntly if we’d rather have a different way forward.
2. That thing he said about the other man … Starmer, was terrible. He just said the worst thing he could think of and people got angry.
3. He’s like Trump.
3 weeks ago I would not have put money on my Mum being able to name the LotO. /end
10:00 Grayling launches campaign to save Hedgehogs
10:02 Hedgehogs extinct
10:05 Hedgerows vanish
10:11 All arable land now wasteland
10:15 Attack fleet of hedgehog progenitor race appears in orbit answering distress signal
11:00 Grayling sent to explain
11:12 Mankind enslaved
Sunak: Hear me out; compulsory national service!
Young people: WTF?
Sunak: Well, not actually compulsory.
Old people; WTF?
Sunak: Well, maybe sort of compulsory, like you can't get a public sector job unless you've done it.
Young and Old people: WTF?
One thing lockdown hs reminded me of is the extent to which work gets in the way of spending time with my kids. These last few days it's been a privilege to be able to spend time watching them gaze at their phones and to be able interact with them by approving App store purchases
It is still somehow breathtaking that a BBC report on the end of freedom of movement can largely ignore the fact that WE'VE LOST *OUR* FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT. We've all become less free.
D: We asked him to say, yes or no, whether he thinks all feminists are bigots?
Me: What?!
D: He started by saying “well …” so we booed him
Me: …
D: So we asked again and he said “moving on …” so we booed him.
We asked for a definition of misogyny and booed his answer.
How does backing a hard Brexit heal the division? There is literally nothing on offer to those who backed Remain. This is just as doomed a strategy for him as it has been Johnson because it is not materially different. /4
The British love to boast about “British Justice”. I grew up hearing that our courts were the best in the world and our criminal courts were a source of particular pride. At some point governments decided that as long as you kept boasting, reality need not keep up. /1
You can’t say Johnson misled Parliament until Sue Gray reports; now until the Police report; now until Sue Gray reports; now until the Privileges Committee reports … now the Committee should not investigate.
It’s not exactly subtle is it?
I did a case for a record company. Once it was over they asked me what music I liked. I said the Pixies. They said to expect something in the post. They sent me an Elton John compilation and a Shania Twain album. No trolling I’ve had on Twitter has ever come close to that.
As I understand it, Lord Frost has been called in to overhaul the deal that his predecessor, Lord Frost, negotiated. Rather than adopt the blustering threats his predecessor demonstrated were ineffective he will instead adopt a new strategy of using blustering threats.
#Brexit
According to people terrified that Bill Gates is trying to implant a chip in them with a vaccine and that a new world order run by deep state paedophiles is busy taking over the earth, my mask-wearing means *I'm* succumbing to irrational fears.
Do female A level students still have to leap into the air for press photos this year or will papers just publish their schools’ estimates of how high they would have jumped?
Daughter: A Conservative MP came to our politics class.
Me: Who?
D: Dominic Grant.
Me: Who?
D: He’s the Esher MP.
Me: Dominic Raab?! The Lord Chancellor?
D: Yes that’s him /1
Why did we march in support of a people’s vote instead of a “softer” Brexit? We didn’t. We marched for a vote on whatever deal was negotiated with remain as an alternative. We wanted a vote precisely because we didn’t trust the Govt to get a good deal. Guess what happened.
“Brexit was a mistake which is causing harm but we shouldn’t do anything to reverse it” is a bizarre way of thinking. It’s like mishandling a knife and then resolving to let yourself bleed to death.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'd personally be delighted if the PM could use the time and focused energy he is presently devoting to forcing Cummings under the bus to get Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe freed.
Apparently the ECHR was needed 70 years ago to deal with the consequences of populist leaders, drunk on national exceptionalism, riding the "will of the people" off in a determination to make their countries "great" again, but things are different now.
Criticise Brexit and you can experience the ironic wonder of being told to “move on” by people who can’t get past the fact we no longer have an empire.
25 years ago today, P and I got married in Edinburgh. In my speech at the reception I said that being with her felt like the first day of school summer holidays - the unrestrained joy of charging onto the beach with a season of possibilities laid out before us. It is still a joy.
I see Dan Hannan has been rewarded for being wrong about everything by being given the chance to try to be wrong about everything in a legislative capacity.
Genuinely surprised how many people seem more agitated at the thought of someone harming a statue than someone to whom a society has entrusted its safety murdering a person on the street.
Criminal lawyers are the best of us. They’ve been keeping the Criminal Justice system working by force of will and by doing crushing quantities of work unpaid as fees have dwindled, backlogs have grown and colleagues have been driven out. Having their back is the least we can do.
Faced with a judicial decision they dislike, a democratic government will try to change the law; an autocratic government will try to change the judge.
Reconciliation can't work without compromise and no amount of demanding that people commit unhesitatingly to the very thing they've determinedly opposed will result in unity. /6
When a Govt starts draping itself in its country’s flag it may be because it just love that flag *so* much it can’t help itself. Or it may be that it wants to be able to suggest that criticising them is disloyalty; it’s unpatriotic to hold them to account.
The idea of us being a “bridge” between the US and the EU makes no sense. We have no seat at the EU’s table. We will not be privy to their discussions. We have no say in their policy and less leverage than the US itself.
I marvel at what an engine of misery Brexit has proven to be. It has:
- Threatened the Union;
- Polarised the country;
- Broken friendships and families;
- Ignited and then fed a culture war;
- Soured relationships with our allies and neighbours; /1
War story challenge: Back when I was a baby barrister a criminal practitioner told me a client who had been caught in a moment of intimacy with a sheep claimed to have stopped for a wee and that the sheep had “backed onto [him]”. What’s the least credible defence you’ve heard?
Take a break from loudly insisting it’s not all men and you’ll hear the men amongst us who insist that the violence is all the fault of all women. Instead of badgering women on Twitter to acknowledge you’re not a murderer, let’s focus on draining the violence from masculinity.
It’s a slippery slope. Once we stop publicly honouring people who made great personal fortunes out of buying and selling people as if they were mere property where will it end?
How quickly we went from being told that the British could withstand any Brexit hardship because our forbears survived the Blitz to punching each other over toilet rolls.
He can't say both that his wife had no cough or fever and thus, implicitly, that he couldn't know she had Covid and say, as he did, that he assumed they all had it. One or the other position but not both.
I voted for this thing because I wanted it to happen. You told me it would be a disaster. I told you that you were a traitor and you just needed to cheer up. Now it's happening and it looks a bit "disastery". I want you to know, I blame you.
I’m guessing today will be the day when the cheerless disintegration of political behavioural standards reaches the point that circulating defamatory material created by the far right is considered not to amount to a resignation issue.
Each of us has a belief they cling to despite all evidence to the contrary. For me it is the belief that if you make an argument clearly and support it with evidence people can be persuaded to change their minds. What’s yours?
We've left the EU so this is an academic question, but why is it assumed that however much unlawfulness and untruthfulness was involved in the Leave campaign it cannot have affected the outcome? It was a narrow vote and Brexit has long consistently polled as a mistake
I know people are dunking on Dido Harding but imagine how talented she must be to have got two high profile jobs in what must have been absurdly competive fields carefully considered as part of rigorous recruitment exercises.
One for the libel readers. If I referred to a politician in a piece I'm writing as a "malign, Edwardian C3P0" would it be clear who I was referring to?
It feels odd having to say so, but the government cannot order anyone back to work. Nor can employers be ordered to instruct employees to return. If an employer doesn’t think it is safe they are not obliged to resume operations, they remain subject to their legal duties.
The MoU with Rwanda is now available. Can I just check I understand what happens to someone who has a valid asylum claim? It seems that they are removed to Rwanda where there claim is considered. If they are found to be a *refugee* they are expected to stay in Rwanda (Para 10) /1
If anything it's worse for Starmer than it is for the Tories. The de-regulationists don't care if we're divided or not. For them the Brexit opportunities are the de-regulation they wanted from the outset and which the very harms Brexit has caused are now being used to justify /7
As good an example as any of how judicial review can be used to hold government to account with an urgency and specificity that voting at general elections cannot achieve. Bear that in mind as the Govt looks to "reform" JR. A chance to help fund the litigation is downthread.
Coming up: the most extraordinary thread I’ve ever written. On how we blew over £150m and Andrew Mills (a Government adviser) seems to have made a fortune.
But let’s start with introductions. THREAD /1
I’m at
@chelseafc
buying a kit for a 10 yo girl. When I get to printing, I’m asked if I want a Premier League patch. I say she’d rather have the Women’s super league. They say I’m not allowed that. I ask why and the rabbit hole opens /1
I see that the people who entirely understood that the PM couldn’t manage on his salary and had to get someone else to pay for his wallpaper are attacking an old lady for complaining she’s too poor to heat her home.
M'colleagues. I'm trying to put together a helpful "judge translation" list for those starting their second six. Suggestions/corrections welcome (or a pointer to
@Wigapedia
's TL if he's already done this).
It will require Labour to put faith in us, the voters, to look beyond our instincts and the comforting self-empowerment of tough-talking and instead focus on what does and does not, in reality, work. I'd love to think we deserve that faith /end