Carl Gardner

I don’t think it’s “versus”. Naturally disappointed to lose a match and not win a series, while also feeling it was a fair and right result overall. Most important is how good it all was.

Does it present any new reasons for doubting the conviction, beyond those already raised by Dr Shoo Lee’s panel?

It will take years and many changes in the UK before most member states would welcome a UK application. Brexitism is not dead in the UK, with Farage doing well in polls and the opposition talking about leaving the ECHR. In that context a government "rejoin" policy would be utterly pointless.

You’re right that this place isn’t perfect either. I’m here, so obviously I think it’s okay overall, but I think those who criticise it for having its own bias have a point.

A mix of reasons I think. Some people will have given up social media or spend more time on slightly different sites like Reddit rather than trying to replicate Twitter elsewhere.

I think he’s wrong repeatedly throughout that article, and just determined to see everything as the West’s fault.

Parliament and the Rule of Law - David Anderson QC Lawyer London UK What does the UK Parliament mean when it refers to the Rule of Law - and what has the Rule of Law to teach Parliament?

The text of my keynote address to the 2025 ALBA Conference last month is now on my website: www.daqc.co.uk/2025/08/03/p....

There’s so, so much on YouTube. I also like Adriene but I think yoginimelbourne may be a bit better in terms of getting me to do interesting different stretches that seem to have a bigger effect on my body.

Should Britain remain a member of the ECHR?

Yes 58%
No 29%

Much party/media pressure on the leader of the Opposition to shift to the side with half of the support! Often predicated on the mistaken media/political assumption that is the popular side of the argument

(Sunday Times)

Underwhelmed by The Master and Margarita. The craziness works for 100 pages, but then loses direction and momentum. The cat’s fun at times. Pilate’s by far the best thing in it. The ending is mostly magic sentimentalism. Overall, too chaotic.

Mambo No 5 runs it pretty close.

Maybe there was an element of bluff, though! I'm not the best on anything like trusts or lending but I imagine "the markets" will feel mostly relieved?

Unless it's a double bluff, doesn't the timing of this judgment tell us it's likely to mean big liabilities for financial firms?

I actually do in a way miss Greenall's Local Bitter, because it was the first pint I ever drank in a pub.

PLP logo and depiction of Justice. Text says: "We're hiring! Join our team as PLP's new Lawyer (Immigration and Asylum Accredited). Closing date: 3 August 2025 at 11:59pm."

CLOSES THIS SUNDAY ⬇️

Are you a capable, collaborative and motivated solicitor with experience in immigration and asylum?

Do you want to work at the cutting edge of public law in the UK?

Join our award-winning casework team by applying to be our new Lawyer:

publiclawproject.org.uk/latest/job/j...

I think their problem is partly about being stuck in a certain mood, or tone. They now often sound angry. Too resentful and surly to be a traditional authority figure like an old-fashioned judge or head teacher, which is maybe how Tory frontbenchers used to sound.

Why two recent judgments of Lord Leggatt matter A Supreme Court judge sets out how both the criminal appeals system and the Supreme Court itself is failing

NEW

Why two recent judgments of Lord Leggatt matter

A UK Supreme Court judge sets out how both the criminal appeals system and the Supreme Court itself are failing

My latest Weekly Constitutional post at @prospectmagazine.co.uk

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...

As for craft beer, I think a bit of caution is wise. While they're certainly better than keg John Smith's, Fosters, Carling etc., lots of pubs now just have say Neck Oil and maybe Camden Hells, which isn't *that* big a leap for humanity.

I had to reject a pint about 3 years ago, which make me realise I hadn't done it for years - and I've not had to do it since. Bad pints were a fairly regular occurrence once, maybe one in, I dunno, 50 pints? It very rarely happens now.

I think this is generally right about beer, and I think the hipster craft beer movement has made a positive contribution, but I think that contribution can be overstated and that other factors have contributed too. I think real ale has become more diverse and innovative, and generally better kept.

Yes, it's Brexit that did this to them. But in particular it was their decisions that the result meant they all had to be Brexiters, and hard Brexiters. Had they held on to the idea that backbenchers at least could differ about Brexit and its form, they'd be in much better shape now.

The change of question here seems to me potentially to have made a difference. But anyway, I reckon this week's 64% and 69% make reasonable sense together. Two thirds of people supporting them might well doubt the new rules will have much effect, but still think they're worth trying.

Intriguing: investigatorypowerstribunal.org.uk/judgement/co...

No, Recognizing Palestine Would Not Be Contrary to International Law A group of British peers, among them several distinguished lawyers, yesterday sent a letter to the Attorney-General, Lord Hermer, asking him to advise the UK Government that its announced forthcoming ...

On why that Times letter by members of the Great and the Good (including a former UKSC justice) claiming the UK recognising Palestine would be "unlawful" is obviously wrong.

h/t @martinned.bsky.social

www.ejiltalk.org/no-recognizi...

To be clear, I don't think such an argument can succeed in this particular case, but I think it might be capable of succeeding in some other JR case one day.

I don't think any answer to that question makes any difference as a matter of domestic law. I think the argument still is that there can be no prerogative power to do anything internationally that is based on, relies on or reflects a non-tenable view of international law.

Miller 1 for example shows us that a JR argument can succeed on the basis that there's no prerogative power to do something on the international plane, even though it involves no breach of international law.

I agree. I don't think the prerogative-based domestic law argument I've outlined quite depends on saying there's "a breach" of international law. I still don't think it can succeed, but I think there is arguably a difference.

I think the plausible hook for JR is to argue that it's not a tenable view in international law that Palestine is a state, therefore there's no prerogative power for UK ministers to recognise it. I don't think it succeeds, but I can imagine an argument like that being run.

This might be a good time for critics of Lord Hermer to say whether they think it'd be right for him to intervene to stop the government doing something, because some KCs say it's against international law.