Adam Tucker

If you don't say the opening "hello" in its secret 0.1s window which you can't actually detect, the person you called then says "hello? hello? hello? hello? hello? hello? hello? hello? hello? hello? hello? hello?" and during that outburst it's "interrupting them" to say anything. even "hello"

We can hear Oasis in the garden.

Heaton Park is 10 miles away.

I was really struck on my recent visit to Paris by the extent to which France is taking these kind of things (...gestures broadly) very seriously. And that part of that is a widespread sense that Brexit and post-Brexit UK is a cautionary tale, a source of example of things to avoid.

Here I argue the Home Secretary's case that Palestine Action is concerned in terrorism is lacking in evidence, and proscribing the group is disproportionate. It will criminalise a significant proportion of civil society and be counterproductive for maintaining safety.

Come and spend some time with us!
Liverpool is a great city, and I think previous visitors will also vouch that it's a good place to come and talk about public law. (other disciplines are welcome too etc etc)

I was just going to send you this! But (obviously) you are on it already.

1+2: unis should really be more tolerant of protest than the law requires them to be, but this firm is promoting (and universities are receptive to) a strategy of being even less tolerant than the law requires.

Authoritarian legal advice is not the way to define "the future for universities"

2. In any event, the strategy this firm is selling - indeed actively promoting - permits/encourages unis to go further than ordinary protest law would require. The law generally requires universities to tolerate (some) protests without permission, the strategy is to shift the boundary to permission

The issue:

1. Maybe some bodies should be sticklers for their anti-protest rights - but not unis. It's incompatible with the mission of universities to aggressively police protest on campus. So even if the advice is legally sound, soliciting, hiding behind, and spreading it is bad practice.

This is true. I'd add:

11. This isn't something a government is ever likely to pursue unilaterally. The most realistic way to get this reform on the statute book is for the Lords to amend it into a government proposal which - inevitably - lacks it. And (Meg's number 4) that means this one.

This looks right up Emma Waring's street.

(I don't think Emma is on here. Can someone bring it to her attention so my pun isn't totally wasted?)

There's one in Coughlan.

The answer endorsed by the electorate was:

"by setting out a new memorandum of understanding outlining how the nations will work together for the common good"

Yes please.

It won’t be immediate, but I guarantee that in 5-10 years both reputation and market success will be built on the capacity of a university to stand over its claim that student education and assessment have not been compromised by AI.

Devolution, National Pluralism and the Role of the UK Supreme Court Abstract. This article concerns the role of the UK Supreme Court in the devolution settlement. It starts by describing the approach adopted by the Supreme

Superb article here on devolution in the UK Supreme Court, calling for an interpretive approach which recognises the accommodation of national pluralism as devolution’s central purpose: academic.oup.com/ojls/advance...

I shall be guest editor of Public Law’s Special Analysis section next spring: “The Public Order Act 1986 at Forty”

Really looking forward to curating pieces by:
@crwerren.bsky.social on policing public order
@deanknight.bsky.social on NZ recent proposals
@katrinanavickas.bsky.social looking at

We have doctoral funding (via teaching fellowships) advertised at the moment:

www.liverpool.ac.uk/courses/grad...

This is genuinely a great place to do public law. If you have a proposal in mind, or already up your sleeve, do get in touch. Informal enquiries are very welcome.

👀"A number" of jobs being advertised at Nottingham!

The first page of the article ‘Putting the Brakes on Infrastructure? Judicial Review Challenges to HS2 and the Critique of ‘Litigant Power’, published in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies

1/3 What can we learn from HS2 about the role of judicial review in delivering infrastructure projects? I have a new *open access* article in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies looking at the many JRs of HS2: doi.org/10.1093/ojls.... In it, I suggest the dominant political critique of JR may be

Probably right - but why go to Albania, and announce a thing for which Albania would be an obvious contender location, inevitably leading to people asking (they are right there!) "Oh, is it you Albania?", knowing they will say "No, it's not Albania"

It just piles stupid optics on a stupid proposal

I’ve been doing research on declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998, where the courts find legislation incompatible with human rights law. I analysed every declaration issued by the courts and have some interesting findings to share

The author holding a copy of the book

Are the EU free movement rules wildly out of step with the new realities of work? My new book, the MARKET CITIZENSHIP ILLUSION answers this by looking at the law in action – and it is available now to *everyone for free*! www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?do...
🧵on key arguments... (1/10)

An important legal ruling finding against the UK Government's protest laws- the Court of Appeal has dismissed the UK Government's appeal of the Divisional Court's finding that recent protest regulations went beyond the scope of the Government's legal powers. 1/2

Well, that's a silver lining I guess. Maybe that was the intention all along 😉. But the change of government, should really have been a good moment to pull the plug on the previous lot's obvious authoritarian over-reach.

(I have more sympathy with their pursuit of the consultation bit)

The government should not have pursued this appeal (the ultra vires part, that is) and this outcome is quite right.

(for those skim reading... don't panic, I think the subheading at [57] is a typo)

The Court of Appeal on thee Public Order
Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023: www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/wp-content/u... Appeal dismissed:

Also (as I found out in Paris the other week) Brexit has become the internationally recognised yardstick of how not to do a referendum. It's not even contentious: the talking point was what not to do (and those others are taking the pathologies more seriously than we have, so far at least)

WTAF?

None of these would be a legitimate target of sanctions.

The UK government should not cooperate.

And it should also be preparing to take measures itself to protect their finances (even if not publicly at this stage), not just "advising" them to do so.