Fun fact: between the two of us, @knightinawig and I have now won the Public Law Junior of the Year twice.
Don't miss this fascinating exploration of an under-analysed area of law, with pearls of wisdom galore from one who knows whereof he speaks (I'm also in it).
Sorry, people may not want to hear it, but it's just a fact. When Keir Starmer calculated it was in his political interests, he sided with the Jewish community, and sided with Israel. Then when he calculated it was no longer in his political interests, he turned his back.
@BarbaraRich_law@jaimerh354 "25. ... Nor, at any rate ordinarily, could an objection be soundly based on the judge's social or educational or service or employment background or history... or previous political associations; or membership of social or sporting or charitable bodies" https://t.co/tCrl07BZsT
@jamiesusskind "Unless we receive undertakings from you in relation to the treats specified above by 4pm on 1 November 2024, we are instructed to issue tricks without further recourse to yourselves."
@MWHoyle19 @FaiselSadiq @SBarrettBar To clarify what part of the Act the Schedule belongs to. So, if section X (in Part Y) refers to Schedule Z, then any reference to Part Y will cover both section X and Schedule Z.
But either way, nothing you have said makes either of Barrett's propositions remotely correct.
@MWHoyle19 @FaiselSadiq @SBarrettBar It is not right in any sense whatsoever. Schedules are part of the Act. See Bennion 2.7 and 16.9, which both cite AG v Lamplaugh.
https://t.co/oEqG7pPfGC
@AdamWagner1 “A Schedule in an Act is a mere question of drafting, a question of words. The Schedule is as much a part of the statute, and is as much an enactment, as any other part”.
AG v Lamplaugh 1878 3 Ex. D 214 (CA)
My son's about to turn 5, so I tried to set up a dad joke about his forehead turning into a fivehead.
I tapped him on the forehead and asked, "What's this?" but he replied, "My prefrontal cortex" 😩
@FaiselSadiq @MhairiKC@SBarrettBar I disagree. He has several platforms on television, radio, press and online. On X, he actively avoids criticism and correction by blocking and hiding replies. He is misleading people (not all "crazies") - I'm not sure what the best response is but I'm sure it's not ignoring him.
Pleased to report that people are now excusing themselves from conversations by saying they're "just going to go check out GB News". I hope this catches on.