I note that Robert Jenrick is expanding his attack on the Attorney General Richard Hermer alleging he has acted on matters on which he has a conflict of interest.
There is, as matters stand, not a shred of evidence that this has happened.
As a barrister Hermer was under a duty to accept instructions in any matter within his competence. The fact that he may have acted in matters on which Jenrick or anyone,disapproves of the outcome is irrelevant. Jenrick, as a lawyer, ought to know that the rule of law depends on lawyers taking on cases, even for clients who may be unpopular or reviled.
Jenrick then seeks to link Hermer's work to advice he might have given the Government since becoming Attorney General on matters that might be related to the individuals he represented before he became AG. But I know from my time as Attorney General that there are robust systems in place to ensure this does not happen. If there is a potential conflict of interest, the matter can and will be transferred to another law officer and external advice can also be obtained if required.
Jenrick then demands to know if this has happened. In doing this he knows very well as a lawyer and past minister that the Attorney General would be in breach of his professional duty if he identified matters on which he or his office has advised. But that does not stop Jenrick from then alleging that the truth is being wrongly concealed and should be revealed, a position he never adopted when he was a minister.
It would be sensible for the Attorney General's office to explain the systems in place without compromising any individual advice that may have been given.
But what I find much more troubling about all this is what it tells us about Jenrick. As a Conservative I would expect him to be respectful of the role of the Law Officers in ensuring the Government gets professional and impartial legal advice. But he is quite happy to trash the system when he thinks it might score a cheap hit.
It is also linked to a narrative that the law and legal obligations on government should be ignored when inconvenient, an idea that would have appeared outrageous to previous generations in Conservatives such as Margaret Thatcher.
Jenrick is certainly making his mark in his promotion of a dystopian future for the Conservative Party.
.
And another one… this is beginning to look awfully coordinated…
Nothing to see here, just the National Medical Director of @NHSEngland using an inaccurate, one-sided & context-free Times piece to double down on the insinuation that the only issue with PAs in the NHS is ‘online toxicity’ from a small number of rogue doctors.
You must know, Prof Powis, how disingenuous & inflammatory the framing in your tweet is. Of course bullying in all its forms is wrong. But thousands of doctors, myself included, have politely & professionally expressed grave concerns about the way PAs are being deployed. Multiple large scale surveys of doctors back us up. We have spoken out without bullying, toxicity or inappropriateness. We have been ignored by @NHSEngland & @gmcuk over & over again.
You may believe you can smear, belittle & silence every one of us by these carefully coordinated NHS establishment/media attacks on doctors, but what you are doing is more fully exposing a clear agenda.
To repeat (again), our motivation is patient safety. You cannot safely substitute doctors with non-doctors lacking a national scope of practice in on-call doctors rotas, as GPs, in operating theatres, anywhere. You cannot permit patients to be misled into thinking they’ve seen a doctor when they haven’t. You cannot & will not gaslight our profession by dressing up a wilful refusal to listen to our concerns as a form of “kindness”.
And if the Leng Report is a whitewash? We will persist and persist and persist.
I’m astounded you choose, even now, not to listen to doctors speaking out in their thousands on this issue. It’s arrogant & disrespectful - the NHS at its myopic worst.
FYI, as many people have died of COVID in Los Angeles over the past two weeks as have died from the fires
We only consider one of those an emergency
Why?
@GwynneMP Andrew, please revisit eligibility for the Covid booster in 2025.
It’s completely irresponsible to be denying boosters to clinically vulnerable people (unless immunosuppressed) & most under 75s…
…not to mention health & care workers & pregnant women.
https://t.co/fKszNiGGMM
There are multiple reasons this is a bad idea
I'll go through each one by one for anyone who can be arsed to find out
The only people who won't be arsed are people who think this only for ideological, NOT rational reasons
1/🧵
This is fantastic! Last time I looked it was about 400 signatures. The @GCAUK might actually only go and do it! Keep signing everyone! Keep sharing! #LastChanceSaloon#PromoteLetters ✉️👉 https://t.co/fPJCEkrIlC
Back in 2010 (Eye 1276), we reported on the appalling child protection failures in Rotherham that allowed grooming gangs to thrive.
Many more articles in Rotten Boroughs over the years since have criticised and kept tabs on the senior council and police officers who had sought to minimise evidence of large-scale abuse.
Lawyers for Liz Truss have asked me to stop saying Liz Truss crashed the economy. I only said Liz Truss crashed the economy because Liz Truss did crash the economy. If she wanted me to not say Liz Truss crashed the economy, she shouldn’t have crashed the economy.
Please don’t RT
We could, and should, have avoided NHS being overwhelmed by:
ensuring earlier and wider vaccine uptake
More investment in ventilation & infection control
Quicker introduction of masks in hospitals
https://t.co/M9j2sWyHNh @BBCWalesNews@BBCRadioWales
Hi @NickFerrariLBC,
If you’re picking up on the story about vaccines on your show again this morning, PLEASE mention the restriction on eligibility for Covid vaccines in 2025.
It’s downright dangerous that even CV people will no longer be eligible (unless immunosuppressed)…
More details about the flawed ‘bespoke’ cost-effectiveness analysis which has led to this short-sighted & dangerous decision can be found in this thread ⬇️