This is endorsing/condemning law, so is politics

Because I always check the law before I tweet, I've only just closed my tab on the law soup that is the Communications Act 2003

I look forward to returning to my home, the Finacial Services and Markets Act 2000 - much better law

This is endorsing/condemning law, so is politics

Because I always check the law before I tweet, I've only just closed my tab on the law soup that is the Communications Act 2003

I look forward to returning to my home, the Finacial Services and Markets Act 2000 - much better law

The Bar Council George Peretz KC 🇺🇦 The Bar Council should not be lobbying for political change

You are a regulator with compulsory membership and this is forced unionisation

Here the government lost, but this is part of the pursuit of legal clarity

We have a system where laws are tightly written (so you know what they mean) and they mean what they say

A system of flabby/vaguely written law with judges empowered to re-write them is not our way

Here the government lost, but this is part of the pursuit of legal clarity

We have a system where laws are tightly written (so you know what they mean) and they mean what they say

A system of flabby/vaguely written law with judges empowered to re-write them is not our way

Episode 1 of #SocialMobilityTalks available now.

In this episode Katharine Birbalsingh and Lee Elliot Major discuss how parents and families can support social mobility.

🔗Spotify open.spotify.com/episode/6gCcq8…

🔗YouTube youtu.be/V1RyFJhE6Rc

Nick Timothy In my view the Communications Act 2003 and the BBC Charter are examples of flabby drafting

So the duty of impartiality itself becomes confused

Once a rule becomes unclear, it will break down and people shift to values based systems as rules collapse

More innovation from our Supreme Court!

Have Law, will travel 😎

Now that politics has left my law library - perhaps I can write on Proprietary Estoppel

I try my best to inform the public about law

Lawyers pick.

I picked months ago.

A lawyer has to

Adam Wagner Either:

Cake is legal and curry is legal;
OR
Cake is illegal and curry is illegal

Pick

To be very clear to the public:

If curry is legal, cake is legal
If curry is illegal, cake is illegal

That is the Rule of Law - law must be consistent

My view is that both were always legal on the law as written (but government *also* benefits from a Crown Land Defence!)

A friend tells me I was mentioned in the Sunday Telegraph - which is an honour (happy to do law in any media)

It is not only the Crown Land defence, on a simple reading of the legal test, I do not consider a slice of cake illegal

Just as I predicted beer and curry was not