This is *still* the headline on the @BBCNews app. It’s misleading & it matters.
The Court accepted Johnson’s stated commitment, through his lawyers, to comply with the law.
A technical dismissal, yes, but in substance & effect, it can hardly be described as a govt win.
The Court accepted Johnson’s stated commitment, through his lawyers, to comply with the law.
A technical dismissal, yes, but in substance & effect, it can hardly be described as a govt win.
For both headline writers and journalists reporting the position, the Court’s position is clearly stated in the following paragraphs. The govt has given unequivocal assurances that it intends to comply with the law & so it is *unnecessary* to order the govt to do so.
It is well worth heeding the sting in the tail as the Court recounts those assurances. The court emphasises the core principles of constitutional propriety and mutual trust - the Prime Minister/govt must not renege on their assurances.
It’s a warning shot. Make no mistake.
It’s a warning shot. Make no mistake.
The judgment is here.
Headlines matter as Brexit fatigue spreads.
People may just read a few words. It is critical those words properly describe the court ruling as No.10 unnamed sources keep spinning a different message.
scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-s…
Headlines matter as Brexit fatigue spreads.
People may just read a few words. It is critical those words properly describe the court ruling as No.10 unnamed sources keep spinning a different message.
scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-s…
ICYMI, an important piece by @jillongovt on the curse of anonymous briefings, a split Downing St message being enabled by “unnamed sources” who keep being reported by journalists.
No wonder people are confused. No wonder the govt can confuse people.
huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dominic-…
No wonder people are confused. No wonder the govt can confuse people.
huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dominic-…
