You may have noticed I have been quiet on the current conflict. That is deliberate - what is happening in Israel-Palestine is very personal for me for various reasons. The issue is hugely important - from a human rights perspective - but not one which I am a particular expert on
and I feel that others on this platform are better placed to comment than I am. I have, as some will know, experienced some difficult and scary situations over the past few years relating to antisemitism and other abuse and I have become a bit more circumspect about what I...
... tweet about, and that includes sometimes keeping my virtual mouth shut even when it may seem odd to say nothing (such as yesterday when a car was driving down Finchley Road spouting threats to Jews). Ultimately, I generally enjoy Twitter and particularly enjoy
tweeting about and discussing interesting legal issues but I have come to realise that getting involved in some issues takes such a toll emotionally (on me and my family) that it is better to stay away, and that my tweeting is at my discretion not anybody else's!
What I tweet is not *necessarily* an indication of what I care about personally - I decide what I have the emotional energy to get involved in. Emotional energy is a finite resource and I need to spend it wisely to get through my day which often includes other stressful stuff.
Re the original BHRC statement, I have discussed this privately with them and I am pleased that the updated statement has been released. I am distressed that members of BHRC, who I know and respect, particularly @WomaninHavana have received abuse.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have no idea if they are substantially different or not - the explanatory note is extremely sparse!
I'm not going to be able to spend the next hour reading the 91 pages for you I'm afraid!
Interestingly, there has been no amendment yet to the Steps regulations to put the country into Step 3 from Monday, or to get rid of the "reasonable excuse" requirement for foreign travel. This is either coming shortly or the govt is going to delay it.
I was involved in a campaign at my university to stop David Irving coming to speak, which was successful. It would have been utterly ridiculous (indeed, grotesque) he had been compensated for being disinvited.
I think there are complex issues around freedom of speech and speech which is not illegal, but I am confident those issues are better dealt with on the ground then by some government quango which has been expressly set up to protect particular political viewpoints
The particular example of David Irving is instructive. It was not clear cut that he would be disinvited (indeed, he was reinvited a 2 years later), but there was a thoughtful campaign and debate. There was no attempt to involve law which is not always the sharpest tool in the box
The Prime Minister has confirmed that "Step 3" restrictions will come into force, as expected, from Monday 17 May. Short summary in the thread below (which also explains the context).
What you won't find in the regulations is the "you can now hug" rule - that's because the recommendation against hugging has been part of social distancing guidance, not law.
But we are now all so hopelessly confused about the difference that I forgive you
What is really important is that I can from Monday update my thread on the indoor 'sex ban' - a real ban, illegal - for people who don't live together and aren't in a linked household, in place in some parts of the UK for well over a year!
I deal with contempt of court cases fairly regularly (as it happens in the environmental protest context) and there are strong appeal rights from the High Court - you don't need permission and legal aid generally available. Supreme Court (v unusual procedure) has no clear...
... right of appeal. I am being a bit lazy by not looking up whether in certain circumstance lack of appeal right might be a breach of Article 6 ECHR (right to fair trial), I do recall reading somewhere there is no right of appeal in Art 6, but contempt interesting jurisdiction