I wonder how the hundred people who received the email reconciled their silence with public service?
I don't think one can talk of a conspiracy, exactly. But the reliability of the tacit understanding that politicians and, sad to say, civil servants will put self-interest before public interest is responsible for so much of what is wrong in England.
Imagine how much better a country we would be if politicians didn't know that they could break the law and feather their own nests with impunity?
Yes, eighteen months later someone leaked the email. But was it because they thought the contempt shown by the Prime Minister for the public and the law was wrong? Or were they settling some political score?
The Nolan principles are supposed to guide public service not describe a utopia.

If you want to share information with us you can do so securely here goodlawproject.org/got-a-tip-off/. We stand behind our whistle blowers by providing them with free independent legal advice and, if necessary, legal representation.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Jo Maugham

Jo Maugham Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JolyonMaugham

12 Jan
The High Court has found that the Government's VIP lane - that channelled riches to its friends, donors and associates - was illegal. glplive.org/vip-lane-12012…
As regards the products supplied by the parties, the Court made, amongst others, the following findings. Pestfix's aprons: Image
More of Pestfix's aprons (Mr Jordan is International Sourcing Lead, PPE within the DHSC: see paragraph 103). Image
Read 11 tweets
8 Jan
From Wes Streeting's refusal to pick a side I learned something quite important about his, and this Labour's, political philosophy: that however it styles itself, whatever language it speaks, it doesn't really have a thing it wants.
The effect of a philosophy that seeks to hold in balance conflicting forces, rather than choosing between them, is continuity and not change. In this sense, his, and this Labour's, philosophy is a conservative and not a dynamic one. I guess that's why Nick Robinson nodded along.
When asked about my ambition for Good Law Project I have quipped 'to diminish the speed at which the United Kingdom is declining?' His conservative Labour Party may be better for the nation than this radical Conservative Party but many of us want more for the country than that.
Read 5 tweets
6 Jan
The Guardian's brilliant investigations team has bottomed out the sleazy PPE Medpro deal. Well worth reading. theguardian.com/world/2022/jan…
There is one - for me - standout feature of the story and it is this: huge amounts of money were paid to those with political connections for help in winning contracts.
This is very far from the only such instance - similar points might be made about for example the £130 Pharmaceuticals Direct contracts (where we have a hearing in February) - and it raises this unanswerable question...
Read 6 tweets
6 Jan
Henceforth known as 'doing a Bethell'.
Perhaps it's obvious to others, but how does 'oh, it's on my other phone' explain how the Electoral Commission got the messages whilst Lord Geidt didn't?
Still, as we all know, Boris Johnson is truthful to a fault and this couldn't possibly be nonsense conjured from thin air.
Read 4 tweets
5 Jan
Next week we will publish advice from @RazaRazahusain and Eleanor Mitchell, instructed by @LeighDay_Law, on the removal of citizenship provision in the Nationality and Borders Bill.

In the meantime, I want to make some points about what that clause does. THREAD
The brilliant @WindrushLives account has tracked the extension over time of the power to remove citizenship but, as matters stand, the Home Secretary can remove citizenship if she is satisfied that doing so is "conducive to the public good". /1
That account has also explained how the power to remove citizenship can sometimes be exercised even if the consequence is that it will leave someone without citizenship of anywhere or "stateless". /2
Read 16 tweets
2 Jan
A really troubling read about clause 9 of the Nationality and Borders Bill which will enable Priti Patel to remove the citizenship of individuals - and them to be rendered stateless - without even being told.

By @ProfDPrabhat. theconversation.com/stripping-brit…
The power to remove citizenship without notice "affects minorities and those of migrant heritage much more than it does white British nationals born in Britain" and taking away notice requirements means "potential challenges in courts will be eliminated at source."
In case Raab's plans to ignore international human rights norms didn't quite signal how ugly an international outlier the UK is, Professor Prabhat notes that: "Currently, no other country can make its own citizens stateless by depriving them of citizenship without notice."
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!