Key point, for law students: how the political mood music affects the application of the law. If the mood music is unfavourable that helps your prospects of losing and if it is favourable it helps your prospects of winning. theferret.scot/trans-men-and-…
The principle extends beyond trans issues (England, hostile; Scotland, supportive). During the 'Brexit years' we brought a whole bunch of cases that we won in Edinburgh but we would have lost in London.
All sorts of interesting applications given that the Government can often be sued throughout the UK and English courts are becoming more hostile to challenges to the Executive.
We are working on a huge challenge to tech company abuses that we will bring in the UK and EU and are scoping out which jurisdiction in the EU - but also which in the UK.
Anyway, for my trans friends, the takeaway is, support all crowdfunders brought by transphobes in Scotland because they are likely to lose and establish helpful principles with read across to England.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What Boris Johnson's premiership has shown is how those who rule us - VIP Tory donors, politicians, newspaper proprietors, and the rest of the entitled Establishment - hate being held to the same rules as normal people.
And if you seek to disrupt their ugly status quo they really, really don't like it. Several days after, yes, that Boxing Day I was messaged by a sympathetic Tory insider thus:
This was after I had been monstered for killing a single fox which was caught in netting attacking my chickens on the front page of the Mail. Yes, the Mail whose proprietor's wife boasts in the society pages about her love of hunting - the routine killing animals for fun.
So frustrating to have to read perhaps the leading Anglophone intellectual refracted through such such a thick lens.
No doubt the Guardian had its reasons.
Inadvertently revealing of how reduced some have become, that they could consider taking a mind as majestic as Atwood's and try to fix it into a box of their making. Doesn't she deserve better?
Hancock, a man three times found to have broken the law, including yesterday is on his high horse. Tell your publican. Or the taxpayers who'll pay for your illegal VIP lane. Or the woman you had an affair with in lock down. Or the ethnic minorities or disabled people you ignored.
The sheer front of these sleazy little men. They really do think they are too good for the law. They have no care for how they betray those who work hard and pay taxes to fund the public purse which they use as an illegal treasury for their VIP associates.
Number of times Matt Hancock has broken the law: three (so far).
Number of times I or Good Law Project have broken the law: zero.
Second point, there was no real difference between the interests of Runnymede and ourselves in the litigation. We both sought the same remedy and for the same reason. Moreover, we indemnified Runnymede against all costs liabilities (as we always do with co-claimants).
When you ask 'could someone else bring this claim' remember that Runnymede was referred to the Charity Commission for bringing it. Civil society is frightened to litigate even alongside us - Runnymede's experience suggests justifiably - and few or none will litigate alone.
And that's even before we get to financial support, litigation expertise, comms support and regulatory support putative partners rely on us for. In theory there may be better litigants. In practice if you want to uphold the rule of law in these times there isn't much else.
Perhaps you're cool with that. Perhaps you don't care if the Government's persistent illegality is challenged. But if you are living in the real world, rather than a law library, you have to take the practice of this litigation seriously.
Lots of people are asking what the consequences are of the High Court's holding. It's a good question. THREAD.
Our constitution rests on the foundation that our political class will self-regulate. Peter Hennessy - the constitutional scholar - described this as the 'good chap' theory of the constitution (I've always read the phrase as tongue in cheek although it does sound off these days).
Part of that foundation is that politicians will care - or be caused by those around them to care - when they break the law. This is captured in the Ministerial Code which says that Ministers (including the PM) are expected to adhere to the law.