.. and proud
See this article. The use of "self-confessed" suggests this it is a bad thing. I don't think it is. I think the government with its rhetoric in the past few years has tried to make it out that it is newstatesman.com/ideas/intervie…
There are many great lawyers who are not in any shape or form "activists" and that's great - as I have said for many years there is no need to be a "lawyer in public" as some are, but I also think there is great value when lawyers engage with the public beyond their cases
There is also, as I'm sure we would also have to accept, some costs to lawyers engaging with the public! We can be as obnoxious and annoying as everyone else (even more so!). But overall it's good
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Because it's in the Conservative party Constitution which can't be changed in the next 24 hours and itself would need to be approved by the members? public.conservatives.com/organisation-d…
Extremely concerning to see that the illiberal anti-protest measures which were recently rejected by Parliament (as part of the Policing Bill) have been resurrected by the Home Secretary bbc.co.uk/news/uk-632726…
This is my thread on the measures were they were in the policing bill (though I think there are some new ones too)
What David doesn't mention (though he kindly mentions me) is that it was he who persuaded me at one of our much missed #LegalBlogging events to go onto Twitter in my own name. I was terrified of doing so because I was so junior a lawyer and didn't want to embarrass myself....
I was tweeting from the @ukhumanrightsb account - David (who I think had recently stopped tweeting as Jack of Kent) sold me on the virtues of being out there in your own name. He was absolutely right
Whether in the past 11 or so years I have ultimately embarrassed myself is for you to decide!
The Attorney General's Reference in the Colston statue case has succeeded in Court of Appeal. Lots in the judgment but key outcome is that causing "significant" damage to property during a protest is not protected by human rights to free speech/assembly.. judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…
... however "minor or temporary" damage such as scrawling a message on a pavement using water soluble paint is protected by Articles 10/11 and should not generally be prosecuted as would not be proportionate.
As I said, a lot in the judgment including the Court of Appeal confirming Cuciurean (on aggravated trespass) was correctly decided, although two of the three judges were the same (LCJ and Holgate J) so this is not a surprise.