I have always seen the cab rank rule as part of being a barrister. I have to admit I don't always find it easy, but I follow it to a fault and do my absolute best for every client whomever they are and whatever views they have. /1 There are arguments for and against the cab rank rule, but it is part of the Code of Conduct and I see why it exists. Having said that, I also support the right of individuals to conscientiously object to the Code of Conduct, presumably with a view to changing it /2

My summary view of Johnson's evidence is the same as it was before he started: his case that the guidance allowed boozy non-socially distanced drinks events with no work being done is absurd and he's either lying that he thought it did or was reckless for asserting it. I think his best outcome for the 1 and 8 December statements is he was reckless not lying when he made the statements to Parliament, because he consulted his press spads who were at the events rather than people who knew what the rules and guidance actually said.

Johnson now in serious trouble about there being no mitigations put in place during the gatherings to prevent the spread of covid if they were necessary for work. Flailing around talking about testing in the building, not touching each other's pens... not specific to those events Obvious point is there were no mitigating measures, so even if plausible "morale boosting" boozy events were necessary in government AND allowed you to avoid social distancing, guidance required mitigation - but there was none because it's nonsense to say they kept to guidance

I agree - he's very difficult to pin down at the best of times and they are going to have to navigate a morass of law and guidance which barely anyone was able to during the pandemic, and was itself confusing and vague at points.

https://twitter.com/DinahGLRoseKC/status/1638470053216567298

And because they don't have any clear evidence he deliberately misled parliament, they will have to rely on "well you must have known", to which he will respond, po faced with his palms outwards, "I genuinely didn't, that was my view, and I'm sorry I got it wrong"

The Privilege Committee evidence is here: committees.parliament.uk/publications/3… Really brings home the fact that Johnson was never assured that "all guidance was followed" and in fact everyone around him was saying that it probably wasn't. Absolutely absurd for him to claim nonetheless that he believed until Sue Gray's report that it was

Just reading Boris Johnson's evidence - I'm not going to summarise all of it (there is a lot in there). It's well-drafted as you would expect, but on a careful reasons there are some obvious dangers for Johnson (thread) committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc… I think the key risk to him is is not having corrected the record in relation to this statement

"all guidance was followed completely in No. 10".

Useful thread. I’m interested to see Johnson’s “dossier” of evidence being reported today. I imagine a lot of his strategy will be about convincing the MPs who will vote on whether to hold him in contempt rather than the committee itself

https://twitter.com/AlexanderHorne1/status/1636979503065968640

I have said all along that I think Johnston’s statements to Parliament were quite careful so it may not be possible to show he is in contempt for making them. The danger to him is not correcting the record in good time

Apparently BBC presenters can express themselves unless it involves criticising immoral government policies

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1633823103225823233

The BBC might want to reflect on whether their objectivity has been comprised less by @GaryLineker’s tweet than the fact that they have succumbed to government pressure to suspend him

I don't see how this would be compatible under Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights if it was a complete ban for al whole life order prisoners. However, it isn't completely clear from the article that it would be independent.co.uk/news/uk/politi… The case law on Article 12 (including two quite old but clear UK cases about marriage bans for prisoners serving life sentences) seems clear - you can't have an indiscriminate ban simply because of the sentence imposed (see Article 12 guide echr.coe.int/Documents/Guid…)

Personally, I think Lineker's comments were ill-judged. I have said here many times that Nazi comparisons are very often melodramatic and factually wrong - and skew important debates by making it easy for supporters of a bad policy to say "at least we're not the Nazis". But...

https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1633810685154021376

... @GaryLineker is not a news journalist and isn't speaking on behalf of the BBC, and I don't see why he shouldn't be able to use his Twitter platform (not the BBC) speak out on moral grounds against an immoral government policy which he very obviously is.

It’s so depressing to see the human rights culture wars being reignited after the pause of hostilities during Brexit. The Conservative Party knows exactly what it is doing and the ground it wants the fight from. And if opponents cede the location of the battle they will lose. The key tactic is binding the idea of human rights with people perceived as bad to society - eg who have committed crimes. This sets up an “us v them” or “with us or against us” conflict - eg Sunak in parliament yesterday calling Starmer a “lefty lawyer… standing in our way”

I think the best that can be said about the govt's bill is stopping small boats is a safety priority. However, isn't it interesting that the 'solution' - ditching human rights protections - is one the Tories have been pitching for more than a decade, before the problem started? There is literally no evidence that taking away people's human rights, and detaining them en masse, will prevent them coming to the UK, and I suggest that what it will ultimately do is degrade our our country morally.

So according to this the government will be declaring the new bill will *not* be compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations - meaning the govt had failed to come up with a policy which works under our own existing law. Unworkable, and the govt clearly knows it This is section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act. If the Daily Mail is right then the story must be inaccurate - the govt’s analysis must be that the bill is incompatible with human rights obligations

I agree, which is hopefully what the @covidinquiryuk will do (at least with the key message threads). I suspect that the Telegraph has cherry picked the messages as much as Hancock did in his book. Both trying to serve a pre-existing narrative.

https://twitter.com/NewsmanDan/status/1632316991494037504

For example, their "project fear" narrative which has been a major part of their coverage throughout the pandemic. Are there other messages where people are discussing the use of fear/hope narratives in a more nuanced way? We have no way of knowing.

A question for @IsabelOakeshott and the @Telegraph
- the WhatsApp conversations are made to look as if they are authentic threads. Are they? Or have they been edited so that messages are sometimes not in the original order or are missing intervening messages? I have received two answers to this tweet from the Telegraph journalists - both vague and not directly answering the question about threads being edited. First from the deputy investigations editor…

https://twitter.com/kerushton/status/1632322909774520320?s=20

Just wish I had called one of the chapters “WE DIDN’T BREAK THE F***ING LAW OK”

https://twitter.com/jamieklingler/status/1631791411224821761

The text messages are very revealing but so far I think the basic points I make in #EmergencyState are being proved right, rather than being undermined. The dangers of opaque and little scrutinised decision making by a totally dysfunctional group of 5 men

Hancock was well aware of the rules at the time of his affair - reading the WhatsApps from Telegraph it seems like he just convinced himself, or perhaps just tried to convince his aide, he hadn’t broken them. Affair began early May during Step 2 This is just nonsense - “voluntary and arguably charitable”. The kind of joke that was being made when we were discussing the ban on intimate contact

"Privileged information"
Interesting concept here. Sue Gray was by all accounts a political problem solver for successive Prime Ministers, did she arrive with a blank slate each time? And what about those moving from journalism (where they have confidential sources) to politics?

https://twitter.com/RMCunliffe/status/1631583911657590784

What about lawyers moving into government? What about politicians moving into private industry? Presumably Sue Gray will have signed confidentiality agreements, and is bound by her professional standards? The objections to this appointment sound to me a little fuzzy

This is a devastating expose - devastating particularly for the children who are left with no secular education, little English and schooling in dangerous surroundings. The loophole needs to be closed

thetimes.co.uk/article/ce7955… And excellent piece by @YehudisFletcher who has bravely campaigned on this for years

Religious freedom cannot justify the failure to educate

thetimes.co.uk/article/837915…

I spoke out a lot during the Pandemic about conditions in hotel quarantine - over 200,000 people were kept in a small room, often with 15 mins exercise per day. Many children, disabled people, people who should have been given medical exemptions. This exchange sounds callous From the Telegraph cf-particle-html.eip.telegraph.co.uk/c284917e-9d6d-…

I haven't had time to read the leaked messages yet but when I reviewed Matt Hancock's book I noted the danger of relying only on WhatsApp messages for a full picture of what happened prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/matt-… Is it right that Hancock gave Isabel Oakeshott the messages to assisting in writing his book and the Telegraph has now published them all?