Annual birthday holiday post

28th March 2022

There will be no substantive post today, for it is my birthday.

As a present, please suggest below topics that this blog should visit – or re-visit.

See you tomorrow.

58 thoughts on “Annual birthday holiday post”

  6. Happy Birthday and lots of them. Hope someone has made you a Lemon Drizzle Cake to celebrate.

    Love to see another Blog revolve around Animal Rights. Cruel Sports such as Fox Hunting/Baiting make me hopping mad (and there’s alot of us out there constantly in hopping mode). If you could help explain why this still continues despite attempts to ban it, then l would be very grateful for the Law still seems to allow open season on our Foxes and Wildlife.

    Hope you enjoy the rest of the day.

    Thankyou for asking us.

    Reply

  8. Most importantly, David, a very Happy Birthday.

    Sadly, I think one of your most cherished presents – a Villa Premiership win – is still some time off.

    If I could be so bold, I would still like to see posts on ‘divergence’, as and when. It might only be small things, but things where the United Kingdom diverges from what came before 2020.

    With thanks for all your posts throughout the year.

    Reply

  10. If – and in which case how – the terms “man”, “woman”, and “gender” are and should be defined in law, and the implications thereof.

    And a very happy birthday!

    Reply

  11. Happy birthday. The relationship between creating law and creating computer programmes, please. What lessons can be learned between these professions. How, for example, does each verify that the result is what is intended? How are defects identified, and when found, corrected?

    Reply

  14. Slacker!

    Seriously though, Happy Birthday!

    And thank you for your insight and giving us a chance add value – much appreciated

    PS – We miss your contribution to various podcasts where you used to explain constitutional issues so clearly

    Reply

  17. Best wishes for your birthday.

    One very complex aspect to the Justice system that might provide material for discussion would be the overall “success” of justice – specifically incarceration – as a mechanism for discouraging crime.

    This 12-year-old-article at the Prison Reform Trust argues that building more prisons and incarcerating more prisoners is not the answer:-

    http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/presspolicy/comment/moreprisonsarenottheanswer

    It mentions that England and Wales had, in 2010, an imprisonment rate of 153 inmates per 100,000 population, with equivalent numbers for France and Germany being 96 and 89 respectively. At around the same time the above article was published, the Population Reference Bureau noted that the incarceration rate in the United States – where there is circumstantially far more crime – was around 500 inmates per 100,000 population – very significantly more:

    https://www.prb.org/resources/u-s-has-worlds-highest-incarceration-rate/

    The first linked article notes that in the UK, 47% of adults are re-convicted within one year of being released and goes on to note that re-offending by ex-prisoners was calculated to cost society at least £11 billion per year.

    It is the physicist Albert Einstein who is quoted with the observation that, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

    Yet, anecdotally, this seems to be precisely what we expect to get from the sharp end of our justice system. Of course, fines may still be applicable for “misdemeanor” style offenses, but for everything else, the only question available to a judge would appear to be whether or not a variation on the length of a sentence is warranted.

    It was Abraham Maslow who gave us another very useful saying that encapsulates that approach rather nicely: “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”

    With the decades worth of mounting evidence, why do we not see any other determined efforts to try and find a way to reduce incarceration and re-offending rates?

    Reply

  20. Many happy returns of the day! As a relatively new reader I just wanted to wish you well and to say how much I enjoy reading your blog.

    There is talk of Government increasing the cases heard in the magistrates court to reduce the backlog at the crown court but an opposing view is that it will just increase the backlog through a larger number of appeals from the magistrates court to the crown court. Is this a worthy subject for consideration?

    Another possibility for consideration is that drivers failing a breath/blood test for drink or drug driving should suffer summary disqualification at the hands of police rather than be able to continue to drive until their case comes to court and commit further offences or cause death or injury to others as a result.

    Reply

  21. David – good, a well-earned birthday.

    I would be interested if you were to explore the relationship between international humanitarian law (or the laws of war, or whatever term is more appropriate) and the law in these lands. What holds our government to the rules of IHL?

    (In the day job I am based near Geneva and our organisation interacts with the Red Cross.)

    Reply

  23. congratulations and Happy Birthday! Neutrality and its different interpretations (special interest declared here: I am a Swiss native who acquired UK citizenship recently) — maybe too complicated for a single post…

    Reply

  26. Perhaps the Maldon District Council meeting in November last year, comparing the standing orders with Handforth Parish Council.

    Reply

  27. Happy birthday David!

    You discussed the difference between criminal and civil law the other day. Is the distinction hard or permeable? Are some civil matters treated as if criminal and vice versa? What rhetorical and political interests does this distinction serve, and who benefits (and how) from its blurring?

    Please do ignore this if it reveals my ignorance. I do not understand why things that seem criminal (oligarch fortunes) are civil and things that seem civil (knock-off copies) are criminal.

    But mainly I hope you’re having a good day.

    Reply

  29. Congratulations David, wishing you a very happy birthday!

    I really don’t think you need toask for topics. With such an illiberal and counter-progressive government you only have to look at the news, see what self-serving half-cock plans they are putting through with executive powers, and with no opportunity for parliament to discuss or amend – and you will be busy enough!

    Reply

  32. Happy Birthday. Your only 8 days and many years behind me.

    Now that William has put his head above the parapet it must be time for the Royal family, succession, changing relationships with the Commonwealth (if such a thing continues to exist?) So much there.

    Reply

  33. Many happy returns, first and foremost!

    Living in Scotland, I would be interested in something from your perspective that picks up on the wider constitutional impacts of Brexit and related topics on the four nations and their relationship to one another.

    Independence for Scotland seems a while off (if it ever happens – it now sometimes seems Wales is more likely to become independent before Scotland), and so the uneasy relationship between the overwhelmingly large England and the smaller countries in the union is of interest to me (of course), but perhaps something reflecting on some of the connections between the three smaller nations and how they approach their bigger neighbour would be worth exploring too?

    There is certainly more friction in this area than I can ever remember in the past, and so some exploration of this from the perspective of law and policy by you would be of great interest to me.

    Reply

  37. Many happy returns David.

    For those of us unfamiliar with the practical interface between government strategy, policy and implementation, the process of preparing legislation is something of a black box. While the methods of introducing legislation to the House are prescribed, your insights and experience of the means by which secretaries, ministers and civil servants at multiple levels (co) operate to make aspirations become reality would be of great interest.
    It is accepted that the present government offer a greater proportion of case studies in the ‘how not to do it’ category, compared to predecessors.
    Thank you for your continued excellent work.

    Reply

  43. You’ve pointed out there’s no definition of ‘maladministration by PHSO (and JACO) but there’s also no definition of ‘misconduct’ by the JICO – just a few examples which aren’t meant to be exhaustive, they say.

    Reply

  44. Happy Birthday
    Thank you for your insights over the last year and for insights yet to come.

    Reply

  47. Happy Birthday.

    If a lawyer is instructed to make statements to a Court on behalf of a Ministry and that lawyer states in court the Ministry’s claim are false. That seems incredibly brave given the potential of facing disciplinary action for breach of attorney client privilege. Is the lawyer at risk or is there a higher duty owed to the court? Is there any recourse open to the judge to at least hold the instructing Ministry in contempt? One hopes there can be consequences for deliberately trying to pervert the course of justice.

    Reply

    1. Yes; I saw this on the Twitz, as I’m sure did DAG. SSHD ignoring the Rule of Law with apparent impunity. I thought that Counsel was superb.

      So much else to discuss. The incompatibility of Raab’s plans with remaining in the Council of Europe, the govt. messaging re. refugees v the legal definitions, etc.

      A belated Happy Birthday!

      Reply

  49. Happy Birthday if belated!

    Second comment about effect of increased powers of magistrates – even before 95% of criminal justice is dealt with by magistrates.

    Also interested as my wife was sworn in as a magistrate yesterday!

    Also interested in further commentary about P&O affair – commercial power vs the justice system (buying it off) and vs the state.

    Thanks for your interesting blog

    Reply

  50. Happy Birthday and many many happy returns!
    I’d be interested to learn whether and how new laws passed by one government can be reversed by their successors.

    Reply

  53. Jurisdiction clarified in the P&O case.

    The prospect of more legislation by ministerial order instead of parliament.

    Happy remaining half-birthday!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.