New attorney general heh

There's a real theme of people who will do anything for a promotion beyond their skills and then do anything to keep the job 

You know you're getting old when the attorneys general start to look young.

She's 39 and exactly the type you dread in a meeting. 

There’s also a theme of self-hating lawyers playing to the gammon press. At least Truss was only an accountant.

It's neurotics who aren't that bright but their parents never showed them love unless they got good school results. And they scrape through but are insufficiently adept/ too insecure to make judgement calls and pore over every detail and make a big fuss about nothing. 

That's the type.


Steve is a professor of law. I mean I'm not in thrall to titles particularly but that seems quite good. He does a lot of work for parliamentary committees etc.

She was president of the Cambridge Conservative Association. Being any kind of student politician is bad enough but president of the Conservative Association?

Leaders of student Conservative Associations should be on a register or something.  

Professor Peers from Essex Uni. Specialises in Human Rights.

An academic giant, alongside Professor Treitel, Professor Smith and Professor Hart.

Ru jell that no one wants you to help write legislation?

Don't be glum - bet you can get practicallaw to let you do one of those A Lawyer Writes things about a case no one cases about.

she is priti patel on steroids in terms of blind sycophancy and being blessed with phenomenal levels of arrogance and ignorance. 

She will soon be putting her foot in her mouth shortly..but she has Boris round her finger as she will deliver the termination of an independent judiciary. 

It’s about time that the political activists of the Supreme Court were brought properly to heel.


Don't worry, when the great Andy Burrows joins in June all your worries will be over. Lolz.

I doubt that Prof Treitel would have come down on the side of the Tories with regard to the Dubs amendment given he was actually on one of the Kindertransports.

The last was at ??? incidentally.

I know this because (1) it’s a matter of public record and (2) I met him once (he was a fellow of my old college).

Which Professor Smith are you talking about there, ???

oops sorry, not ???, Marshall Hall.

semper hic erro.

Credit to Professor Peers, he’s obviously a very hard working bloke if he’s able to put in a full days academia on top of his daily EU-woke tweeting.

You haven’t said which Smith (there are many) or which Hart (fewer) yet, incidentally?

Did you do a law degree fella?

Professor Sir John Smith, of Smith and Hogan on Criminal Law.

Professor HLA Hart, foremost Professor of Jurisprudence.


No, not at undergraduate level.

Having a life was more important to me.

I remember Smith & Hogan as a textbook.

Hart, not so much - constitutional stuff? 

The Concept of Law.

Seminal book of English 20th century jurisprudence.

I recognize a bit of myself in Clergs’ 21:46.

*slashes wrists*

From what little I know about Smith’s life, I also doubt he - like Treitel - would have sided with Braverman. 



Relevance to the (in)correctness of Prof Peers’ view on a previously obscure junior barrister is...?

Jurisprudence sounds rather like historiography - that is to say, academically interesting but a bit wanky and of little practical use to anyone.

Oh, do I misunderstand - MH means Peers IS an academic giant?

If so, my apologies - struck me as a bit snarky (as have subsequent posts) - PP was not who I was taking issue with. 

Suspect that this is a difference between law undergraduates and conversioners.

I enjoyed it also as an academic subject, rather than being force-fed it simply to qualify as a Solicitor.

Good for you.

I rather enjoyed studying other things as it happens. 

But I’m not the one throwing snark at some bloke who chose to become a legal academic because he isn’t the next Einstein in his field.

Jurisprudence is where tedious law undergrads get to pretend to be as interesting as their mates doing arts degrees. Obviously everyone knows they're completely wrong and nod along politely waiting until they can get back to why Heathcliffe is such a bastard/ Liz I is a true feminist/ the merits of Bernini v Fra Angelico etc, etc cos they must be someone's mate or how would they be at the party and you all feel sorry for them and their poor life choices. 

My my doesn’t rof’s white middle class left have an issue with brown people having opinions their colour determines they shouldn’t have or what?

Not really, panda.

I doubt, for example, that you would accept that ROF’s white middle class right have a problem with Diane Abbott, David Lammy or Sadiq Khan other than that, well, they just disagree with them and think in some cases they aren’t very bright.


If it helps, I violently dislike Johnson, Gove, Raab, IDS, Mordaunt, Truss, Cummings, Rees Mogg as well.

It isn’t because they’re white and middle class.

It’s because they’re khunts.

For that matter, I am not fond of Owen Jones, not because he’s gay and working class (he isn’t really the latter) but because he’s a prick who has mortgaged his principles to support an ageing Stalinist who was already irrelevant in the early 1970s.

I also am not a fan of Laurie Penny, Polly Toynbee, Dawn Foster, Grace Blakeley, Aaron Bastani, Ash Sarkar. 

And I despise Richard Littlejohn, Rod Liddle, Tim Montgomerie, Julia Hartley-Brewer, “Shippers”, Toby “Twatmeister” Young and the rest.

Call me an equal opportunities misanthrope.

How fortunate we are to have a mediocre planning and immigration barrister to lay it out for us ... 

This jackofhearts fellow. I like the cut of his jib. We should book him more often.

just remembered about this and am annoyed

I will be honest am partly #triggered by her because she reminds me of a government lawyer who interviewed me once for a job, was super weird in the interview and then gave me feedback that wasn't true (was in fact complete lies that I could prove were lies but really what can you do except thank fuck you don't work for her in GLS)


People we elect must take back control from people we don’t. Who include the judges.


Guess who?

These fukking people.  Luckily for my own sanity I've basically stopped caring about anything or anyone now.  I could almost be a tory.

I went to Essex Uni via clearing afted cocking up my A-levels and scraped a solid drinking man's low 2.1 in Philosophy & Government.  Surely this qualifies me for a major office of state?



no...unless you did some drugs, was a member of a tosh society at Uni or most importantly you can espouse a position so khuntish that even you wince while sleeping...thinking you are reading someone else's position paper. 

Essex alumni notable in Politics:

 Martin Docherty-Hughes - Scottish National Party politician

I am a bit of a generalist myself, but do quite a bit of planning and also, for historical reasons, even have an interest in migration (mainly because I have done a bit of demography and stats as part of my first degree. ) But aside from clerking a couple of immigration hearings about 20 yeara ago I would not pretend to know much about immigration law. What I used to know is pretty rusty.

So when Mrs Braverman is described as a barrister specialising in planning and immigration law that's a bit of a strange mix, no?

I was against a bazza at a planning set who had a sideline in SEN Tribunals a few times. 

Didn't the new A-G also practice J.R? Yet she wants to usurp the Rule of Law and the independence of the Judiciary.

Dark days...

Threepwood, she was already chair of the ERG at one point and a Boris/No Deal Brexit sycophant.

What’s another cult to add to that chargesheet?

But I concur that despite academic success, she doesn’t come across as particularly sharp or savvy.

A-G. Christ.

Time for 2nd bottle of red tonight...

She can barely string a sentence together. The fear in her eyes is the fear of someone who know how stupid they are but has been thrust into the spotlight regardless. Hmong incarnate.

what explains the continued success of this thread

Um, the fact that some lawyers (generally a Remainer-leaning profession) look at an authoritarian, if not fascistoid moral idiot who appears to hold a wildly illiberal view on the role of courts and rule of law appointed to a position of real constitutional and legal influence and are a bit worried?

What do you think, Laz?

I mean, I get that most people could not name the attorneys-general under Blair or Cameron (Grieve was A-G for most of the Coalition, the AGs under Blair/Brown were not really household names) and the role has only got so much attention because Cox was used to try to make the court and Commons case for the Brexiteers’ constitutional arson. 

And she appears to have been chosen because of her willingness to participate in war on the judiciary and constitutional reform aimed at tilting the balance of power still further in favour of an Executive that is likely to be relatively unchecked by Parliament for the foreseeable future?

Perhaps also, in fairness, envy and wounded professional vanity?

What made you click on and contribute to the thread?

Wasn’t Lord Goldsmith the AG under Blair?

You know, the amazingly brainy and principled socialist QC that really stood out for taking a robust stand against what his bosses and President Bush wanted...?

Yes - now a partner at Debevoise.

In fairness, when appointed, he had been practising at the Bar for 27 years at a prestigious set, as a QC for 14 of those, was the youngest ever chair of the Bar Council, had sat as a judge for more than 7 years and there was clearly - reading between the lines - a lengthy internal battle over the Iraq war advice going though serial drafts before the advice was finalised.

Ms Braverman appears to have spent really quite a lot of time, serially unsuccessfully, attempting to get elected to the Commons and the London Assembly. Her wiki article indicates she won the Astbury scholarship (on further inspection it transpires that this scholarship is only available to Oxbridge graduates and looks like it’s really one of those awards that is really a means-based maintenance grant).

You may call me unduly cynical, but the chances of Ms Braverman putting up any kind of fight against the Johnson-Cummings axis  (if not actively leading the way to perdition) seem not so much low as subterranean.

Authorising a Country to go to war on spurious grounds is probs a pretty big ‘mistake’ for an AG to make.


He didn’t “authorise” anything. He gave advice, the government did what clients do after taking advice.

Are you OGR? This line of thinking and your comments on Eoin Morgan’s captaincy seem oddly familiar.

What the knave said.

Shouldn't advice from the AG to the Government remain private.  Isn't it protected by solicitor-client privilege or something?

Seems to me that an AG who doesn't like the action the Government takes after being given advice should either suck it up, or resign. Either way they shouldn't be appointing themselves in the media as a  distinct power within the constitution.

Any client can waive privilege and in the interests of open government the AG’s advice being public is probably a good thing.

Where Cox fell down (and one imagines even  he has drawn the line at open warfare with the senior judiciary since, leading to his sacking) was in giving advice as to whether something was legal or - as it turns out - probably more or less lawful ish depending on the facts, having been given a set of facts the government presented to get the answer it wanted.

The better path for Cox as AG would probably have been to say “it’s theoretically not necessarily unlawful but (a) a really bad idea, (b) hasn’t been litigated since the mid- to late 17th century (spoiler: it didn’t end well for the prerogative powers asserted by the Executive, even then) and (c) would set an appalling precedent that you and the country may come to regret”.

Whether circumstances justify use of prerogative powers to declare war on the facts (of the nature Goldsmith was opining on) is a question of a somewhat different nature. Hence Labour’s apparent desire to put statutory bars in the way of future declarations of war (which I do not personally think is a good idea, ultimately).

The weight of legal history over the past 400 years is against Braverman: Case of Proclamations, Entick v Carrington, De Keyser, GCHQ, Exp FBU, Miller (1) and (2).

I hope you’re right, SJ.

I just worry they’re mad enough to start drafting “simple” legislative solutions.

”The courts say we can’t do that? Let’s see how they like an 80-seat majority.”

With this bunch, I genuinely think that there is no vision, no ambition to deliver a project- they can barely even bring themselves to get on with sorting out what their silly Brexit will mean in practice. ClassicDom seems very good at identifying things he dislikes and finding ways to persuade people to undermine them, but far from clear he has any deliverable idea as to what should replace them and Johnson has no ideas at all except things that alliterate with B.


Anyway, it's not just A-G we should worry about, but the SSHD, whose own parents would have failed the proposed points system. In an interview, she labelled terrorists as 'counter-terrorists'. Hmmm. Scotland Yard and MI5 should also be worried. Perhaps they should brief her with pictures or simple charts, as professional advisers in the USA do when briefing POTUS 45.