I hope I may take advantage of a relatively quiet morning to send you this.
You have received so many plaudits in the last few days that I hope that one more will not merely clutter up your inbox, or worse, make you fear that you’ve died and gone to heaven where you can sit and read your more enthusiastic obituaries.
In that spirit, I would like to record my own praise for the commentaries you have written over the past year or more. Your writing has become what the late Tony Howard used to call “required reading.” I think you are now entitled to be counted in the list of great commentators beyond the law from Bernard Levin to Ian Jack. The reason for that in particular is that when we read your commentary, we don’t just learn your opinion (which is of course interesting), but learn something new about the area you are writing about. Indeed, if I know anything at all about public international law, it is entirely because of your teaching.
I think you should also know that you demonstrate three qualities put you among the great writers on the law. First, you always recognise that the law is a complicated matter upon which honest and informed people can disagree without accusing those who disagree with them of being mad, bad or stupid. Secondly, throughout your writing, you demonstrate that the law is not just a game for lawyers, but the route to Justice. you have particularly demonstrated this in your conscientious reporting of the Post Office scandal. I Hope you will not let up on that because I fear there may be still quite a way to go. Thirdly, you always bring credit upon your views by expressing them in balanced and moderate language. You always leave, shouting and ludicrous hyperbole to others.
Good morning Joshua
I hope I may take advantage of a relatively quiet morning to send you this.
You have received so many plaudits in the last few days that I hope that one more will not merely clutter up your inbox, or worse, make you fear that you’ve died and gone to heaven where you can sit and read your more enthusiastic obituaries.
In that spirit, I would like to record my own praise for the commentaries you have written over the past year or more. Your writing has become what the late Tony Howard used to call “required reading.” I think you are now entitled to be counted in the list of great commentators beyond the law from Bernard Levin to Ian Jack. The reason for that in particular is that when we read your commentary, we don’t just learn your opinion (which is of course interesting), but learn something new about the area you are writing about. Indeed, if I know anything at all about public international law, it is entirely because of your teaching.
I think you should also know that you demonstrate three qualities put you among the great writers on the law. First, you always recognise that the law is a complicated matter upon which honest and informed people can disagree without accusing those who disagree with them of being mad, bad or stupid. Secondly, throughout your writing, you demonstrate that the law is not just a game for lawyers, but the route to Justice. you have particularly demonstrated this in your conscientious reporting of the Post Office scandal. I Hope you will not let up on that because I fear there may be still quite a way to go. Thirdly, you always bring credit upon your views by expressing them in balanced and moderate language. You always leave, shouting and ludicrous hyperbole to others.
I must now read your article.
Long may you continue.