Alisdair has beaten me to it: Jenrick’s forays into Trump-lite territory would be laughable save that there are indeed those who hug themselves to hear his nonsense.
As to Tulip Siddiq, thanks once again, Joshua, for a further expansion upon my (limited) knowledge of extradition laws and practice. Surely her Solicitors are doing what good practitioners do in protecting her interests.
As to the Supreme Court’s ruling, some with utter good faith and others with NONE are straining words and context to near breaking point in their strivings to have that ruling become much more or much LESS than it could ever conceivably be.
I recommend Sam Fowle KC’s commentary upon it in the Guardian the other day; I have yet to see it expressed better.
Concerning the sentencing Bill, is it truly necessary rather than a continuation of the government’s positioning over who has the upper hand over sentencing, the executive or the judiciary. All rather unseemly really and- here I go again-Kieran Monteith KC on the Today programme the other day interviewed by Nick Robinson had it right. At least and to the relief of many the exchanges between and about the subject from Shabana M and Sir W remain persistently courteous and measured. Mind you, I savoured the Justice Secretary’s riposte over J’s Groucho Marx line. Interesting certainly about Sir Nicholas Dakin’s “drop in” as after all just as Lord Timpson is ( an EXCELLENT thing) responsible for prisons Sir N is the Under-Secretary of State at Justice with responsibility for SENTENCING. I shall certainly be alerting my own MP to that “drop in.”. Again, thank you, Joshua.
As noted before, Jenrick simply does not care. He is looking across the ocean and deciding that trying to be a caricature of MAGA is the only thing that will help his leadership bid. If damaging the judiciary is the easiest way of doing so, then so be it. He knows it will play well to parts of the press and parts of his party and parts of Reform (which he remains concerned about).
His attack on Pitcher is amusing as it is part of Badenoch's "we're not responsible for anything that Sunak, Truss or Johnson did" approach to leadership given she was appointed by the Conservative party even though there were concerns about her holding both roles.
That said, I agree with you that there needs to be some sensible rules on what part-time judges can say. What I would not want, however, is the kind of retrospective forensic analysis of past social media posts that we see for some appointments. There is a difference between someone saying something n years previously as a student, solicitor or barrister and someone saying something while serving as a member of the magistracy or judiciary. Once they have accepted judicial office (even part-time) then they should be careful what they post.
Jenrick qua judge, Oliver? Shuddersome!
Alisdair has beaten me to it: Jenrick’s forays into Trump-lite territory would be laughable save that there are indeed those who hug themselves to hear his nonsense.
As to Tulip Siddiq, thanks once again, Joshua, for a further expansion upon my (limited) knowledge of extradition laws and practice. Surely her Solicitors are doing what good practitioners do in protecting her interests.
As to the Supreme Court’s ruling, some with utter good faith and others with NONE are straining words and context to near breaking point in their strivings to have that ruling become much more or much LESS than it could ever conceivably be.
I recommend Sam Fowle KC’s commentary upon it in the Guardian the other day; I have yet to see it expressed better.
Concerning the sentencing Bill, is it truly necessary rather than a continuation of the government’s positioning over who has the upper hand over sentencing, the executive or the judiciary. All rather unseemly really and- here I go again-Kieran Monteith KC on the Today programme the other day interviewed by Nick Robinson had it right. At least and to the relief of many the exchanges between and about the subject from Shabana M and Sir W remain persistently courteous and measured. Mind you, I savoured the Justice Secretary’s riposte over J’s Groucho Marx line. Interesting certainly about Sir Nicholas Dakin’s “drop in” as after all just as Lord Timpson is ( an EXCELLENT thing) responsible for prisons Sir N is the Under-Secretary of State at Justice with responsibility for SENTENCING. I shall certainly be alerting my own MP to that “drop in.”. Again, thank you, Joshua.
Would Robert Jenrick like to be a judge? Perhaps he could be jury and executioner too, whilst we're at it.
As noted before, Jenrick simply does not care. He is looking across the ocean and deciding that trying to be a caricature of MAGA is the only thing that will help his leadership bid. If damaging the judiciary is the easiest way of doing so, then so be it. He knows it will play well to parts of the press and parts of his party and parts of Reform (which he remains concerned about).
His attack on Pitcher is amusing as it is part of Badenoch's "we're not responsible for anything that Sunak, Truss or Johnson did" approach to leadership given she was appointed by the Conservative party even though there were concerns about her holding both roles.
That said, I agree with you that there needs to be some sensible rules on what part-time judges can say. What I would not want, however, is the kind of retrospective forensic analysis of past social media posts that we see for some appointments. There is a difference between someone saying something n years previously as a student, solicitor or barrister and someone saying something while serving as a member of the magistracy or judiciary. Once they have accepted judicial office (even part-time) then they should be careful what they post.