Carl Gardner
@carlgardner.bsky.social
Backroom legal obsessive. Former law lecturer and government lawyer. https://www.linkedin.com/in/carlgardner/ Also books, beer, films, and a bit of politics. London and Warrington.
But Thatcher had been in Heath’s cabinet, as Education Secretary.
October 18, 2025 at 12:14 PM
But Thatcher had been in Heath’s cabinet, as Education Secretary.
… is revealed as being dodgy humint thirty pages later.
September 16, 2025 at 6:58 PM
… is revealed as being dodgy humint thirty pages later.
Reading David Omand’s “How Spies Think”, I wonder whether spies think it’s fine if what they say about their own authorial intentions on page 19 …
September 16, 2025 at 6:58 PM
Reading David Omand’s “How Spies Think”, I wonder whether spies think it’s fine if what they say about their own authorial intentions on page 19 …
Another day, another headline overinterpreting an Employment Tribunal decision.
September 6, 2025 at 11:38 AM
Another day, another headline overinterpreting an Employment Tribunal decision.
Pedantic of me, but it’s wrong to use quote marks here, isn’t it? I imagine the journalist is so used to quoting what a barrister has merely claimed or argued that this is just reflexive.
August 25, 2025 at 3:18 PM
Pedantic of me, but it’s wrong to use quote marks here, isn’t it? I imagine the journalist is so used to quoting what a barrister has merely claimed or argued that this is just reflexive.
This is great on a hot day. Not the richest beery flavour but nicely light and citrussy.
August 25, 2025 at 3:09 PM
This is great on a hot day. Not the richest beery flavour but nicely light and citrussy.
MezzoMix really is Coke’s Spezi. So Pepsi wins my Spezi challenge
August 16, 2025 at 2:47 PM
MezzoMix really is Coke’s Spezi. So Pepsi wins my Spezi challenge
I like this, but I preferred SchwipSchwap, which was a bit more orangey
August 16, 2025 at 2:45 PM
I like this, but I preferred SchwipSchwap, which was a bit more orangey
Was I talking to someone here not long ago about Spezi? I think this is the sort of Pepsi of Spezi, MezzoMix being the Coke.
August 9, 2025 at 2:49 PM
Was I talking to someone here not long ago about Spezi? I think this is the sort of Pepsi of Spezi, MezzoMix being the Coke.
Reasonable for Michael Mansfield KC in the Observer to disagree with Leveson about juries, but this is unfair, isn’t it? Leveson I think plans a second report that will address management and efficiency of the system.
July 13, 2025 at 10:10 AM
Reasonable for Michael Mansfield KC in the Observer to disagree with Leveson about juries, but this is unfair, isn’t it? Leveson I think plans a second report that will address management and efficiency of the system.
Here's a post of yours from earlier in our exchange. I think it shows why I've got the impression you were arguing for a more stringent "unjust, absurd or anomalous results" test for s9(3) disapplication.
May 15, 2025 at 12:43 PM
Here's a post of yours from earlier in our exchange. I think it shows why I've got the impression you were arguing for a more stringent "unjust, absurd or anomalous results" test for s9(3) disapplication.
How can the BBC know the chat didn’t fall into the wrong hands? Obviously in fact it did, but even assuming the BBC really means hostile actors, how can they know? They can’t properly say this as fact if it’s just an assumption or inference from events. The Houthis are not the only “wrong hands”.
March 25, 2025 at 1:17 PM
How can the BBC know the chat didn’t fall into the wrong hands? Obviously in fact it did, but even assuming the BBC really means hostile actors, how can they know? They can’t properly say this as fact if it’s just an assumption or inference from events. The Houthis are not the only “wrong hands”.
Far fetched of course. It had a reasonably satisfactory ending.
March 1, 2025 at 4:36 PM
Far fetched of course. It had a reasonably satisfactory ending.
That photo’s a bit reminiscent of arthistory.co/wp-content/u...
January 30, 2025 at 4:35 PM
That photo’s a bit reminiscent of arthistory.co/wp-content/u...
I'm interested in what Conservatives mean when they mention "abolishing the Equality Act": do they really mean all of it, including say the law of equal pay for men and women? This article shows us at least some of them really do mean that.
thecritic.co.uk/kemis-achill...
thecritic.co.uk/kemis-achill...
January 11, 2025 at 7:28 PM
I'm interested in what Conservatives mean when they mention "abolishing the Equality Act": do they really mean all of it, including say the law of equal pay for men and women? This article shows us at least some of them really do mean that.
thecritic.co.uk/kemis-achill...
thecritic.co.uk/kemis-achill...
I’m impressed by this from Helen McNamara, though. She’s right that ultimately civil servants’ duty is to obey the law rather than to obey orders, if there is a conflict. The more entrenched this attitude is among officials, the less chance there is of there ever being such a conflict.
November 10, 2024 at 5:41 PM
I’m impressed by this from Helen McNamara, though. She’s right that ultimately civil servants’ duty is to obey the law rather than to obey orders, if there is a conflict. The more entrenched this attitude is among officials, the less chance there is of there ever being such a conflict.
Another part of the problem seems to have been the belief that the Queen had to rubber stamp prorogation. She did not have to. On this sort of thing, Prince William’s attitude is right. The monarch’s duty is to require and if need be insist on constitutional behaviour.
November 10, 2024 at 5:29 PM
Another part of the problem seems to have been the belief that the Queen had to rubber stamp prorogation. She did not have to. On this sort of thing, Prince William’s attitude is right. The monarch’s duty is to require and if need be insist on constitutional behaviour.
Cox bears some responsibility for enabling Johnson’s unlawful prorogation. He obviously ought to have told ministers about the legal risk he’d identified. Even if he was scared of the sack, and even if he thought it probably lawful, he should not have gone along with this wool-over-eyes operation.
November 10, 2024 at 5:23 PM
Cox bears some responsibility for enabling Johnson’s unlawful prorogation. He obviously ought to have told ministers about the legal risk he’d identified. Even if he was scared of the sack, and even if he thought it probably lawful, he should not have gone along with this wool-over-eyes operation.
The only bit I can find on the web from his Times piece is this:
November 2, 2024 at 8:22 PM
The only bit I can find on the web from his Times piece is this:
Is this a fair criticism of “the legal mind” (as the writer called it earlier in this Times article)? When I was drafting SIs I was repeatedly advised to use as little punctuation as possible, or at least to use it sparingly.
October 19, 2024 at 10:26 AM
Is this a fair criticism of “the legal mind” (as the writer called it earlier in this Times article)? When I was drafting SIs I was repeatedly advised to use as little punctuation as possible, or at least to use it sparingly.