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.
You say they "exposed the sexing up of the dossier", but importantly, their resignations came after the inquiry found that the dossier had not been "sexed up". news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_poli... I think Chilcot also found it had not been: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/poli...
November 10, 2025 at 4:01 PM
You say they "exposed the sexing up of the dossier", but importantly, their resignations came after the inquiry found that the dossier had not been "sexed up". news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_poli... I think Chilcot also found it had not been: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/poli...
That's not a bad place if you like craft beer, but I hope the Hoop and Grapes (I think it's called) just over the road will be open again before long.
November 10, 2025 at 3:41 PM
That's not a bad place if you like craft beer, but I hope the Hoop and Grapes (I think it's called) just over the road will be open again before long.
Journalists often seem to misunderstand business relationships. Now and again you see references to a solicitor "working for" a barrister on a case.
November 7, 2025 at 10:51 AM
Journalists often seem to misunderstand business relationships. Now and again you see references to a solicitor "working for" a barrister on a case.
Yes, I think that's right.
October 31, 2025 at 8:29 AM
Yes, I think that's right.
Is D66 “the left”? Aren’t they quite like the LibDems?
October 30, 2025 at 10:52 PM
Is D66 “the left”? Aren’t they quite like the LibDems?
I don't really know anything about the people or why things developed as they did, sorry.
October 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM
I don't really know anything about the people or why things developed as they did, sorry.
They make fair criticisms of quite a few of those judgments, but as an illustration, I was actually surprised just now to find that #45 on their list is there because they agreed with Lord Atkin rather than disagreeing with him. That was less surprising when they began.
October 30, 2025 at 6:11 PM
They make fair criticisms of quite a few of those judgments, but as an illustration, I was actually surprised just now to find that #45 on their list is there because they agreed with Lord Atkin rather than disagreeing with him. That was less surprising when they began.
I reckon they had a good point initially (and one I agree with to some extent) but I felt after about 2017-8 that their spokespeople and publications got less interesting, and more just aligned with the thinking of legally-minded rightwing Tories and Brexiters.
October 30, 2025 at 6:07 PM
I reckon they had a good point initially (and one I agree with to some extent) but I felt after about 2017-8 that their spokespeople and publications got less interesting, and more just aligned with the thinking of legally-minded rightwing Tories and Brexiters.
I suppose though rather than just saying "But X" the better way of responding in a case like is to say "Yes I do know you mention X and parry it by saying Y: but really, really X".
October 26, 2025 at 6:54 PM
I suppose though rather than just saying "But X" the better way of responding in a case like is to say "Yes I do know you mention X and parry it by saying Y: but really, really X".
This can be irritating, but is it necessarily unreasonable? I think we can often read an argument we see as having the structure "Admittedly X; but Y, therefore Z" and sincerely and reasonably respond by saying failure to really understand X or its weight is the key problem with their argument.
October 26, 2025 at 6:52 PM
This can be irritating, but is it necessarily unreasonable? I think we can often read an argument we see as having the structure "Admittedly X; but Y, therefore Z" and sincerely and reasonably respond by saying failure to really understand X or its weight is the key problem with their argument.
Many Brexiters have always wanted No Deal, some just in practice but many in principle. They want no agreements with European countries unless the US is also a party. UN, NATO and WTO okay, because US. CPTPP okay, because no Europe. ECHR not okay.
October 25, 2025 at 11:30 PM
Many Brexiters have always wanted No Deal, some just in practice but many in principle. They want no agreements with European countries unless the US is also a party. UN, NATO and WTO okay, because US. CPTPP okay, because no Europe. ECHR not okay.
Once you've asked for it, and it's not said what you hoped, then I suppose it's unused material that undermines your case.
October 24, 2025 at 6:37 PM
Once you've asked for it, and it's not said what you hoped, then I suppose it's unused material that undermines your case.
Anyway, this case suggests the CPS approach to what evidence is needed (no doubt based on counsel's advice) means prosecutions are bound to fail. I bet the government amends the law to make them a lot simpler, and make sure this kind of "official government stance" evidence is never needed.
October 24, 2025 at 4:04 PM
Anyway, this case suggests the CPS approach to what evidence is needed (no doubt based on counsel's advice) means prosecutions are bound to fail. I bet the government amends the law to make them a lot simpler, and make sure this kind of "official government stance" evidence is never needed.