Lydia Seymour
@lydiaseymour.bsky.social
Pensions and employment barrister at Outer Temple Chambers.
V much so. A former colleague used to wear clear-glass glasses for gravitas when we started out!
October 25, 2025 at 5:02 PM
V much so. A former colleague used to wear clear-glass glasses for gravitas when we started out!
Interesting! I would have said the reverse. It puts all focus on a person's face and accentuates fresh-facedness.
October 25, 2025 at 4:46 PM
Interesting! I would have said the reverse. It puts all focus on a person's face and accentuates fresh-facedness.
Fair enough! I am trying to say that I think things are better precisely because people refuse to see that things are cushy/better. So it isn’t unbelievable exactly, it is the very reason (or part of it) for the better provision.
September 14, 2025 at 10:15 AM
Fair enough! I am trying to say that I think things are better precisely because people refuse to see that things are cushy/better. So it isn’t unbelievable exactly, it is the very reason (or part of it) for the better provision.
Well yes. Because people expect it and consider that is normal rather than cushy. If people saw provision as generous and themselves as fortunate it would be more likely to be politically viable to reduce it. As it is, we can see that people don’t see it that way and as a result it isn’t viable.
September 14, 2025 at 9:59 AM
Well yes. Because people expect it and consider that is normal rather than cushy. If people saw provision as generous and themselves as fortunate it would be more likely to be politically viable to reduce it. As it is, we can see that people don’t see it that way and as a result it isn’t viable.
That is odd! Have seen that an ET quoted the same bit in Colfer v SoS for Justice ET 1403745/2023 at para 59, but looks like they got it from Linsley.
January 26, 2025 at 8:40 AM
That is odd! Have seen that an ET quoted the same bit in Colfer v SoS for Justice ET 1403745/2023 at para 59, but looks like they got it from Linsley.
Reposted by Lydia Seymour
So don’t mention him by name. But you should say something supporting Jess Phillips.
January 3, 2025 at 7:37 PM
So don’t mention him by name. But you should say something supporting Jess Phillips.
Fantastic! Did yesterday push him over the edge or did this require more planning than that?
November 30, 2024 at 9:57 AM
Fantastic! Did yesterday push him over the edge or did this require more planning than that?
Especially the dough ball scenes.
November 17, 2024 at 1:58 PM
Especially the dough ball scenes.
With the possible exception of “I am no longer getting something I used to receive before”.
November 6, 2024 at 5:13 PM
With the possible exception of “I am no longer getting something I used to receive before”.
Is it a pensions case? If so maybe Perspective might have it?
October 28, 2024 at 8:16 AM
Is it a pensions case? If so maybe Perspective might have it?
This is quite a big deal in terms of real-world divergence I think. Youth mobility deals (great though they would be) are mood music in comparison. But very little coverage. May be for the best, though.
October 18, 2024 at 8:17 PM
This is quite a big deal in terms of real-world divergence I think. Youth mobility deals (great though they would be) are mood music in comparison. But very little coverage. May be for the best, though.
Yes - in the sense that you are costing them a case as they would have to turn down the case. People tend to be v generous with their time, and it is kindness enough to have been offered the chance to pick their brains. You always try as hard as possible for that not to end up losing them work.
October 5, 2024 at 1:07 PM
Yes - in the sense that you are costing them a case as they would have to turn down the case. People tend to be v generous with their time, and it is kindness enough to have been offered the chance to pick their brains. You always try as hard as possible for that not to end up losing them work.
Same. And generally people are aware of the risk and so would try to chat through a point in a way that would avoid conflicting a colleague if they were subsequently instructed.
October 5, 2024 at 12:55 PM
Same. And generally people are aware of the risk and so would try to chat through a point in a way that would avoid conflicting a colleague if they were subsequently instructed.
Yes - absolutely this. And the greater the extent to which you can persuade people that they shouldn’t feel ‘there but for the grace of God’ (or humanist equivalent) the more successful the strategy. Depressing.
October 5, 2024 at 8:50 AM
Yes - absolutely this. And the greater the extent to which you can persuade people that they shouldn’t feel ‘there but for the grace of God’ (or humanist equivalent) the more successful the strategy. Depressing.
Having the computer voice read it back to you is unpleasant in a different way if variety would make this any better.
October 5, 2024 at 8:09 AM
Having the computer voice read it back to you is unpleasant in a different way if variety would make this any better.
Have been Googling but can't actually find the percentage!
September 22, 2024 at 2:32 PM
Have been Googling but can't actually find the percentage!
But higher than, say, Oxbridge?
September 22, 2024 at 2:32 PM
But higher than, say, Oxbridge?
As in numbers of students at GEs? Tiny compared to the overall number of students in France, or something else?
September 22, 2024 at 2:29 PM
As in numbers of students at GEs? Tiny compared to the overall number of students in France, or something else?
Indistinguishable from a university system as a young person studying. Why doesn't it count as one?
September 22, 2024 at 2:10 PM
Indistinguishable from a university system as a young person studying. Why doesn't it count as one?
Not necessarily I don't think. There could in theory be children who don't meet the EHC criteria but who are disabled by Eq Act definition who could argue that a rule that EHC was the basis for exemption was indirect discrimination. But highly likely to be justified even if disparate impact.
September 8, 2024 at 12:25 PM
Not necessarily I don't think. There could in theory be children who don't meet the EHC criteria but who are disabled by Eq Act definition who could argue that a rule that EHC was the basis for exemption was indirect discrimination. But highly likely to be justified even if disparate impact.