3 Replies

  1. I understand if it’s an unfeasible amount of work for you to post these as normal pieces of text – but I don’t think posts are readable in this form. Is there something else you can try? As far as I can see, the small text in the images is illegible (when the images are magnified, the text is completely blurry).

  2. Fabulous blog, very informative for laypeople with an interest in law, and must take a huge amount of time to write in addition to your heavy barrister’s workload. Well done! However it is nearly impossible for me (and maybe others?) to read the tweets you have uploaded on this case because they are too small on my laptop screen and if I try and increase the font size of course they then get blurry anyway.
    A pity. I’d be happy to wait a few more days to be able to read a transcript or one of your excellent articles in full font size rather than struggle with reproduced tweets.. Something to think about please? And also, I don’t have a website, which makes filling in your ‘required details’ to post a comment difficult. Why is a URL necessary to post a comment?

  3. Thank you for highlighting the AG’s clumsy and obvious political interference in something that is a matter of law. It’s particularly reassuring to see the Court of Appeal giving short shrift to a politician using alleged public concern as a means to score political points in the Daily Mail and Sun at the expense of people who have close to zero public sympathy. I thought that, in a democracy, political representatives were supposed to stand up for those who can’t speak for themselves.

Leave a Reply