James Abrahams KC

@BarristerSecret This is going to be horrible. My favourite courtroom drama but it won’t stand this analysis.

***MY COUSIN VINNY LIVE-TWEET: THE RULES*** This lecture explores the cinematic classic 'My Cousin Vinny' through the lens of English and Welsh law. Contributions and observations are welcome, but I'm perfectly prepared to tweet the entire film to a wall of embarrassed silence.

The title page makes clear that this is *NOT* a report

Quite smart of Sue Gray to publish a document that is very clearly *not* her report, so that there is no way that it can be passed off as an actual report.

This document is not the Sue Gray report and it’s important that people do not say that it is her report. It is an update on her investigation. gov.uk/government/pub…

@dougclow Your analysis is right. If Ofqual was going to keep the algorithm confidential, then the NDA would have prevented any effective discussion of the algorithm by the RSS. But if Ofqual was always going to publish the final algorithm, then the NDA seems perfectly reasonable.

So they did need to ensure anyone they gave it to was legally bound to confidentiality, as per GDPR. The Ofqual letter seems to imply it was all about that. It wasn't, though: using an NDA rather than GDPR text makes it clear that the algorithm (and process) was also covered. 6/

This is interesting/concerning and warrants some careful examination. My non-lawyer first take is that @RoyalStatSoc were right that the NDA would preclude detailed commentary on the algorithm for five years, or until it was made public. 1/

When the Police don’t seem to know what the law actually is, it’s time to worry.

In case you were wondering why they were making so much noise in the House of Commons...

@RNLI @MailOnline @thetimes I’m an irregular donor and I admit that I didn’t know about this work. I think it is wonderful and will be donating more frequently now.

In response to the @MailOnline & @thetimes:we are proud of our international work. Its saves (mostly kids') lives. And we haven't kept it secret - it's in our annual report, on our website and in the media. We spend just 2% of our expenditure on this work: rnli.info/KUfLBe

Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is about circumstances “not foreseen by the parties”. If we’re talking about such circumstances now, before the Withdrawal Agreement is signed, then they’re not “not foreseen by the parties”, are they?

When is someone going to realise that the fact that Putin is so desperate for Brexit might be a clue that it is not in the UK’s interest? theguardian.com/politics/2018/…

@bbclaurak What if MPS refused to amend the Business Motion that was passed last week? Can the Commons insist on the vote going ahead?

Leadsom statement on Commons business expected to follow PM statement this afternoon, which implies they are indeed pulling the vote

CC @davidallengreen @IanDunt @JolyonMaugham

Presumably, to pull the Brexit vote, the government would need a majority of MPs to vote in favour of amending the Business Motion passes last week? And therefore MPs could refuse and insist on the vote going ahead?

Wrong. Very very wrong.

This would avoid economic hardships of #Brexit; but the UK would not be a rule-taker, because it would have a full say in all rules applicable to it.

It’s obvious what the right #Brexit deal is: Single Market/Customs Union membership, with a right to participate in decision making at Commission, Council and Parliament level. EU would happily give the UK such a deal.

New cabinet minister Penny Mordaunt is a proven Brexit liar bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…

@paddypower Serious odds request: The UK to leave the EU in March 2019 with no agreement at all under Article 50?

The 'Great Repeal Bill' will repeal precisely zero laws. This is how politics works in the age of Brexit.

Please tell me this is a joke? The leader of the opposition organising a rally against a bill he whipped his MPs to vote for? twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/s…