Tom Bell

@Se_Railway Presumably you’ll reimburse the cost of a taxi from Tonbridge to Wadhurst?

@Tom_Bell1 Hi Tom, we are hoping to have a replacement bus service in place from Tonbridge soon, although we don't have as many buses available as we would like. The team on site are also working on reopening one of the lines ASAP. Sorry for the disruption tonight ^PS

⚠️ NEW: Because of a failure of the power supply at #TunbridgeWells, services on the Hastings Line are being disrupted. Staff are en route to the area in order to investigate the cause of the issues. Updates to follow.

@Se_Railway How do I get to Wadhurst from Tonbridge?

⚠️ UPDATE: If you're travelling between Tonbridge and #TunbridgeWells, you can use your tickets at no extra cost on Arriva bus route 7 to help you complete your journey

@kirby_pj @Barristerblog We had a swarm last year and contacted a local beekeeper. I said he could come and collect them on condition of being given a jar of honey. Still waiting for one!

@Barristerblog We had a swarm in our garden - having googled I left it for 3 days by which time they had moved on. Would it have been better for me to contact local BBKA on day one?

There'll be lots of swarms this week. If you see one don't call the police. Don't call the pest controllers. It's not dangerous (although the odd sting is possible). Call your local beekeeping association. Someone (preferably me) will come and pick it up and give it a good home.

We're pleased to announce that Dr Victoria McCloud has been appointed as Associate Member following her retirement as a senior Judge sitting in the High Court of England & Wales gatehouselaw.co.uk/gatehouse-cham…

@kirby_pj Think we got rather lucky in Sölden

Our plans for some end of season skiing this weekend are looking a little optimistic- 22c on Saturday! Well at least the walks are lovely

@kirby_pj Here’s the before shot. I can attest to PJ being fine - and safely back at hotel

Oh dear

bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/… Learning points from this judgment i) Central London CC has room for improvement ii) The duty on advocates to ensure that litigants in person have a fair hearing is v important iii) The litigant in person who never gives up may actually be in the right

@d_a_t_green @GreenJennyJones @SarahLudford Some of them might also like to see the bill come into force and fail, rather than block it and be blamed for stopping an immigration silver bullet.

We're delighted to announce that Michael Wheater has been recommended for silk (KC) in the 2023 competition. Congratulations, Michael! Thoroughly deserved. Learn more about his expertise here... gatehouselaw.co.uk/michael-wheate…

@cjr1968 bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/…

@FaiselSadiq @michaelpforan My suspicion is that the questioner was reading a script that she didn’t fully understand. Hence not knowing that ‘disease’ referred to ‘epidemic’.

Getting outraged that someone called you a liar after you lied about them is top tier gaslighting.

@SpinningHugo @MWHoyle19 @LordThurlow What’s the difference, epistemologically speaking, between a fact that a statute deems to be true, and a fact that a court finds is true so as to create res judicata? Neither constitutes objective truth about the world. Both are legal constructs.

@MWHoyle19 @LordThurlow @SpinningHugo Surely you can see the difference between the two? One is changing a legal rule (X is liable for mesothelioma if Y) the other is changing a finding of fact made by the Court (or to be precise requiring the courts to deem X, despite the courts finding ‘not-X’).

@Tom_Bell1 @LordThurlow @SpinningHugo The HL had held that logically a defendant cannot be liable for risks they have not factually caused, as a consequence of the exceptional form of liability that is Fairchild. Parliament reversed that finding and made people liable for risks they haven’t caused.

@SirJJKC How does this argument get off the ground, given clause 2(3): "...a court...must not consider a review of...a decision...to the extent that the review...is brought on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country. "

@Dr_W_E_Bulmer @GrahamSmith_ What about when s.1 of the Constutional Statutes (Amendment) Act says, "The manner-and-form entrenchment rules within the Constitutional Statutes Act are hereby revoked." Would the Courts have to say that it is 'ultra vires' primary legislation?

@GrahamSmith_ No, because the Constitutional Statutes Act would itself be subject to manner-and-form entrenchment.

I'd settle (for now) for a Constitutional Statutes Act. This would define certain Constitutional Statutes, make them harder to amend that other Acts, give them superiority over other Acts, and allow courts to review the compatibility of other Acts with Constitutional Statutes.

@SpinningHugo @carlgardner @JoshuaRozenberg @Barristerblog @AdamWagner1 @Prof_Phillipson @StevePeers @syrpis @SeethingMead @colmocinneide @GeorgePeretzKC @michaelpforan @philipmurraylaw If Law X was directed at agents and Law Y their principals, then it creates a ‘problem’ - at least in my sense though not yours it seems - for the agents because their act results in either them personally, or their principal by operation of the rules of agency, breaching a law.

@SpinningHugo @carlgardner @JoshuaRozenberg @Barristerblog @AdamWagner1 @Prof_Phillipson @StevePeers @syrpis @SeethingMead @colmocinneide @GeorgePeretzKC @michaelpforan @philipmurraylaw That analogy doesn’t work because actions within Monopoly have no relevance to international law. But domestic acts can be relevant to international law - eg the treatment of refugees. Just because they’re different sets of laws doesn’t mean they can’t be in conflict.

@SpinningHugo @carlgardner @JoshuaRozenberg @Barristerblog @AdamWagner1 @Prof_Phillipson @StevePeers @syrpis @SeethingMead @colmocinneide @GeorgePeretzKC @michaelpforan @philipmurraylaw There’s a problem because the ‘rule of law’ doesn’t have to be ring-fenced between different categories of law. Your argument says it does, but that’s not an a priori truth. It’s a function of your chosen definition.