want to follow the news but can't bear thinking about ordinary Iranians, who've been stuck under such an oppressive regime for so long, who maybe got a flicker of hope, briefly, a few months ago, then watched in horror as their friends and relatives got killed by the state, and now this, unspeakable
NEW BLOGPOST: Keir Starmer and David Lammy are taking an extraordinarily dangerous gamble with our individual liberty
For any MP unsure of how to vote on the government’s proposals to restrict trial by jury.
It's sad to see people who had never heard of Democracy Volunteers yesterday all over social media trashing them.
They've been around for a decade & are partly funded by the (left-leaning) Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
We protest when the right trashes these groups. The left shouldn't do it either.
Some reasons people might apply for an assisted death, according to Kim Leadbeater and Lord Falconer:
(Credit to Dan Hitchens for sourcing and compiling)
The right to self-determination is vital. That's why Greenlanders should have ultimate say on the future of Greenland, and the Chagossians should have ultimate say on the future of the Chagos Islands. The proposed Chagos deal is a neocolonial giveaway. It should be cancelled.
This is great news for Cambridge, but only serves to remind us how precarious the palliative care sector is. It couldn't be a more dangerous time to be introducing assisted suicide. How about using public funds to properly resource hospices instead? premium.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/communi...
Trump 1.0 was Julius Caesar
Trump 2.0 is King Lear
And everyone watching in Congress is Hamlet
Realistically we can only hope that SCOTUS will come to our aid, the sooner the better. A big test for the United States’ highest court.
![NEW: @potus letter to @jonasgahrstore links @NobelPrize to Greenland, reiterates threats, and is forwarded by the NSC staff to multiple European ambassadors in Washington. I obtained the text from multiple officials:
Dear Ambassador:
President Trump has asked that the following message, shared with Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, be forwarded to your [named head of government/state]
“Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:hbpefio3f5csc44msmbgioxz/bafkreie7itpptx3xbxhpsnlaqmwk752h7pcrion5ija2apksljtax2adx4)
NEW: @potus letter to @jonasgahrstore links @NobelPrize to Greenland, reiterates threats, and is forwarded by the NSC staff to multiple European ambassadors in Washington. I obtained the text from multiple officials: Dear Ambassador: President Trump has asked that the following message, shared with Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, be forwarded to your [named head of government/state] “Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT”
mad king moment
from the PBS Newshour correspondent
It's not the biggest issue today, but this statement should be given in Parliament.
This isn't fuddy-duddyism. It allows MPs to ask questions, puts other parties on the record, and, most importantly, doesn't allow a PM to pick the audience: a power that Starmer does not abuse, but future PMs will.
"In Defence of Classical Administrative Law", by @philipmurraylaw and me, has now been published in the Cambridge Law Journal on FirstView. It is available via the following link (open access): doi.org/10.1017/S000...
Delighted to express my support for the #SaveTheVetSchool campaign. It would be dreadful decision for @cam.ac.uk to abolish one of the best (if not the best) undergraduate Veterinary Medicine degrees in the world. savethevetschool.co.uk
Legal Studies Research Paper Series Vol. 16, No. 5
📣We have issued a new @ssrn.bsky.social Legal Studies RPS (v16 #5) including articles by @raffaelfasel.bsky.social, @philipmurray.bsky.social, Kathy Liddell & Matteo Aboy:
🔗https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/press/news/2025/11/legal-studies-research-paper-series-vol-16-no-5
Clear out toys now!
Love being reminded to do this every year. It's a win/win all round
“THE KING has been pleased by Warrant under His Royal Sign Manual dated 30 October 2025 to direct His Secretary of State to cause the Duke of York to be removed from the Roll of the Peerage with immediate effect.” thegazette.co.uk/notice/4992105
NEW
An instance of the royal prerogative
Why an Act of Parliament was not needed to remove the title from the former Duke of York
By me
Substack: emptycity.substack.com/p/an-instanc...
Personal blog: davidallengreen.com/2025/11/an-i...
Yes. I think it's clearly established you need an Act to remove a Peerage. Whether you need one to remove the title of Prince seems more contested. In 1917 Parliament was first asked to pass the Titles Deprivation Act.
A good briefing here, though doesn't resolve the issue directly. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-bri...
Though genuinely this seems to be a contested point. On the one hand, an Act of Parliament was sought (and therefore thought required?) to deprive Ernest Augustus of the title Prince in 1917. On the other hand, the title is conferred by Letters Patent and so the royal prerogative.
The House of Commons library briefing seems unclear on this: commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-bri...
Yes, I think that's the correct reading. You need an Act of Parliament legally to deprive someone of a Peerage (and the title of Prince).
Precedent suggests the government will need to lay a Bill before Parliament to turn Prince Andrew, Duke of York into Mr Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as a matter of law. They should do so.
Removal from the Roll of Peerage might deprive someone of the precedence and forms of address attaching to a peerage, but legally that person is still a peer. And removal from the roll does not stop a prince being a prince.
Renouncing peerage doesn't seem to be the same as being deprive of a peerage, though.
We're undoubtedly in the penumbra of the cardinal convention here. Evans itself recognises exceptions to it. Perhaps the regulation of royal peerages is one.
But presenting this as a quasi-private decision of the monarch seems questionable from the perspective of constitutional convention.
to remove Prince Andrew's peerage before this is official government policy? I think it's absolutely right that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is stripped of his peerage and all royal titles and honours.
at the government's request or with its consent? Under the cardinal convention, the monarch must act on, and use prerogative powers consistently with, ministerial advice, as recognised by the Upper Tribunal in Evans v Information Commissioner. Can the king therefore instruct the Lord Chancellor...
A constitutional question: maintaining the roll of the peerage is the responsibility of a government minister, viz the Lord Chancellor. It's maintained by the Ministry of Justice. Is the King able independently to instruct the Lord Chancellor to remove someone from the roll, or can he only do so...
I’m really starting to suspect that most of the tech bros haven’t actually read Tolkien, as they certainly don’t understand it.
The gentle hobbits save the “hard men” of Gondor, largely through compassion and selflessness. Not the other way around. The Christian parable is barely hidden!
