Public Sector Lawyer

Given the stunning picture & the other guest you've mentioned, I'm now wondering how you'd fit into a White Lotus storyline.

TBH I wasn't confused before, but I am now.

The sort of thing that would struggle to pass the proportionality test.

This is good.

Includes this, setting out a distinction between wars of necessity & choice, which - looking at the examples - pretty much accords with the distinction between legal & illegal military action.
bsky.app/profile/a-re...

The idea that the current AG has somehow erected his own legal obstacles to joining this war is ridiculous.

No AG offering proper advice would simply wave this through on the basis that Iran is a bad regime, allowing the US & Israel to do whatever they want.

So e.g. if joining the US & Israel, it would be necessary to consider if any action was likely to be proportionate to the objectives.

So:
- What are the US & Israeli objectives here? (Unclear + (at least) legally dubious.)
- Will action (eg from UK bases) be proportionate to any legal objective?

The legal advice deriving from this & other sources is unlikely to differ radically from one administration to another. Principles such as this remain the same.

The Government has its own (respected & orthodox) textbook on the law of war, pictured, which is used regardless of which party is power.

FWIW here's what I'm clinging to:

1. Trump's reality is a reality TV show, a series of episodes, & quickly gets bored with each one. He'll want the credits to roll on this pretty soon.

2. Despite the 2 term limit & posse of yes-men, he's still sees polls & markets, & craves adulation & a legacy.

While I don't disagree at all that lawyers should consider all eventualities, & present advice in a risk-based way, & look at ways of helping clients achieve their objectives, sometimes this can obscure the main thrust of advice that a proposed course is, in the lawyer's view, unlawful.

It can also be difficult to tell whether advice falls within the amber or red zone below.

What may appear a tenable argument to some may not to others. There can be pressure from clients & managers, & often hard to resist erring on the side of agreeing. Then, hey presto, "legal clearance".

The 2024 Hermer version laid more stress on the importance of Government acting lawfully. If there was only a tenable legal argument in favour of a proposed course of action, it set out the following considerations.

It’s this tension that partly explains the difference between the 2 most recent versions of the Attorney General’s Legal Risk Guidance. The 2022 Braverman version was solutions-focussed & more comfortable with proceeding on advice that there was a high risk of being found unlawful.

You might give an estimate of c.80% that a court will determine unlawfulness (about 10% of which is just to account for uncertainty). The gung-ho client might go for a 20% chance, & think such advice gives them legal cover to act. Sometimes this will be referred to subsequently as "legal clearance".

But often the lawyer will have a pretty firm view that a particular course is unlawful, & that the counter-arguments are very weak, & simply presenting the matter as a balance of risks can obscure that view.

Then you can tell your client: well, there are arguments on both sides. So up to you which one you pick, albeit that one course may be riskier than another.

(With international law, the legal risks are often lower, because there’s often no court that will determine the matter.)

Rather, you could say that there are such assessments out there, & it’s impossible to completely discount them, & there’s enough, stitching together all these possibilities, to put together a respectable argument.

Lord Wolfson made a lot out of this argument in the podcast (from his post on X).

This of course relying on US assessments, which until recently were that such capability had been ‘obliterated’.

No one of course really *believes* that Iran was on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons.

Iran - Bombing International Law? Podcast Episode · Double Jeopardy - UK Law and Politics · 4 March · 42m

Intriguing to hear Lord Wolfson defending the apparently indefensible here.

How far should a lawyer entertain arguments that are on the cusp of absurd?
podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/d...

From a Labour MP & former pollster, dismantling Blue Labour myths about the ‘hero voters’.

bsky.app/profile/chri...

This is excellent, and (one of my own bugbears over the last week) absolutely spot-on on the issue of "family voting".
bsky.app/profile/joxl...

bsky.app/profile/chri...

"Now Clive of India has become Deano of Dubai, driving a Rolls-Royce while flogging a crypto scheme on TikTok."

bsky.app/profile/dunc...

And another one.

bsky.app/profile/publ...

Re Nick Timothy - there is still a warmth felt for Grange Hill in certain age groups. And this means with Timothy's popularity only one thing - Bring Francois into the shadow cabinet.

(Below Timothy and Francois pictured after the 2024 election result)

Especially, I'd have thought, if there's a link made between that & increased crime.

Thinking of @dmk1793.bsky.social's article when reading this thread. An example of extreme anti-deliverism: here actually being willing to make things substantially worse for the sake of the optics.
samf.substack.com/p/is-deliver...

No.5 was in fact mistitled, & everyone's got it wrong. If you listen to it properly (play it now if you don't believe me) the track is actually "The Trucks Don't Work". It's a lorry driver's lament.

This is really good.
bsky.app/profile/rola...

Yes. IMV also if fraud is widespread enough it can undermine the public’s faith in the electoral process, even if the result would’ve been the same. So needs to be properly investigated in all cases. But reports of a few incidents alone, without proof, is quite different.