dag
LightNews LightNews
banner
davidallengreen.bsky.social
dag
@davidallengreen.bsky.social
57K followers 1.8K following 8.7K posts
Blogger.

Mainly law and policy; Aston Villa supporter; sometimes ironic.

Birmingham/London.
Posts Replies Media Videos
davidallengreen.bsky.social
Why juries matter

Jury trials should not be deleted without properly funding other parts of the criminal justice system

By me, at @prospectmagazine.co.uk

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...
December 4, 2025 at 10:58 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
December 1, 2025 at 9:45 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
For those kind enough to be paying subscribers, I have done a treat post:

How the BBC censored the line that Trump is “the most openly corrupt president in American history”

emptycity.substack.com/p/how-the-bb...
November 30, 2025 at 11:01 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
“Behold the beam for thine own eye.”
November 29, 2025 at 2:39 PM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
NEW

When is an order an ‘unlawful command’?

And why has Trump reacted so furiously to six members of Congress correctly stating the law?

By me, at @prospectmagazine.co.uk

(In which I go and look at the actual law and guidance in US and also UK.)

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...
What the six members of Congress said was correct—indeed it went no further than that the Department of Defense’s own court martial manual guidance. No particular order is mentioned: the video is framed in general terms. In any normal circumstance, the response of the US president and the administration generally would be to say “of course”. But Donald Trump and the administration did not respond in that sensible way. The president said that the six legislators should be tried and executed for sedition. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating. There is even the proposal that one of the six, Senator Mark Kelly, is recalled to service so he can be punished and dismissed, notwithstanding his exemplary military service. This is nasty political intimidation on a grand scale. But the six are standing firm in the face of this bullying onslaught. They are right to do so. Although the video is a political act, to which there should be political responses, the content of the video aligns with the US government’s own formally published understanding of when orders should be disobeyed.
November 27, 2025 at 3:19 PM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
This (I think) is the UK equivalent provision on "lawful orders":

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8208...
November 26, 2025 at 8:50 PM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
For information, this is what the US court martial rules provide for in respect of the (un)lawfulness of an order.

jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/2...
November 26, 2025 at 8:05 PM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
“And on the third stroke,” said the ghost of Marley, “ you will wake up with a start and remember your own role in the events of January 6.”
November 20, 2025 at 7:52 PM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
Yesterday/today is the 25th anniversary of the wedding of Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas and thereby also of the birth of the law of misuse of private information.

#Article8
OK magazine cover of wedding Extract from legal judgment
November 19, 2025 at 3:56 PM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
Will be sad to lose this Hallowe’en costume.
November 1, 2025 at 8:14 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
A crow and a raven, apparently: taken from a wiki pic
October 26, 2025 at 10:01 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
NEW

The gaming of the American constitution

How a codified “written” constitution is being manipulated by those acting in bad faith

By me, at @prospectmagazine.co.uk
www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...
There is cynicism where constitutionalism should be. While bad faith actors can rely on their own official powers, they are preventing the proper operation of checks and balances. That there is a “written” codified constitution makes absolutely no difference. Constitutional form makes no difference when those with power can act unconstitutionally and simply get away with it.
October 24, 2025 at 10:47 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
They are now naming storms after American history painters.
October 23, 2025 at 5:36 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
MI5 accept they have been "justly criticised by the courts" in this speech last week from their Director General.

www.mi5.gov.uk/director-gen...

ht @bricksilk.bsky.social
October 20, 2025 at 7:19 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
NEW - UPDATE POST

Did the CPS make a fundamental mistake with the charging decision in the Chinese spying case?

How the CPS may have asked the wrong legal question and so made a wrong charging decision

By me

emptycity.substack.com/p/did-the-cp...
October 16, 2025 at 3:56 PM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
NEW

What the Chinese spying case witness statements reveal

The Crown Prosecution Service appears to have made at least one serious error, while the government's position now makes sense

By me

emptycity.substack.com/p/what-the-c...
Yesterday this blog sought to make sense of the decision to drop the Chinese Spying prosecutions on the information then available, and averred that both the positions of the government and the Crown Prosecution Service did not make sense. Now the government has published three witness statements, the picture now changes. The government’s position now makes sense, and the CPS looks as if it made at least one serious mistake and possibly another.
October 16, 2025 at 9:54 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
NEW

Trying to make sense of the nonsensical decision to drop the Chinese spying prosecutions

How the positions of neither the CPS nor the government stand up to scrutiny

By me

emptycity.substack.com/p/trying-to-...
The more one knows about this case, the more confusing it becomes. The CPS insists on further evidence it does not require, and the government insists it could not give that evidence, even though it could. Neither side makes sense, and together they make no sense absolutely.
October 15, 2025 at 10:21 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
In the United States we appear to have an example of a stridently partisan attorney general in Pamela Bondi. As Joyce White Vance insightfully put it, Donald Trump has finally found his new Roy Cohn. In a boisterous and evasive session this week before the Senate, it was plain that Bondi did not think much of congressional oversight, though as Jay Kuo wisely points out her refusal to answer certain direct questions may become increasingly politically and legally significant. In England we seem to have a sustained assault upon the office of attorney general itself. The current office holder Richard Hermer is faced with constant media criticism about the role of independent legal advice within government, especially in respect of its compliance with international law. But the underlying issue pre-dates his term of office, as one of his predecessors wanted a more “solution”-orientated approach. As a deepening dividing line develops in the politics of both the United Kingdom and the United States between those who want brute uninhibited executive power and those who think this may not be a good idea, the theory and practice of having an attorney general semi-detached from the government is an obvious point of conflict.
October 9, 2025 at 11:17 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
NEW

Law versus politics

Both the UK and the US face a choice between unchecked executive power or a balanced constitution

By me at @prospectmagazine.co.uk

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...
This is the crucial choice facing those both in the United Kingdom and the United States. What is to be the relationship between those with political power and the force of law? In the United States it would seem that, at a federal level, both Congress and the Supreme Court are content to nod along with excessive use of presidential power. It is only the individual states themselves and the lower courts that are seeking to hold that executive power to account. While in the United Kingdom there are louder political demands for the government to be free from the constraints placed by international law and supposedly activist judges. The implicit call is that ministers and officials should be able to do as they like to the rest of us without any possibility of a court ever saying otherwise. What will happen in this contest between executive power and legal restraint cannot be predicted. The happy assumption of the Whig interpretation of history may not be well-grounded. From a liberal perspective things are not only getting worse, but could get a lot worse. The illiberals know what they are doing and they are doing it well.
October 9, 2025 at 11:12 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
NEW

Freedom is just another word for "a gap in the law"

The Home Secretary wants to ban more things

By me

Substack
emptycity.substack.com/p/freedom-is...

Personal blog
davidallengreen.com/2025/10/free...
Home Secretary tells Sky News that “there is a gap in the law” when it comes to frequent, repeated protests on the same issue. Hence she will be giving police greater powers to move them to another location or time.
October 7, 2025 at 12:34 PM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
over 87 pages the judgment provides a richly detailed insight into the sometimes murky world of government contracting. There is stuff in this judgment which would never usually be revealed by a hundred freedom of information requests. In particular, the judgment provides a case study of how practically suppliers can and do exert pressure on officials (and ultimately ministers) and how the government responds to that commercial pressure. One can perhaps understand why the government, like many large organisations, does not want its pre-contract negotiations served up in public documents.
October 3, 2025 at 11:49 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
NEW

Why the government was right to take PPE Medpro to court

The state should enforce its contractual rights against suppliers more often

By me, at @prospectmagazine.co.uk

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...
Mone was neither a director nor shareholder of that company but she was, from this judgment, its champion lobbyist. At a critical stage, according to the judgment, the PPE Medro negotiator “engaged his ‘big gun’ – contacting Baroness Mone who then took up the fight on behalf of Medpro direct with […] the Cabinet Office threatening further escalation.” Mone sent an email to the Cabinet Office (which indicates the input of lawyers) insisting a contract had already somehow been entered into. She wrote “the committee sign off, the finance sign off, the verbal conversations on the urgency of goods and the signed returned contract, all constitutes a contract, with a legal and moral obligation on [the Department of Health and Social Care]”. But this was not correct of law or fact. The matter was still entirely subject to contract. The supplier may well have been incurring costs in anticipation of a contract, but at this stage this was at their own risk. In that email, however, a parliamentarian was falsely stating to the government that a high-value contract was already in place and that the government was thereby obliged to purchase the goods. In fact, the final price had not even been determined. There had not even been a best or final offer.
October 3, 2025 at 11:45 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
There is some fascinating stuff in that judgment, if you read it closely.

These paragraphs for example.
October 1, 2025 at 1:37 PM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
NEW

The Kneecap prosecution collapsed because police and prosecutors did not take terrorism law seriously

Where "a technicality" hides a fundamental error

By me

Substack: emptycity.substack.com/p/the-kneeca...

Personal blog:
davidallengreen.com/2025/09/the-...
At the bottom of this mess is a simple point: the police and the prosecutors were careless with terrorism law and careless about its express safeguards. Things were left to the last minute and a consent (which may or may not have been given) - a step imposed by parliament as a crucial step - was not obtained. And this mishap meant that the Chief Magistrate of England and Wales had no jurisdiction to hear what was on the face of it a terrorism case. Police and the prosecutors should remember that this is terrorism law that they are dealing with. Terrorism law should be taken seriously.
September 29, 2025 at 9:01 AM
davidallengreen.bsky.social
A reply-guy, earlier.
September 28, 2025 at 12:49 PM