Reposted
EU example of drowning small companies in paperwork. UK examples will be easy to find (and let's not start again on ending small company de minimis exemptions...) www.ft.com/content/0797...
Companies swamped by 3,000 hours of paperwork to tap EU climate funds
Of the €7.1bn awarded from the bloc’s flagship innovation programme for clean tech, only 5% has been paid out
www.ft.com
November 30, 2025 at 10:31 AM
EU example of drowning small companies in paperwork. UK examples will be easy to find (and let's not start again on ending small company de minimis exemptions...) www.ft.com/content/0797...
Its almost like the only real answer is to build an additional set of tracks to run fast services between Manchester and London, so that they aren’t competing with stopping services.
November 29, 2025 at 7:33 PM
Its almost like the only real answer is to build an additional set of tracks to run fast services between Manchester and London, so that they aren’t competing with stopping services.
Apologies for being dense, but if the train is still running in order to get staff to London in the morning, than how does it improve reliability - presumably the train is still there on the tracks blocking stopping services?
November 29, 2025 at 7:14 PM
Apologies for being dense, but if the train is still running in order to get staff to London in the morning, than how does it improve reliability - presumably the train is still there on the tracks blocking stopping services?
Also, of course, the common law brought with the settlers in the early 1600 is contemporaneous with Proclamations and Prohibitions, pre-Civil War/Glorious Revolution and pre-Entick. The Mayflower landing was as far away from Entick as we are Disraeli and Gladstone.
November 29, 2025 at 6:11 PM
Also, of course, the common law brought with the settlers in the early 1600 is contemporaneous with Proclamations and Prohibitions, pre-Civil War/Glorious Revolution and pre-Entick. The Mayflower landing was as far away from Entick as we are Disraeli and Gladstone.
You end up with German, Italian, Polish etc lawyers bringing ideas of a droit administratif with them, and superimposing that onto the common law foundations via the medium of the Bill of Rights and, later, 14A.
November 29, 2025 at 6:06 PM
You end up with German, Italian, Polish etc lawyers bringing ideas of a droit administratif with them, and superimposing that onto the common law foundations via the medium of the Bill of Rights and, later, 14A.
This is just the same phenomenon as their take on Entick v Carrington - trying to find some special public law principle to restrict government action. I do wonder if it is partly a result of European immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries.
November 29, 2025 at 6:06 PM
This is just the same phenomenon as their take on Entick v Carrington - trying to find some special public law principle to restrict government action. I do wonder if it is partly a result of European immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Or just have a judge sitting with two or three lay persons. You get reasons, but also collective reasoning.
Coincidentally, that is what Leveson is suggesting, and many of our European neighbours already have.
Coincidentally, that is what Leveson is suggesting, and many of our European neighbours already have.
November 28, 2025 at 2:53 PM
Or just have a judge sitting with two or three lay persons. You get reasons, but also collective reasoning.
Coincidentally, that is what Leveson is suggesting, and many of our European neighbours already have.
Coincidentally, that is what Leveson is suggesting, and many of our European neighbours already have.
I am doubtful that the first part of the analysis is in any event correct - if my employer believes that I am more likely than not to donate money to PA, can they stop paying me my salary?
November 28, 2025 at 2:51 PM
I am doubtful that the first part of the analysis is in any event correct - if my employer believes that I am more likely than not to donate money to PA, can they stop paying me my salary?
I would imagine a court would be reluctant to conclude you can escape your contract by unilaterally declaring you will use the proceeds for a criminal purpose (thus making performance illegal) and then using that non-payment as grounds for termination.
November 28, 2025 at 2:49 PM
I would imagine a court would be reluctant to conclude you can escape your contract by unilaterally declaring you will use the proceeds for a criminal purpose (thus making performance illegal) and then using that non-payment as grounds for termination.
Assuming the interpretation of the TA re not paying her based on stated intentions is correct, I'm doubtful that that provides her a ground for lawful termination of her contracts.
November 28, 2025 at 2:49 PM
Assuming the interpretation of the TA re not paying her based on stated intentions is correct, I'm doubtful that that provides her a ground for lawful termination of her contracts.
They are progressive until they aren’t. Once you earn enough you can pay them down voluntarily to avoid the punitive interest rates (Plus children for wealthy parents can avoid taking loans altogether). It’s basically the only tax reduction tool left for the top 1-5%.
November 27, 2025 at 10:57 PM
They are progressive until they aren’t. Once you earn enough you can pay them down voluntarily to avoid the punitive interest rates (Plus children for wealthy parents can avoid taking loans altogether). It’s basically the only tax reduction tool left for the top 1-5%.
This is what £800k should by you in a normal country. Not a two bed flat in zone 2.
November 27, 2025 at 8:05 PM
This is what £800k should by you in a normal country. Not a two bed flat in zone 2.
One is a fully qualified barrister, one is an associate member of a chambers and two were consulting on recent high profile cases.
November 26, 2025 at 11:46 PM
One is a fully qualified barrister, one is an associate member of a chambers and two were consulting on recent high profile cases.
There is one course I sometimes audit where all a majority of the academics in the room either currently do (or have done in the recent past) work on live cases either as barristers or consultants.
November 26, 2025 at 11:44 PM
There is one course I sometimes audit where all a majority of the academics in the room either currently do (or have done in the recent past) work on live cases either as barristers or consultants.
But they do so in secret, without reasons or even any ability to ask them why they did what they did. Knowing what I know about jury misconduct, the idea of being tried by jury terrifies me (unless I’m guilty and hoping the jury will act lawlessly).
November 26, 2025 at 3:30 PM
But they do so in secret, without reasons or even any ability to ask them why they did what they did. Knowing what I know about jury misconduct, the idea of being tried by jury terrifies me (unless I’m guilty and hoping the jury will act lawlessly).
A £20000 allowances for gilts then.
November 26, 2025 at 1:09 PM
A £20000 allowances for gilts then.
And and, that a jury is still the same thing it was 100 years ago even though, unlike in the US, we no longer allow challenges without cause or exclude hearsay or bad character, and allow majority verdicts.
November 26, 2025 at 11:57 AM
And and, that a jury is still the same thing it was 100 years ago even though, unlike in the US, we no longer allow challenges without cause or exclude hearsay or bad character, and allow majority verdicts.
Oh and wild jingoism that basically nowhere else in Europe has fair trials, and that 95% of criminal cases here, no tried by juries, are also unfair.
November 26, 2025 at 11:57 AM
Oh and wild jingoism that basically nowhere else in Europe has fair trials, and that 95% of criminal cases here, no tried by juries, are also unfair.
It’s based on 12 Angry Men and romanticism of cases like Bushell’s case, when jurors were all property owning men.
November 26, 2025 at 11:50 AM
It’s based on 12 Angry Men and romanticism of cases like Bushell’s case, when jurors were all property owning men.
There is no automatic right to appeal for trials on indictment and hasn’t been for a long while. This is about the Mags, which isn’t really a right of appeal but a right to rehearing de novo, which has persisted because mags proceedings aren't recorded (which Leveson wants to change)
November 26, 2025 at 11:35 AM
There is no automatic right to appeal for trials on indictment and hasn’t been for a long while. This is about the Mags, which isn’t really a right of appeal but a right to rehearing de novo, which has persisted because mags proceedings aren't recorded (which Leveson wants to change)
I believe Sue Carr was offered a choice in this regard, and she chose to be Lady Chief rather than Lord Chief as in the past (although some thought she might take Lord Chief). A future non-male LCJ could similarly choose a prefix that suited if necessary.
November 26, 2025 at 9:46 AM
I believe Sue Carr was offered a choice in this regard, and she chose to be Lady Chief rather than Lord Chief as in the past (although some thought she might take Lord Chief). A future non-male LCJ could similarly choose a prefix that suited if necessary.
No, having trials now being listed for 2029 is obviously a perfectly functional justice system…
November 25, 2025 at 10:48 PM
No, having trials now being listed for 2029 is obviously a perfectly functional justice system…
No one in my profession seems to want to address Leveson’s detailed reasoning - as he says, when he started he sometimes did three jury trials a day. For good reason that isn’t possible any more. Even if you could fund justice in the same relative way as the 1970s, you wouldn’t stop the backlog.
November 25, 2025 at 10:47 PM
No one in my profession seems to want to address Leveson’s detailed reasoning - as he says, when he started he sometimes did three jury trials a day. For good reason that isn’t possible any more. Even if you could fund justice in the same relative way as the 1970s, you wouldn’t stop the backlog.