I am inordinately proud of the Sex Matters intervention in FWS v Scottish Ministers. It's a model of calm, lucid, rational, orthodox legal reasoning leading inexorably to the only conclusion that makes sense.
I am inordinately proud of the Sex Matters intervention in FWS v Scottish Ministers. It's a model of calm, lucid, rational, orthodox legal reasoning leading inexorably to the only conclusion that makes sense.
One of the things that's interesting about this is that it is much more draconian than most social media policies should be. That's because "necessary... for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary" is one of the express justifications for interference with article 10.
New social media guidance has been issued for judges (including fee-paid (i.e. part-time) judges) in England and Wales. Here are some of the standout provisions … /1
November 3, 2024 at 2:59 PM
One of the things that's interesting about this is that it is much more draconian than most social media policies should be. That's because "necessary... for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary" is one of the express justifications for interference with article 10.