Honestly, if you appreciate me and the work I have done, and continue to do. And if you want to get me a birthday present - support Good Law Project's work 👇

goodlawproject.org/donate/?utm_...

Thank you Jo! A reminder to anyone who wants to get me a birthday present - please support GLP!

Thank you Jo! A reminder to anyone who wants to get me a birthday present - please support GLP!

Honestly, if you appreciate me and the work I have done, and continue to do. And if you want to get me a birthday present - support Good Law Project's work 👇

goodlawproject.org/donate/?utm_...

Turns out a religious devotion to fiscal rules is not an alternative to actual economic investment. Who knew?

This is particularly true when claimant anonymity is at risk. So I am relieved that the Court rejected their application to live tweet. And I think that they had to apologise for their inaccuracies in Court today even when *not* live tweeting should be taken into account by judges in future.

Court reporting is a very sensitive and demanding job. It is particularly difficult to do so live. I know because I have done it myself on multiple occasions.

But I think this series of errors from Tribunal Tweets does not reflect well on their ability to undertake that difficult task.

In their apology tweet about their "very unfortunate error" they linked to the wrong hearing notes, claiming they were of this morning's session when actually they were of the permission hearing! This publicly misrepresented the content of today's hearing.

This link has now been updated.

Tribunal Tweets have since apologised for this "very unfortunate error". What they don't mention is that it was brought to the attention of the Judge, and they had to stand up in Court to apologise and clarify they had meant to say "avoid" rather than "allow" in the above tweet.

But that's not all.

This is particularly true when claimant anonymity is at risk. So I am relieved that the Court rejected their application to live tweet. And I think that they had to apologise for their inaccuracies in Court today even when *not* live tweeting should be taken into account by judges in future.

Court reporting is a very sensitive and demanding job. It is particularly difficult to do so live. I know because I have done it myself on multiple occasions.

But I think this series of errors from Tribunal Tweets does not reflect well on their ability to undertake that difficult task.

In their apology tweet about their "very unfortunate error" they linked to the wrong hearing notes, claiming they were of this morning's session when actually they were of the permission hearing! This publicly misrepresented the content of today's hearing.

This link has now been updated.

Tribunal Tweets have since apologised for this "very unfortunate error". What they don't mention is that it was brought to the attention of the Judge, and they had to stand up in Court to apologise and clarify they had meant to say "avoid" rather than "allow" in the above tweet.

But that's not all.

It was clearly an error and they have publicly corrected it. But shows the risks of inaccuracy in their live reporting, imo.

Because it's rolled up you don't get a decision on permission first. You get a decision on both permission and the substance together. So GLP are currently making our substantive submissions.

Don't

She also says that it will help her exercise her functions in relation to the full statutory code if the High Court decides the questions before it, notwithstanding that (for reasons she doesn't understand: para 46) the EHRC withdrew the interim guidance (para 49).

A few points worth noting.

The Equalities Minister confirms that she didn't receive advance sight of the interim guidance (paragraph 7 of her Skeleton) and had no involvement in it (para 42); she also points out that the EHRC gave her no reasons for withdrawing it (para 12).