Thank you, Conor. That's very kind.

I agree, Jess.

That's very kind, David. But I was home alone and looking for something to do ... I am much more likely to be watching something on Netflix this evening!

Thanks for reading, Stefan. And I agree with your points. Presumably while some of what they want to do re Art 8 will be relatively straightforward, as you say, other aspects will at least test the Strasbourg envelope, as it were, depending on exacrly what the new legislation ends up saying.

Thanks, Schona.

Thanks, Stefan. And I agree with you.

I wrote a short piece on their '50 problematic cases' (publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/05/09/a...) and also a response to John Finnis's lecture that (I think) launched the JPP (publiclawforeveryone.com/2015/11/05/j...)

One of the highlights of one of the Covid lockdowns was the arrival of hard copies of the new edition of my textbook; the feline member of the household, who loves boxes rather than books, was also delighted.

Congratulations, Hester! I’m so pleased to see this.

Agree. But, as I say in my blogpost, the fact that they felt able to include (irrelevant) information about their current view undermines their argument that they considered themselves wholly bound by the previous government's view, and underlines that they could have, but chose not to, say more.