Scott Wortley
@Scott_Wortley
Scottish Law lecturer. Interest in statutory interpretation & legislation, Accidental mental health advocate.
Good journalism costs money. Lots of journalists doing an excellent job covering the Peggie tribunal. If you can, please support by buying a paper, or taking out a subscription.
And a neutral venue for the two teams that are playing in it!!!😳😳😜😜👍👍
England is the rightful place to house the next 3 cycles of the World Test Championship Finals. It’s the only country that can guarantee full houses for the first 4 days.
Sometimes think the final scene in the first series of sherlock is set in a swimming pool for a subliminal will patrons kindly refrain from bombing reference, among others. I want the estimable Steven Moffat to tell me I am reading too much in to it.
Yes, but imagine how quickly you could write your next law book 🧐 🤣
Re-watching Hitchcock's "Rear Window," I naturally have to wonder: In the scene where Jimmy Stewart tries to get his detective friend to illegally search Thorwald's apartment, does the detective's constitutional objection invoke the 4th Amendment, or New York's Article I § 12?
Everyone thinks it’s grand that Jessica Fletcher goes all over solving murders the local cops can’t. I just wonder what happens when she’s back home in Cabot Cove. How many thousands of murders are going unsolved across the United States because of serially incompetent police?
If anyone wants to query the explanation of the delcqratory theory of judicial determination in this thread as it applies to statutory interpretation do please respond, but do better than the incoherent Denning argument that interpretation only applies in a fact specific context.
With all appropriate respect to this tweeter, who I understand has a PhD, this tweet demonstrates some fundamental misconceptions about how judicial decision making works - issues which are taught in the first few weeks of year 1 of a standard LLB. Within the jurisdictions in
"I am pointing out that until this ruling is a) tested in court and/or b) the government issues new operative guidance the ruling is a hypothetical." How is it hypothetical? And How do you test a UKSC determination of the consistent meaning of an expression in a statute in court?
So, either you haven't read the FWS ruling or you are confusing a legal ruling for the practical application of the ruling. Either way, I do understand how the courts work (and that FWS did present a potential conception of sex as per the EA2010), and I am pointing out that until…