That’s lovely
27.05.2025 06:25
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
That’s lovely
'Will you hear me sing when all our words have flown away?'
An extract from 'Incantation', the final movement of my recent piece Going, Going, Gone, which celebrates words in the English language that are going obsolete.
Full thing here open.spotify.com/track/2MY8Vv...
Fingers crossed - it can’t be any worse than it already is. Oh…
Always - may not be the smartest but can always be the kindest x
Have had to use the block function on here for the first time. Guess online folks gonna be online folks. 🥴
Ah the language of kindness and inclusion
This person is Attorney General of the United States - a part of the executive - declaring war on the Courts headed by John Roberts.
That she should be impeached and gone by noon tomorrow is a given. However, there is no way now Roberts can duck this fight and have any credible role.
FBI Director Kash Patel v Follow @FBIDirectorKash Just NOW, the FBI arrested Judge Hannah Dugan out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin on charges of obstruction — after evidence of Judge Dugan obstructing an immigration arrest operation last week. We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject — an illegal alien — to evade arrest. Thankfully our agents chased down the perp on foot and he's been in custody since, but the Judge's obstruction created increased danger to the public. We will have more to share soon. Excellent work @FBIMilwaukee.
Through all his troubles, neither the DOJ/FBI nor any state authorities ever subjected Donald Trump to arrest, preferring in every case to proceed by indictment and voluntary surrender. It’s notable that a sitting judge and pillar of the Milwaukee community was not extended the same courtesy.
And if you leave, who is left in your stead ?
Please don’t. You stand as a beacon for all the values I admire in Quakers.
Shall mourn Pope Francis.
Lux aeterna luceat ei..Requiescat In Pace
But will add this: this is one of the most important conclaves in living memory. Possibly longer.
Think I may tap up one of my oldest profession friends… who happens to be a lecturer in Criminology now !
Er….
I wanted to be a Criminal barrister for the oral advocacy. Now my life is a paper trail of emails, “attendance” notes, defence statements and endless advices ….
Word of the day is ‘bugiard’ (17th century): one who distorts the truth beyond all recognition to fit their own agenda.
Will try and take a look at the book!
Also: the architecture of courtrooms adds to the whole thing.
Or the poor sleepy juror we recently had.
When I was younger I used to giggle at a #StarTrek character called Deanna Troy. The ship’s counsellor and an empath who would interpret situations etc
Now I see it as prescient.
The British model is far from perfect but I fear this coming our way more heavily and readily now.
The stances taken on the COVID regulations gave a glimpse.
I have long said that no recreation will create a true facsimile of a trial where the stakes are high and real as well as the jury being people compelled to attend as their legal/civic duty. So many factors feed into a trial that cannot be reproduced in a “tame” setting. Though they may give clues.
Tech bros gonna tech bro… they think they are being radical, “disruptors of the status quo” when in reality it’s only to feed narrow interests: their own usually.
Also as a practitioner may I also add that trials develop an atmosphere ? A vibe if you will. It never gets translated into the narrative of cases either in news reports or case reports.
Worth reading the review. All I kept asking myself as I did was “How is this going to be funded?” Closely followed by “ And how is this going to play out in real time conditions?”
It always intrigues me in judgments when they say things like “the jury must have decided x”. We just don’t know!
For the good of my blood pressure and mental health, do I listen to Rod Liddle (for it is he!) on Times Radio discuss whether ADHD even exists…. 🙄😬
Well worth a listen to today’s episode of the Law Show on BBC Radio4 on expert evidence. Will add this caveat: juries determine cases on all the evidence they have heard and that can include the Defendant’s evidence if they choose to give it.
It rarely works… time blindness !
