dag

this is like

the thesis statement of our times

"Just declare victory and get the hell out."

It's the American way.

Perhaps Trump means no conditions need to be fulfilled for him to declare there has been a surrender.

President Trump demands unconditional surrender in respect of something his government insists is not a war.

Trump’s approach to aggressive litigation is similar.

That Trump repeats calls for Iran's unconditional surrender on same day he's got the defence industrial chiefs round for an emergency meeting on military supplies perfectly sums up his grasp of ends & means.

Words, what do they mean

Good point

Perhaps Trump means no conditions need to be fulfilled for him to declare there has been a surrender.

President Trump demands unconditional surrender in respect of something his government insists is not a war.

cc @darrenslade.bsky.social who liked the comment

This week there were new arrests, though interestingly the arrests were reportedly under the section three offence, and not the section one offence. This means the basis of the arrests was not that the arrestees were suspected of obtaining or disclosing protected information prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. Instead the three arrests this week were on the basis of a suspicion that the arrestees were materially assisting the Chinese intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities, and that they would know, or should have known, this was what they were doing. The section three offence is framed in broad, fairly elastic terms. It does not require it to be shown that the conduct of the arrestees is prejudicial to the United Kingdom, merely that it would assist (in this case) the Chinese intelligence service, and that the arrestees knew or ought to have known this was the case. There does not even need

NEW

Espionage law on trial

My post at New Statesman on something interesting about the recent arrests for Chinese espionage - that it was the new s.3 offence used for the arrest. This could get interesting.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-...

It will be interesting to watch JD Vance and others who've claimed that Ukraine needs to give in on territory because all wars end in negotiations, rushing to embrace Trump's demand for UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!

I love watching people use LLMs in public. They’ll reply to a breaking news article and say “@grok is this true?” Babe where do you think it’s about to pull its answer from

That is why I wrote about notification in the post you are commenting on.

Not so long ago the United Kingdom had a plethora of gravely named statutes protecting sensitive government information: the four venerable Official Secrets Acts of 1911, 1920, 1939 and 1989. We had the theatre of people “signing the Official Secrets Act” even though the statutes bound you whether you signed or not, though sometimes you needed to be notified that it applied. The point was that the act of signing would concentrate your mind wonderfully. And then in 2023 we had an entirely new legal regime. The Official Secrets Acts were all repealed, although the ceremony of signing them may well continue. Urban myths die hard. A new statute, the National Security Act 2023, was enacted. The law was recast. The nomenclature of official secrets gave way to that of national security. These were to be laws for a modern age.

Me on the urban myth of "Signing the Official Secrets Act"

The ultimate security theatre.

Not so long ago the United Kingdom had a plethora of gravely named statutes protecting sensitive government information: the four venerable Official Secrets Acts of 1911, 1920, 1939 and 1989. We had the theatre of people “signing the Official Secrets Act” even though the statutes bound you whether you signed or not, though sometimes you needed to be notified that it applied. The point was that the act of signing would concentrate your mind wonderfully. And then in 2023 we had an entirely new legal regime. The Official Secrets Acts were all repealed, although the ceremony of signing them may well continue. Urban myths die hard. A new statute, the National Security Act 2023, was enacted. The law was recast. The nomenclature of official secrets gave way to that of national security. These were to be laws for a modern age.

Me on the urban myth of "Signing the Official Secrets Act"

The ultimate security theatre.

I expect the breadth and vagueness of the new section 3 espionage offence is going to become a topic of some controversy.

This week there were new arrests, though interestingly the arrests were reportedly under the section three offence, and not the section one offence. This means the basis of the arrests was not that the arrestees were suspected of obtaining or disclosing protected information prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. Instead the three arrests this week were on the basis of a suspicion that the arrestees were materially assisting the Chinese intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities, and that they would know, or should have known, this was what they were doing. The section three offence is framed in broad, fairly elastic terms. It does not require it to be shown that the conduct of the arrestees is prejudicial to the United Kingdom, merely that it would assist (in this case) the Chinese intelligence service, and that the arrestees knew or ought to have known this was the case. There does not even need

NEW

Espionage law on trial

My post at New Statesman on something interesting about the recent arrests for Chinese espionage - that it was the new s.3 offence used for the arrest. This could get interesting.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-...

"How many people out of the suit Jarndyce and Jarndyce has stretched forth its unwholesome hand to spoil and corrupt would be a very wide question."

Photo of a manuscript beginning "this indenture"

Treated myself to a 1698 manuscript indenture off ebay. 'It's just for teaching' I tell myself as I admire the confused-looking lion on the royal crest.

Well, I should not really be posting such headlines.

I only looked at the FT headline, and it seemed acccurate.

If you think that I shall delete

The House of Lords Digital & Communications Committee just published their report on AI, copyright & the creative industries, and their conclusions could not be clearer.

🧵 1/5

That is kept for Hallowe'en.

Ha ha

Crikey - thank you for sharing!

Thanks Tom

So it now appears based on many media reports that we bombed a girls elementary school and killed 175 people, and right after that Hegseth was beating his chest in a press conference saying we weren’t going to worry about “stupid rules of engagement” anymore.

The poisoning of the wells Why discrediting election results without waiting for due process is unhealthy for a democracy

A timely warning from @davidallengreen.bsky.social

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/th...