A bit of frivolity – a barrister explains why The Good Law Project is so bad and stupid, with that huge smug headshot of the kimono guy for extra laughs.

What happened? Well, there was a two day hearing involving a King’s Counsel and three other barristers for the GLP, and another King’s Counsel and two more barristers for the government. That is an expensive two days. 

What did the GLP want? Well, they weren’t actually clear initially, so we’ll come back to that later. But it was all to do with the issue of ministers using private emails and private WhatsApp or other messaging services for government business. The GLP were determined to stop that. They failed.

…

The argument used by the GLP in this case was confused. And it’s right to note that the judges were extremely angry that the case had been brought at all. Now, because I know judges, their anger is obvious to me, I hope it’s obvious to all. Here it is: 

‘The fact that a claimant is unable or unwilling to particularise the relief that they seek, may be an indication that the claim should not be pursued.’ 

Heh heh heh. Cold sarcasm in judges=extreme anger. Fair enough.

This can be translated as, ‘the fact that you can’t even say what you want us to do about this thing you are pretending is really important is a good indication it isn’t important and you should not have wasted our time’. 

Which can be translated as ‘You can’t even say what you want us to do you hopeless preening goons so why the FUCK are you wasting our time and everyone’s money?”