In this week’s episode of the podcast I take some time at the end to point out a fundamental fallacy that I think many of the well-known legal commentators have made with respect to the new Judicial Review and Courts Bill. You can listen to the episode for more information but it is suffice to say here that just because the attack on judicial review is more mild than was first thought that doesn’t change the fact that a fundamental part of the rule of law is being threatened. Furthermore responsible reporting on the matter requires deeper thought about why the minister has called off his attack dogs.
The point is not to criticise these commentators (who consistently do good work and help bring an understanding of the law to their thousands of followers) but rather to emphasise that none of us are ‘reporting’ in the traditional journalistic sense. As newspapers and other media outlets shrink in size, the traditional legal correspondent is a dying breed. That has left a vacuum for many of the legal tweeters, bloggers and influencers who we all follow and enjoy but are limited by the number of characters or the need for an immediate response to the issue of the day. Almost as soon as a tweet is posted it garners hundreds of likes and retweets but let’s not pretend this is a forum for useful debate.
This subject also came up recently when former Chief Adviser to Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, tweeted this:
It is quite rich to hear Cummings complaining about charlatans on Twitter when his own account is dedicated to producing tiresome threads that seek to rehash and justify the actions of the Vote Leave group during the referendum. Nevertheless in the same way that a stopped clock is right twice a day, Cummings is hitting on a salient point here.
Two years later the tweet from David Allen Green does look a little silly and Green’s own response was not exactly convincing either. Jessica Simor QC questioned whether the accusation fell within the definition of defamation and Professor Steve Peers focused on Cummings’ narcissism.
In other words, no part of the exchange covered any of the participants in glory although it helps us to take a moment to reflect on the role and status of the ‘blue-ticked lawyer on Twitter’ as a phenomenon. Each comes with their own unique biases but whereas a political personality like Cummings will admit to their own horse in the race, our lawyers are less likely to do so and claim to only speak from facts and reason. In many cases that is true and offers a valuable addition to any debate but the application of those facts to political questions such as membership of the EU can leave them caught out as Cummings demonstrated.
If the past week has taught us anything it is that we should not be mindlessly applauding or retweeting our favourite lawyers on Twitter or any other social media platform. As people who are interested and engaged in the law it is essential to understand that a key trait is critical thinking and that applies more than ever in a world of 280 characters.
OK so after telling you not to believe everything I say, I can tell you for a fact that there is a new podcast up. It is about a protest against the arms trade back in 2017 and how the criminal law interacts with human rights. I also use this as an opportunity to discuss recent attacks on the right to protest by the government.
Episode link: http://uklawweekly.com/2021-uksc-23/
Make a difference today,
Marcus