The Rule of Law: an open letter to Liz Truss

***Looking for a post about writing and getting published? Sorry! This post is on a different subject altogether. Normal service will be resumed soon. ***

Dear Lord Chancellor,

I’m Harry Bingham, a crime novelist and the eldest son of the late Lord Bingham. This blog is usually taken up with matters of interest only to writers, but on this occasion I’m grabbing the pulpit to talk about something bigger: the future of our democracy and constitution.


My father, Lord Bingham

As you know, my father was, at different times, Master of the Rolls, Lord Chief Justice, and Senior Law Lord. An obituary in the Guardian kindly said he was ‘widely recognised as the greatest English judge since the second world war’. I’ve no doubt that you know and respect his record of achievement. I’ve no doubt that you know and respect his thoughts on the Rule of Law – indeed, you probably have his book on the subject on your shelves already.

And here’s the thing. Recently, a group of three very senior High Court judges were called upon to do their job. They were asked if this government is constitutionally obliged to allow Parliament a vote on invoking Article 50.

That’s a somewhat arcane technical matter, to do with the extent of Crown prerogative in matters where foreign treaties mesh with domestic law. It’s uncontroversial that Parliament needs to rule on the latter, while the government has more scope in relation to the former. How and where those boundaries lie is a matter for our judiciary – as they have been since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (and, indeed, a good bit earlier, depending a bit on how you measure these things.)

So far, so uncontroversial.

And look, it may well be that you don’t agree with the ruling of those judges. It may be that you want the government’s appeal to succeed. It may be that you are concerned about the political fate of Article 50 and are worried that the judges’ ruling  may complicate matters there.

So fine. Launch your appeal. Lay out your arguments. See who wins.

But that’s not the issue. The issue is this. These three judges were DOING THEIR JOB. They were honouring and upholding the rule of law. They may have been right. They may have been wrong. But they did their job to the maximum extent of their (considerable) abilities and with the rigour and impartiality that their job demands and requires.

And what happens?

The Mail calls these judges ‘enemies of the people’. It lays out, poisonously, personal details about these judges in a way that comes very close to direct intimidation. It also lies in saying that the judges ‘have “declared war on democracy” by defying 17.4m Brexit voters.’ Which is not the case. They haven’t ruled on Brexit. They weren’t asked to. That’s not their job. They were asked a question about the boundary of crown prerogative and they answered that.

And, well, the Mail is the Mail, but the Telegraph sets up the same (weirdly blue-tinted) judges in these terms: ‘The judges versus the people’, as though our judiciary were somehow reversing the recent referendum. (Which they’re not. And which they couldn’t. And which they certainly wouldn’t.) The URL for that Telegraph article includes the untruthful and somewhat threatening phrase, ‘The plot to stop Brexit.’ One of the most respected newspapers in the land is in effect, representing our judiciary as plotting against democracy itself.

And then the Express claiming that we haven’t faced a crisis like this since the blackest days of WWII. And then the Sun doing much the same.

Now the press is the press. We can’t always look to them for truth, or balance, or constitutional propriety. But we should, surely, be able to look to you.

You are the Lord Chancellor. Your judges – our judges – are being attacked in gross, untruthful, and personal terms for doing their job. For honouring our constitution. For assessing facts and arguments without fear or favour.

And what do you have to say about this? Nothing.

What does the Prime Minister have to say? Nothing.

Where is the defence of the judiciary? Of its independence and, indeed, its basic safety in going about its job?

One of your predecessors, Charlie Falconer, has addressed these things in the strongest possible terms. MPs have stood up for the judges. So has the Bar Council.

But why them? This is your job and it is your Prime Minister’s job. And that duty is a sacred one: fail to support an independent judiciary and you are halfway to the kind of state that Donald Trump would build for himself. You are halfway to Putinism.

I don’t care what you think about Article 50, or Brexit, or whether those three judges were technically right or technically wrong. You need to defend them, to defend them loudly, and to defend them now. And shame on you for this delay.


Harry Bingham

Like this post? Then spread the word – just click to tweet the message:

Tweet: Lord Bingham’s son writes to @TrussLiz. #wheresliztruss

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Have retweeted – couldn’t agree more. Thank you for speaking out like this.

  • Just want to commend you for this fantastic piece – beautifully puts into words everything I feel too –

  • N Evans

    Honest and excellent words, your father would be so proud of you for writing this.

    The press you have mentioned have published lies, peddled hysteria and anger, and now attempt to take on our Justice system. Unreal. Not the first time, I recall a case regarding terrorism charges, which one Teresa May asked Lord Thomas to indict the man, on evidence she refused to show the court- including Lord Thomas. He chucked that out then, and he chucked this out now, and he’s right on both counts.
    She’s shown disrespect for due process, which your dad, and others like him, have argued long and hard to keep.

  • Oliver

    Bravo.Well said

  • Well said. But what now? If the Gov. won’t act on this, what do we do? I have no answer, but this is a small small beginning ..

  • Echoed a thousand times.

  • David

    Well said. The gross overreaction by some of the mainstream press to the high court judgement has been shameful and disgraceful. Glad you’ve spoken out.

  • You are accurate in all you say. Your father was a great man of the law and would surely have been proud of you today for this contribution to the debate.

  • Harry

    Yeah – I think I should have used the word ‘fuck’ quite a lot more, tho. He would have done.

  • Alison Coutanche

    Well said; we need more people like you to stand up to the disgraceful tabloids. And as for The Telegraph ……

  • David Hurford

    Thanks for that. Very well said. I will re-post it where I can.
    (ps. I’d like to be a writer too!)

  • Jennifer Targhi

    Wholeheartedly agree with every word! Thank you.

  • NG

    I’m assuming the people reading this will be great legal minds, so I have a question. The LC took an Oath in Parliament to protect the Judges etc. As far as I can tell she has woefully failed to uphold that Oath. So what is the legal standing of the Oath, is there any law that she has broken that could be used to sanction her. I’m not a Lawyer but I cannot believe any Politician would allow such attacks, and I’m really scared as to what will happen once the Government pulls out of the ECHR. Once they make the Law and we have no higher court acting outside the control of Parliaments laws we are all screwed..

  • Claudia

    The Lord Chancellor has now uttered a few tangential words. Not enough, and definitely not good enough. — You put it very nicely about suitability of the F word.

  • Helen Barberton

    An excellent piece. I agree wholeheartedly. I’ve retweeted it many many times.

  • jody osman

    Great article. Nice to finally read an article making rational sense on the matter. Something really needs to be done about our press – and the way the judges are being attacked is villains is disgraceful – and ignorant.

  • jody osman

    Great article. Nice to read an article that provides some rational sense on the matter. Something really needs to be done about our press, especially with the likes of the Telegraph now as bad as the Sun and the Mail. The way the judges are being attacked and made out as villains is disgraceful – and ignorant.

  • Richard Thacker

    The referendum was always advisory. The government knew that and so did MPs. It was in a Parliamentary briefing before the 2015 EU Referendum Bill was passed. The government had a duty to ensure that they had the power to trigger Article 50 before making any promises. That they spectacularly failed to do so, and therefore misled the people is the fault the government alone.
    Farage demanded that a house be built on a smelly swamp.
    Cameron gave planning permission.
    The Brexit campaign threw the bricks together in a very unprofessional manner with no foundations.
    The NHBC declared that the house was not fit for human habitation.
    Is that the fault of the NHBC?
    So don’t blame the Judiciary for this debacle.

  • Nicki Penaluna

    Bravo…you have said so well what is in all our minds….and thankyou

  • well said Harry; daren’t think what kind of salary she is paid… mealy mouthed… cowardice… #shameful; pure and simple

  • Roger Harding

    Thank you so much. We really don’t want to go the way of Turkey

  • Keith

    Very well said. A rare piece of excellent and even handed analysis of the important principle of the separation of powers which is fundamental to British parliamentary democracy. It is a pity our “dumbed down” media doesn’t see fit or any sense of responsibility to explain the reality to the ” man on the Clapham Omnibus”. Shame on them.

  • Ty

    Thank you for a beautiful eloquent article,
    Shame L.C. has broken her oath, is that allowed ? Whats the point of an oath if u can break it whenever you like with no comeback.Thank heavens are judiciary are independent from parliament

  • Jane Smith

    Very well said, Harry. I couldn’t agree more.

  • Alistair Dunn

    Well said Harry. PM is behaving like an unaccountable monarch and this judgement will waken people up

  • Grant Dawson

    extremely well put, if this case had been about rights or freedom of the press and the same three judges had protected them, I very much doubt the headlines would have been the same?

  • Pingback: Law and religion round-up – 6th November | Law & Religion UK()

  • Brent Longborough

    There are occasions to say ‘fuck’, and occasions to say ‘intercourse’.

    Overall, I think you said ‘intercourse’ very well. Thanks and congratulations.

  • One of the 48%

    Gross failings on the part of Government verging on the point of negligence!

  • David Bell

    Am I crazy to see the vague non-response as an attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court when this comes to appeal? I read it as “Independent? OK, but you’re on your own. Say hello to the mob for me.”

  • Harry

    Don’t know. I think the Supreme Court would intimidate so easily, myself. I think they’ve got guts & backbone – the things that Liz T is missing. Rather, I think (A) Liz Truss is under the thumb of Downing Street, (B) she doesn’t have the courage to do her job properly, and (C) these idiots are too scared to take on the leading pillars of their own media support. Which is nuts. The Mail is hardly going to go Corbynite if it gets rapped across the knuckles by Truss. And the Telegraph knows perfectly well that its handling of the story was remiss. And, actually, at this stage it’ll take more than a statement by Truss. It needs to be a loud, strong, clear message from the PM herself. Chance of that: somewhere close to zero.

  • Karen Duncan

    I have a different prospective on the integrity of some judges. I would like to enlighten the fact that Judges as a whole act independently of any governing body as to any verdict they choose to give. Now, choosing to give any verdict is the operative wording here. If a verdict a judge makes is wrong or unsafe judges are therefore self governing and answer to NOBODY, YES, NOBODY but themselves. Yes, Judges can effect Judgments against evidence in bias without accountability. Having experience in Courts and Judges Chambers I bring forward the fact that, one would think , when you request an audio or written transcript from the court’s of a court case , the audio/written would be unadulterated. Unfortunately, this is where transparency of Judges does and can disappear. Judges are allowed full access to the tapes after court cases and I advise in my experience that the audio and written transcripts received have not been full and content and also transposed. Therefore, a cover up of bias and I justice in court cases are covered up, this in itself suppresses the very meaning of justice. Judges are the only ones allowed recording equipment and control of etc. In Courts. Why? This in itself indicates the one sidedness of justice and the law. Changes must be made to make Judges accountable and make cases ore transparent , firstly by cameras being placed in Judges Chambers and Courts etc. There are too many dealings behind closed doors for which untampered cameras must be placed for protection against lawlessness of the very people that are there to serve justice.

  • Alan

    It has long been my view that the gutter press has been the true enemy of democracy as they do not feel much need to adhere to truth. I am saddened that the Telegraph has joined those ranks. Above all I am horrified that political argument has fallen as far as ministers displaying no sense of responsibility.

    I fear more of this as the Brexit saga rolls on.

  • Fought4thiscountry

    Of all the comments made this is the one I agree with the most. there are newspapers out there trying to dictate…. and I use that would on purpose, dictate the direction this country goes.

  • There is atweet showing the Mail headline about judges being the enemy of the people together with precisely the same headline in a Nazi newpaper in Hitler’s time. This is what the ‘UK’ has come down to. Already forgotten is the Magna Carta, which we were so proud of, where might was restrained at least to an extent. May and Co. egged on by the ghastly triumvirate of Brexiters, seems to think that they can rule the country just as they please. Education at Eton and/grammar school does not seem to have accomplished much for these people’s powers of reasoning. It is imperative that they are stopped.

  • Alan

    If I may respond to this post, to deliberately alter the record as you appear to suggest would require a number of people to collude in a criminal activity. This would inevitably come out. It would therefore be very foolish thing to do. Judges invariably explain their reasoning in some detail in order that their judgement can be appealed. In my experience it is an open process.

  • Alex

    Wholeheartedly agree with you. A case of the Worthington Fullers and one liner media blips. No substance and all hogwash.

  • Jeferson

    Hello Harry,

    Firstly, regardless of the personal outrage you rightly feel at the criticism from lesser aspects of the popular press have printed, I am disappointed that you have chosen this soap box to promote your indignation. I see this place as apolitical and have had the odd go at people promoting political views.

    Secondly, I cannot help but consider that if the same judges were asked to determine if the media were within their rights to publish their criticisms of the case, they would rule inn favour of freedom of the press.

    The judges, not being naive, will have been aware that their decision in favour of Gina Miller and the her hedge fund manager husband would be taken by many as a manipulation of the Courts by a financial elite and would draw vehement responses from many people who see the Judicial System as being unaccountable for their actions. I think the court should have considered the matter as political rather than constitutional and refused to hear it.

    From Sentencing Council edicts promoting sentencing guidelines seen as absurdly lenient, to matters like this on such an emotive issue, the fact that judges are not accountable to the people by election is seen by many as a fault of this version of democracy.

    The real danger here is in a disaffected voting populace who feel unrepresented by a political and judicial elite and that disdain is harnessed by a populist maniac as we are seeing happen in the US.

    Dangerous times.

    Best regards,

  • Harry

    Jeff, Hmm. Can’t agree with much here. Sorry.

    You say: “the same judges . . . would rule inn favour of freedom of the press”. Yes! I damn well hope they would. Those newspapers haven’t broken the law, they’ve just acted aggressively and stupidly – and it’s for the Lord Chancellor to support, and support loudly, the judges under her care.

    You say: “the court should have considered the matter as political rather than constitutional”. Well, things can be both things at once. Clearly, this was a constitutional matter with political ramifications, but judges can’t ignore a case just because they’re uncomfortable with the consequences. They have a job to do.

    You say: “the fact that judges are not accountable to the people by election is seen by many as a fault of this version of democracy.” Fine. That’s an arguable position. So change the constitution. But for now, we work with the one we have and that calls upon judges to decide the cases that come in front of them based on the will of Parliament and eight centuries of precedent.

    You say: “The real danger here is in a disaffected voting populace who feel unrepresented by a political and judicial elite”. Well, hold on. That’s two different things. If people don’t like their MPs, they should change them, and political parties should do their damndest to represent their constituents effectively. But OF COURSE judges don’t represent the populace. That wasn’t and isn’t their job. Their job is to interpret the law and apply it in comnplex real life situations. That’s what those judges did. Convention – a good convention, an important one – says that judges can’t publicly defend themselves, so the Lord Chancellor bloody well should. She took an oath of office where she committed to do just that. She hasn’t done so, and nor has our Prime Minister. That’s not OK.

  • Jefferson

    Hi Harry,

    Thanks for your reply. You say that the judiciary doesn’t represent the people.

    In a representative democracy, the laws are created by MPs voted into Parliament by the people based on their stated positions on certain issues, so in a sense, the laws are the will of the people.

    If you have a situation were a financial elite such as Miller’s husband and financial backers can manipulate the interpretations of those laws which clearly contradicts the will of the majority of the voting public on such a transparent issue as Brexit, then the Judiciary is indeed acting against the will of the people.

    It is indeed that simple.

    To do so, is to risk what happened to the Labour party in the last general election where a great voice in the heartlands went unheard and later manifested itself in the Brexit vote.

    There are much greater issues here at stake than the vanity of the judiciary being slandered by some psychotic political editor at a newspaper.

    The High Court has been manipulated into being the bad guy here and is taking the kicking when the real villains are the ones who brought the case to court for their own financial gains. The financial elite…

  • Decent honest letter, Harry. Whatever the outcomes of this horrid state of affairs the majority of people in the world do, I hope, put their trust in the judicial system to uphold the laws of the land wherever that may be. And yes, these three judges were, “Just doing their job” and shouldn’t under any circumstances be vilified for it.

    The mainstream press, for me, has long been sucked into a downward spiral and the editor’s in instances such as these should be brought to account. What’s more important, as you say, is that it’s shameful that Liz Truss and the Prime Minister haven’t as yet denounced these derogatory articles. Happily retweeted.


  • Yes, the judges were just doing their job and I strongly disapprove of what the Mail wrote, but do judges really need to be defended from free speech?

  • Harry

    Right: the judiciary interprets the laws enacted by Parliament, the people’s elected representatives. So that’s what they did. If Parliament wants a different outcome, it needs to ensure that the law of the land dictates that outcome. But in this instance, many centuries of convention & statute guided the judges to decide as they did. Don’t like that? Then change the law.

  • Thank you very much. I agree with you entirely but I fear your words fall on deaf ears

  • Jefferson

    ‘don’t like that, then change the law…’

    It is exactly cases like this one which spurs the calls for judicial reform from the great unwashed.

    In these uncertain times, I am certain that we will never see a national referendum again in our lifetime. Never again will those who rule risk actually asking the people what they want.

    The judges have failed to recognise or ignored the implications of their actions versus the will of the majority of voting public on the issue and the mouth foaming d populist press are fanning the flames.

    These judges are supposed to be smart. Maybe they should get out more and see what the UK is like now instead of looking at centuries of convention when making decisions as important as this one.

    Will the Supreme Court back up their slandered colleagues or will they cave in to popular opinion?

    Ladbrooks wouldn’t take a bet on overturning the original decision…

    I am sorry you are outraged at the mouth foaming press pillaring these guys but they had to expect some flak if they are ruling to dilute the result of a referendum which produced the highest number of votes in the country’s history…

  • james lukhurst

    Harry, I was in church this morning with your mother… agree with everything you state.

  • Jefferson

    Btw. Read your dad’s bio when this first appeared. Ulsters in Hong Kong as a young Lt I the 50’s… Bet he had some tales tales. That was a tough tour then.

  • Harry

    He claims he fell asleep on duty once and almost started WW3. A long story.

  • Jefferson

    Mao was itching to take HK after getting a slap in Korea but feared the nukes.

    I’ve been 11 times and love the place but only for I & I. . Tell his story sometime.

  • Innes Stanley

    Very well said.
    Alas it is far from the first time that government has failed to support the judiciary and the independence of the judiciary, often when it has also been under attack by sections of the media, with individual judges being personally hounded. Now both government and media are emboldened by noises off, including those made by Nigel Farage and a sinister strand within our population that is showing all the signs of fascism.
    We are in dangerous times…

  • Suzanne

    This is the result of an unelected Prime Minister and her cabinet – ineffectual and biased. The Prime Minister is being politically careful with the 52%..her position hangs in the fulcrum of how they view her. She was conspicuously quiet on the Calais children..why do you think that is??? The tabloids need to be held accountable – where it hurts. I’m sure all sensible people in this land wouldn’t miss seeing those torrid headlines or tabloids ever again.

  • Neil Fincham

    Interesting to see the Mail has today (Sunday 6th) done a smart about face in its editorial piece. No indication of the manic protest of a couple of days ago, it (The Mail on Sunday) now seems to think that Theresa ay should accept this ruling and just get on with introducing a Bill to enable the triggering of Article 50…………

  • Harry Bingham is, of course, free to address letters to anyone he pleases and to express whatever views he wishes, but when he uses a popular website like this as his vehicle then he mustn’t be surprised if publishing his views causes others to respond.

    His letter is wrong is just about every particular. He says that the three judges cannot be accused of failure to be impartial because they were not ruling on Brexit. They, like all judges *can* be accused of lacking impartiality and there are good reasons for doing so in this case.

    He says the Mail, Telegraph and other papers are wrong to attack the judges and expose personal matters that could account for a lack of impartiality. This is wrong too. A free press, able to speak its mind to the powerful, is the *only* safeguard we have of our democracy.

    You don’t have to look very far to find the proof of this. Over the past decade there have been a succession of major public scandals – MPs cash for questions, MPs expenses fraud, the phone hacking scandal by some journalists, sexual assaults and paedophilia, and of course the Savile affair. ALL of these scandals were revealed by the Mail, Telegraph and other papers. NONE of them was revealed by the judiciary, the police, MPs or the government.

  • Alistair

    Whilst I agree with everything above in principle this issue does raise a similar potential for constitutional controversy that the US is currently facing. Over there they recognize that judges, however experienced, all have personal feelings and political leanings and that it is therefore possible to influence outcomes by selecting appropriate judges and “letting nature take its course”. Unless you have taken the trouble to get a balanced panel of judges, which some are claiming these weren’t, then you inevitably get biased decisions. In the US the next president will probably get to select 3 or 4 new judges for their Supreme Court which could RADICALLY impact the likely judgements and even influence constitutional amendments. Judges are not impartial, they are people with feelings. So selection and balance is important…these three are individually outstanding but some might argue were bound by their very nature to return the finding they did. Nobody was on the panel that really believed in the counter argument. That’s no disrespect to any of the individuals but it is a gaping hole in the system since allowances are not made for achieving a balanced panel. That’s the systems fault, not the judges, but it is still a fault.

  • Pingback: How lawyers forced Theresa May to back the judiciary - Legal Cheek()

  • Pingback: The Rule of Law: an open letter to Liz Truss | Literary Agents Advice | kickingthecat()

  • Raj Unsworth

    Accurate. Eloquent. Restrained. Well said Harry!

    Those of you disagreeing with him, you are missing the point. Absolutely support freedom of the press but personal attacks knowing these judges cannot respond is despicable. As for Truss and May, so very disappointed in them.

  • Pingback: Bingham | theymustthinkwerestupid()

  • Harry

    The Mail on Sunday often has a different editorial line from the Mail. (Basically: less foamy, less crazy.)

    And yes: Theresa M should present a Bill to activate Article 50. Tell Parliament: ‘you’re not here to place conditions on my negotiations, I just need a yes or no.’ She might win that argument or lose it (me, I hope she’d lose it), but that’d be a perfectly honourable and constitutional response.

  • Harry

    I think the press *was* wrong on this score as it happens. (The darkest days since WWII? What rubbish. Enemies of the people? Oh, piffle.)

    But my post wasn’t actually attacking the press. It was calling for the Lord Chancellor to act in line with her oath of office and defend her judges from public, personal and aggressive attack. It’s her job to do that. She swore to do it. She has (still!) not properly done it. Poor show.

  • A well reasoned piece. Well done.

    I believe that what we are witnessing is simply an anti everything thrust.

    Lets leave the EU.
    All the lies and half truths worked.
    The main leaders of this message had no plan when they won as to what to do. They scurried away.

    Brexit means brexit.
    It has been left to an unelected Prime Minister to run with the ball but sadly she appears unable to clearly state how she intends to carry out this function.

    Uncertainty reigns.
    The people that voted in favour of leaving do not know what is going to happen, when or how. There is no plan. Nor indeed do the remaining 30 odd million citizens of the UK.

    The 450 million European partners of the UK are uncertain what is happening or is likely to happen.

    Three of the highest Legal brains in the UK were asked to examine whether the UK can make its moves independently like a Dictator or whether their Parliament should be able to debate what is going on. The vitriolic attacks by the Anti establishment (pro brexit), and anti everything Press makes the UK look like a banana republic and bodes very badly for the future.

    Trumpism would have the same effect.

    Prepare for war both at home and abroad. The lunatic fringe want to run the asylum!

  • Alex Glassbrook

    Well said Harry. Section 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 even spells out that ministers must defend judicial independence. Despite that – and your Dad’s chracteristically clear and popular book (in penguin paperback, Liz)- the LC still seems a bit lost.

  • Harry

    Maybe I should send her the book!

  • Joy Perino Saloschin

    Bloody right. Well said. Shame on the gutter press – all of them, including the Telegraph.

  • Andrew Wille

    Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    We are wordsmiths, and we need to speak out when the tools of our trade are being used maliciously. I think everyone who cares about these matters needs to think about how we are going to address these subjects – in the work that we do, in the people we choose to work with.

    I’m glad you have the guts to say this, Harry – keep up the good work.

  • Peter Hack

    I am one of the funders of the Court Case. I am a care worker and I put nearly a days wages into the Appeal ie 50 quid. Its the best 50 quid I ever spent in terms of value. I was in the process of putting a complaint to the PCC composed of a headline from a German newspaper in 1933 that showed uncanny parallels to the Daily Mail and Telegraph headlines, while of course Nigel Farage is clearly threatening violent street demonstrations; would you object if I used this letter also as it says everything very neatly that I wished to say.


    Peter Hack

  • Harry

    Use it all you like – and respect to you for your £50. Money well spent sir! Just please, if you use this letter, link back to the source, so people know can check out the whole thing if they wish. Thanks!

  • Malcolm iley

    Thankyou Harry,I totally agree LT is a disgrace,and the PM is embarrassingly flaky on this issue and others.Regardless of one s individual views on Brexit ,we cannot have attacks on the judiciary of the type seen on the Telegraph and Mail etc,the equivocal response from LT /Pm,was noted and will not be forgotten.

  • Simon Twigge

    I also contributed and would like to state here I have no major hedge fund to make a huge benefit from nor do I work in the finance sector … I am a ordinary working man, living in Yorkshire not a metropolitan elitist whomever they maybe, who does not wish to loose my country to the mob as I fear is beginning to happen with a cowardly government who simply standby and do nothing. Let’s face it that is being kind to them as it would seem they are part of the new fascistic regime that want to run the country over a cliff:-
    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

  • Jill Scott

    I am confused by this comment. It is not the job of the judiciary to expose scandals, so why should we expect this of them? And although most of us subscribe to the principal of free speech, there are of course limits to this (and rightly so). Why on earth is it relevant that one of the judges is “an openly gay, ex-Olympic fencer”? Surely rights also carry responsibilities, and this applies to both the media and the Government. I am quite surprised that any right thinking person would not wish to promote sensible and rational debate by our free press, and encourage Liz Truss to defend the judiciary when they are simply doing the job they are paid to do – that’s how I read this article anyway!

  • Peter, LL.B

    Like to think of your dad and Lord Denning discussing this case in some even higher court than the UK Supreme Court, I am 70 yrs of age, aged 19 I was not enthused by Constitutional Law as an LL.B undergrad, now I am gripped by the subject and this vital case. Truss is a featherweight…

  • Rebecca Lush

    Have you actually sent this letter to Liz Truss, as well as publish it openly? I think you should, via your MP. This way she will be obliged to reply. Her response may be very interesting. Your letter should also cover that her eventual response was completely inadequate, or she will simply repeat it.