Gavin Phillipson
@Prof_Phillipson
Followers
7K
Following
5K
Statuses
23K
Law Professor, Bristol University, all opinions own: free speech, public protest, privacy, ECHR, counter-terror law; platform regulation; UK constitution
Joined August 2012
Many thanks to the School for putting this together. The article on suspects' privacy rights, the presumption of innocence and the tricky relationship with defamation is open access here: @davidallengreen @JoshuaRozenberg; @pollycurtis; @Haroon_Siddique
Should suspects be anonymous until charge? New research from @Prof_Phillipson & @RobertCraig3 was repeatedly used to influence a landmark @UKSupremeCourt privacy hearing against financial news giant Bloomberg last month. Find out more in our news item➡️
4
4
34
@KettlebellYard If that's what the supporters of that amendment (which I strongly support!) wanted, then they would have needed to support a much more comprehensive set of reforms to public order law!
0
0
1
@KettlebellYard They were meant to be not covered by the new stirring up offence being created. The Peers who introduced that amendment would have been aware (I assume) of s 4A, which was introduced back in 1994 and is a much lower-level public order offence.
0
0
0
@KettlebellYard If there's any such proposal we can start worrying about it then. I'm not aware of any. I don't think the APPG definition is a good one but I'm just pointing out that having an official definition of something is *not* the same as criminalising it.
0
0
1
@howardanglin Membership of the EU does not entail 'handing over' foreign and defence policy or the judicial system (not even sure what handing that last over could mean). E.g. during the Iraq war you may have noticed the UK having a radically different policy from France and Germany.
0
0
1
@KettlebellYard Indeed. Nothing new there, and nothing to do with this proposed new official definition of Islamphobia.
0
0
0
@SpeechUnion As I understand it, this is the offence he has pleaded guilty to: It doesn't require 'incitement'.
0
0
0
1
0
1
@toptraveller @colinrtalbot @Haggis_UK I very much doubt that's the reason. (a) libel cases are very costly (b) and the damage to reputation you have to show per s 1 is a high bar, especially if you're a commercial organisation:
1
0
1
@toptraveller @colinrtalbot @Haggis_UK No, it's the other way around. Tice as the defendant to a libel claim would have to show his comments were substantially true:
2
2
4
Strongly agree. And this not a partisan point for me, it's a constitutional one: it shows why the power of political prorogation (being able to suspend the legislature for a substantial period, for political gain) should have no place in a modern democracy.
James Moore: "It is absurd to me that the Parliament isn't sitting. After 9/11, Parliament was brought back right away. The biggest economic threat to Canada in my lifetime... and Parliament isn't sitting because the Liberals are choosing their leader. It's not defensible."
0
0
1
@EdBatesECHR @DrKatherineWade @BristolUniLaw Warm congratulations Katherine - was really pleased when I heard!
0
0
0
'Russia has always been the only friend of Europe' (aside from the little matter of having colonised Eastern Europe and divvied up Poland with Nazi Germany).
Russian officials visibly disappointed by President Trump’s ultimatum to Putin decided to switch strategy and win over Europeans by claiming Russia is their only salvation! 😂😂😂 “Russia has always been the only friend of all Europeans combined. That’s why dear Europeans, you should love Russia!” - Chairman of the Defense Committee of the State Duma Colonel General Andrey Kartapolov
0
1
5
The families at least obviously have such a right: it's known as 'freedom of speech'.
I don't think the police have any right to ask people not to post things or discuss matters in the public domain or to hide things. Nor do I think victims' families have any such right. 'Please don't report what's discussed in court' is not an acceptable ask from a police force.
0
0
1