Tonight I was in the Question Time audience and rather inarticulately made a point about the failure to implement the Hirst judgment in respect of prisoner's voting rights.
What I meant to say was how astonishing and concerning it was that a former Home Secretary was able to say quite openly that on her watch the previous Government felt it was acceptable to simply ignore a judgment of the ECHR that we were in breach of the convention. It doesn't matter what the individual decision was. We either submit to the judgments of the court all the time or not at all. We either respect human rights or we don't. We call it the rule of law. It's not the flippin' European Convention on Some Human's Rights.
In truth, I'm too knackered to type straight, so it's no wonder I didn't make my point very clearly under the glare of the lights. But it's only because my grey cells and silver tongue have been worn out by a full week of trial work. It is a running joke in our home that I lose the ability to speak in sentences on weekends. It appears this also applies to evenings.
What I really wanted to do was ask a devastatingly brilliant question about the catastrophic proposals for legal aid reform but sadly it was not to be.
More posts soon I promise. Things are busy.