iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 06/10/2026

I'm fairly sure you know this... but Settings --> Copilot --> Turn on Copilot (sic) I tried to use it just now to copy some teaching sessions into other weeks. It's useless.

210 2

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 14/09/2026

The mega-donations are a set-piece, aimed at the retrospectivity provisions before Parliament, yes? - the retrospectivity of those measures was announced in March, and fully approved by the Commons last week - both donations will be caught by it - they're (by design) the hook for coverage like this

100 1

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 16/07/2026

This is an absolutely superb passage in this piece - and of much wider significance than just this particular context.

Extract from the linked blog post which reads: "That reasoning carries a hidden premise. It assumes that political accountability is not merely the proper forum for these decisions but a forum that actually operates, so that judicial restraint transfers scrutiny elsewhere rather than extinguishing it."

101 1

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 13/07/2026

And here is a view of the extent of the smoke today (from space) zoom.earth/maps/satelli...

A screengrab of a satellite view, taken today, of NW England (and North Wales) showing a plume of smoke from near Glossop, across Manchester and Cheshire, over Liverpool and dispersing widely over the Irish Sea.

022 2

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 12/07/2026

A huge swathe of the North West under the pall of the smoke from the Dovestone fire this evening. (The fire is far left, Manchester skyline in the centre.)

021 2

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 09/07/2026

This is an interestingly worded denial www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

Screenshot from news story, where a "spokesman for Jenrick" denies that "Robert knowingly accepted impermissible donations"

030 3

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 25/03/2026

Finally, one more thing. The changes will be introduced as amendments to the Representation of the People Bill which will be passed later this year. But these changes will be legislated retrospectively to come into force as of TODAY.

The text of a note to editors on the gvt announcement. It reads: "The amendment will make clear that, when the legislation comes into force, both of these changes will be applied retrospectively from today. Political parties and other regulated entities will then have 30 days to return any unlawful donations that they may have received in the interim, after which enforcement action can be taken. "

100 1

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 25/03/2026

Secondly, crypto donations. Rycroft's proposal, which the government are following, was for a "pause" or "moratorium", i.e. a temporary ban. This was motivated by a sense that at some (presumably near-) future point, regulatory developments will make it appropriate to permit crypto donations.

the text of para 68 of the review, which reads: I agree, therefore, with those who argue that we should pause the use of cryptoassets for
political donations for the time being. This should not be seen as a prelude to an outright
and permanent ban, rather an interlude in which the regulatory environment can catch up
with the reality of cryptoassets and the Electoral Commission, the political parties and other
actors can invest in the capability and expertise necessary to allow safe use of cryptoassets
in the political process. If the Government were to agree and to legislate accordingly in the
Representation of the People Bill, I would further suggest that the Bill include a power that
would allow the moratorium to be ended once it is determined that the relevant regulation
is effective.

100 1

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 25/03/2026

First, overseas donations. Rycroft recommended that the cap be set "initially" at a "reasonably high level" £100K-£300K in order to give political parties time to adjust. That is, his recommendation of such a high starting point was premised on the cap being further reduced over time:

the text of paragraph 54 of the review, which reads: "If the recommendation of a cap on donations is accepted, this will be the first time that limits
have been placed on individual donations in UK politics. Political parties will need time to
adjust their fundraising strategies to reflect this new reality. I suggest therefore that this be set
initially at a reasonably high level, perhaps in a range from £100,000 – £300,000 per donor
per year. This would still allow generous donations over an electoral cycle, but would prevent
very large foreign donations slipping through that might have a game-changing impact on
politics in the UK."

100 1

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 20/03/2026

2. The scrutiny process which applies here, and its consequences, are (like I said above, and yesterday, sorry to bang on about this) sui-generis. They are in s3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/7...

130 3

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 20/03/2026

Also, FWIW the current gvt agree with me on this. www.gov.uk/guidance/imm... I don't know if the Home Office said no legislation was needed, or if the BBC are misreporting that. Either way, the public understanding of law would be better served by getting this right.

The opening sentence of the government's own Immigration Rules website, which reads: "The Immigration Rules are some of the most important pieces of legislation that make up the UK’s immigration law."

231 3

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 20/03/2026

A couple of quibbles with this BBC report on the prospect of a vote on changes to the Immigration Rules. 1. The changes DO require legislation. 2. A vote isn't purely symbolic. It's not much, but it's more than that. www.bbc.co.uk/news/article... (detail unpacked in mini-thread...)

extract from the article, which reads "The Home Office has said these changes do not require legislation – and therefore would not need to be put to a vote - but opponents are considering using parliamentary procedure to force a non-binding vote to highlight their concerns."

137 7

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 21/02/2026

This rather presupposes that the King sees himself as having some kind of power - which in this instance he has decided not to deploy - to obstruct Parliament when it wants to legislate... www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026...

Text from linked news story, which reads: "Royal sources indicated on Saturday that King Charles would not stand in the way of parliament if it wanted to ensure the former prince could never ascend to the throne"

220 2

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 01/07/2025

1+2: unis should really be more tolerant of protest than the law requires them to be, but this firm is promoting (and universities are receptive to) a strategy of being even less tolerant than the law requires. Authoritarian legal advice is not the way to define "the future for universities"

001 1

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 01/07/2025

2. In any event, the strategy this firm is selling - indeed actively promoting - permits/encourages unis to go further than ordinary protest law would require. The law generally requires universities to tolerate (some) protests without permission, the strategy is to shift the boundary to permission

100 1

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 25/04/2025

WTAF? None of these would be a legitimate target of sanctions. The UK government should not cooperate. And it should also be preparing to take measures itself to protect their finances (even if not publicly at this stage), not just "advising" them to do so.

021 2

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 11/04/2025

This new case is a remarkable argument, taken alongside his recent judicial review - which turned (amongst other things) on the unavailability of alternative arrangements for detaining him. The cumulative logic of the two (yes, there are nuances etc) is that he is currently un-detainable.

extract from paragraph 51 of [2025] EWHC 695 (Admin): "there is no obvious or feasible way of detaining him which would give a lesser interference."

272 7

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 07/04/2025

Bonjour le Sénat! I'm in (cloud-free) Paris to spend a day talking about referendums.

The palais de Luxembourg under a blue sky

040 4

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 28/03/2025

No, panopto. That is not the what the topic is called.

extract from panopro auto cations, it says: "the gist of my expectations"

110 1

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 28/02/2025

I genuinely don't think there's a sound basis to distinguish between the citizenship elements in the PRCBC case (2022, where the principle of legality "is not in play") and in the N3/ZA case (this week, where the principle of legality is decisive).

Para 43 in PRCBC which reads "In this appeal the court is not dealing with a vested right at common law or under statute but with a statutory procedure for registration by which a person can acquire British citizenship and the important rights which it confers by making an application which is subject to conditions specified by Parliament. In this context the rigorous rule of statutory construction of which Lord Hoffmann spoke in Simms and which Lord Reed described in AXA (para 33 above) is not in play."

Para 28 of N3/ZA which reads "We consider that it is unnecessary to cite any further authority for the fundamental importance of a person’s status as a British citizen and for the engagement of the interpretative principle of legality"

000 0

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 14/02/2025

Ooh - a Valentine's treat for public lawyers On this bit: we should at least go as far as: "all executive-initiated legislative ... limitation of judicial review is necessarily at least constitutionally 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵" (I'll explain why, and the doctrinal consequences of this, in my forthcoming book 😀)

Extract from the blog post. It reads (in the bit I intended to snip): Recognising such distinctions — and, therefore, acknowledging that not all executive-initiated legislative regulation or limitation of judicial review is necessarily constitutionally improper — is important. That is so not least because it is imperative that a sense of proportion is maintained and that ‘wolf’ is not cried unthinkingly in response to every proposed statutory intervention

150 5

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 12/02/2025

It's (i) an abuse of the power to issue guidance, which (ii) is being misrepresented by the government You can't claim political credit for repealing the IMA whilst disingenuously reintroducing its substance (Others are better placed than me to comment on the performative cruelty itself) v4 v v5:

Text from v4 of the guidance which reads: Where you are not disregarding immigration breaches relating to lawful residence, if a person has previously entered the UK illegally, it will normally be appropriate to refuse the application for citizenship if the illegal entry is confirmed as having occurred during the preceding 10 years. If the date of entry cannot be confirmed, or if the person subsequently goes to ground, or absconds, the period of 10 years starts from the date on which the person last brought themselves to or came to the attention of the Home Office

text from v5 of the guidance which reads: Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered
the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place.

000 0

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 12/02/2025

A substantive change in the rules is not a "clarification" The predecessor text had different content with different consequences - calling it a "clarification" is deliberately misleading i.e. lying. (from www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...)

Extract from BBC news story. It reads: "Described as a "clarification" to case worker guidance when assessing if a claimant is of "good character', it says: "Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place."

Another new entry to the same guidance says: "A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship."

100 1

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 11/02/2025

👏👏👏👏 Don't forget - this is simply asking the government to honour its own manifesto commitment. A commitment which can only be achieved through: - changing the funding settlement - investment

Text from 2024 Labour Manifesto:
The current higher education
funding settlement does not work
for the taxpayer, universities, staff,
or students. Labour will act to create
a secure future for higher education
and the opportunities it creates
across the UK.

000 0

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 02/12/2024

This (55-page) book is a joy. A hugely successful example of doing lots, well, in a small space. And surely the world needs more books where (see its opening sentence!) authors get to "just" pursue an inkling that has bothered them for a while. "Download it while it's....free!" I guess.

First sentence of book - it reads "This Element is animated by an inkling long harboured by its author"

231 3

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 29/11/2024

For what it's worth, I think this is clear on the face of what Grieve says, in that the examples he proposes to establish its unacceptable breadth plainly don't make it a skeleton bill. They are not "key issues". There is not "a very large number" of them:

Extracted text from Times article which reads "Grieve also said that the bill would breach the rule of law because of the “very large number” of key issues that would be decided by the government after the legislation had been passed by parliament. These include decisions such as what lethal drugs would be used, how to make capacity assessments and who can provide assisted suicide.

Under the bill in its present form, these decisions would be taken by the government through secondary legislation without the need for a vote in parliament. Grieve wrote: “It is not an exaggeration to describe this bill as skeleton legislation.”"

100 1

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 28/11/2024

This one qualifies in all three ways for me. Enjoy it for yourself at (1993) 13 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18. (Unless like me you are an advocate of - even modest - limits on legislative power, in which case it will haunt you. Forever.)

An image of the first page of Waldron's article A Right-Based Critique of Constitutional Rights

3154 15

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 18/11/2024

I'm not sure what kind of source would suffice, but their opposition was quite clear cut. Wrecking amendment with catalogue of objections at 2nd reading in col 781 here: hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1998... And a bit further down in the debate, this summary of opposition's position:

Text from Hansard: "We strongly support the convention and as the right hon. Gentleman recognised, when in government, the Conservative party has always complied with the Court's judgment. In 1996, the right hon. Gentleman issued a document entitled "Bringing Rights Home", in which he stated on page 10:
"There are no cases where a UK Government has failed to act in response to an adverse Strasbourg ruling."
With the Bill, the Government want to incorporate the convention into British law. They argue, as the Home Secretary argued, that cases could be brought more quickly and more cheaply; that the convention would better respect our traditions and way of life and that the United Kingdom would have more influence over the European Commission. We support all those aims, but they can be met—indeed, they are already being met—without incorporating the convention into British law."

100 1

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 15/10/2024

It's a bold move to cite the 1999 New Labour government as you main source *against* enacting piecemeal constitutional change.

Extract from text of proposed amendment to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. The extract reads: "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill because it is not an acceptable or effective method of enacting major constitutional change, because it proposes a significant alteration to the composition of the House of Lords which should not be considered in isolation from other changes, having regard to the undertakings given by the then Government in 1999, because it drip-feeds changes that hinder proper scrutiny of....

100 1

Adam Tucker @adam.publiclaw.space · 03/10/2024

The focus on illegal migration in UK politics has got completely out of hand It really is absurd - and based on the flimsiest of flimsy pretexts - to frame today's Chagos agreement as stopping the Indian Ocean (!) "being used as a dangerous illegal migration route to the UK"

David Lammy quote: Today’s agreement secures this vital military base for the future. It will strengthen our role in safeguarding global security, shut down any possibility of the Indian Ocean being used as a dangerous illegal migration route to the UK, as well as guaranteeing our long-term relationship with Mauritius, a close Commonwealth partner.

a map showing the position of the Chagos Islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean, far from any significant landmass

110 1