Okay. Here’s what you said.
1. You say it converted convention into common law and it did nothing of the sort. The effect of the convention has been that the power historically has not been exercised in a way that even approached the common law limits of the power. Johnson not only went far beyond the limit of the convention, he went beyond the common law limit too. But make no mistake, the common law power he offended has existed for over 400 years.
2. You then say it prescribed new limits to a prerogative power. Again, it did nothing of the sort. All royal prerogative powers have always been subject to common law limits. Again, that principle has been recognised for 400 years.
3. It follows that far from having good reason to complain that is based on a misunderstanding of the judgment. He had no grounds for complaining at all. Had he followed the convention he would have not have come anywhere close to breaking the law. Because he ignored the convention completely he ran the fish of a finding his advice was unlawful, and that’s exactly what he got.
BTW when you next say the opposition parties asked the courts politically to supervise the executive in relation to what you say is a constitutional obligation to allow a general election, I assume here you were making a point that was separate to the judgment as it has got absolutely nothing to do with the judgment at all. But as it happens I think you are quite wrong about that too. Under the fixed term parliament act there is no obligation to bring about a General Election just because the government of the day wants one. That is the whole point of the act.