Search results

He wouldn't be on email

Have you actually read the spy case allegations. "Efforts to obtain that evidence were made over many months, but notwithstanding the fact that further witness statements were provided, none of these stated that at the time of the offence China represented a threat to national security," "Now...

Not really. It isn't that big a deal. It is surprising he replied but he gave nothing away save to confirm that there isn't some big conspiracy and that the parties simply don't have a decision and don't know what it will say. Refreshingly frank.

Not remotely analogous

If it is just the way these things get sorted, name one analogous abandonment of a post trial disciplinary by Government/regulatory intervention.

The typical type of answer from the conspiracy theorists. Just throw some generalisations and comments like "this is just how the world (or word) works". In fact, that you think situations can be buried days into a new IFR after a 5 year process is actually the real naivety and given you arrived...

Fact: The new IFR will have absolutely zero involvement in the case. And that the IFR will intervene outside of its remit having just been set up is another fantasy conspiracy theory. Utter nonsense.

There is nothing here between the lines. He has no idea what the decision will say or when it will say it. He even stuck the stupid trope in there about government intervention. As if, at this stage, there is any scope for an intervention. It is obvious fantasy conspiracy theory nonsense. The...

"Please don't overthink it" "Don't overthink it mate" "Save yourself the stress, don't overthink it" "Relax, don't overthink it" Better now?

"Hi Miguel, can you remix the 115 piece again." Says absolutely nothing.

Paladin has sent me the email. It is real.

Life isn't perfect. Presumably, he would say the reply says nothing. Or perhaps he mistook Mark for someone he knows well. Don't overthink it.

Depends on if and how I come by that news.

Yes, I think it is unusual but it has happened.

They do seem only to use the general number on a lot of Chambers docs - look at the various barrister profiles. Yes re Legal 500 etc but that is not enough for me to disbelieve. Not even close

His email seems to be davidpannick@ https://members.parliament.uk/member/3870/contact But he definitely uses Lord Pannick. The LP may well be from an alias or naming convention. https://www.blackstonechambers.com/barristers/lord-pannick-kc/ BSB looks right, telephone number format of clerks is...

FWIW the email looks absolutely genuine to me. Would be a very creative mock up with many little details correct. And why would anyone do that anyway.

no

Amazing he replied. Perhaps now people can accept that even the parties don't know what it will say

True but now personal reputations are at stake.