Anurag Deb
@anuragdeb
PhD candidate at Queen's University Belfast. Looking at legislative drafting. Research Officer at the Northern Ireland Assembly. Looking at the Windsor Framework. Interested in devolution, public law, politics and climate change. He/him
After the fiasco with Prada and the definititely-not-inspired-by-the-Kolhapuri-chappal, Diptyque has gentrified a 40p mosquito repellent 😭 www.independent.co.uk/life-style/d...
My first paper for the Assembly is about changing customs fees in NI. If you shop online from overseas sellers, this may interest you. So open a browser window, get some coffee and enjoy the dry and technical resplendence of customs on this sunny afternoon 😎 www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets...
I'm unsure what the proper US analogue would be, but this is imo the principle in its fullest extent:
Without citing Kenneth Branagh, name a Shakespeare adaptation. This is the final film in a fantastic trilogy of Shakespeare adaptations.
Somehow, I don't think the NI Executive or the NI Assembly want *me* in charge of drafting legislation (but I would have a *lot* of fun 😊)
Lots of interesting things come out of the advisory opinion (2025 INSC 1333 for comparative law nerds like me) but I think this is among the most important: 3/
The judgment is currently only available in French or Polish so my understanding is either basic or non-existent (+ Google translate is hardly authoritative as a matter of EU law), BUT: I think this is one of the more significant points: 1/
I had a few US legal academics come for me in the 9th circle of Hell (aka X/Twitter) for a joke about how American law review articles can sometimes be self-indulgent books in disguise. This is on another level (of dreadful).
I am especially fascinated by this bit, as if the tort of defamation is essentially a requirement that you pay for the privilege of trashing someone's reputation (it isn't).
QUB Law is getting in the Halloween mood with photorealistic depictions of parliamentary sovereignty and the royal prerogative
No, it doesn't. The amnesty *itself* (among other things) is under challenge in the UKSC. Does no one read anything before publishing these days?
Proofs on a forthcoming chapter in a collection about Extrajudicial Communication edited by @helenetyrrell.bsky.social and Conall Mallory. This was fun to write 😊 And no: the Marmite toast reference isn't clickbait; one judge had a very special interest in it.
Omg you mean to tell me that the Legacy approach which had considerably more public buy in and safeguards was in the end the better one to implement? BBC News - New Troubles legacy deal 'a day and night improvement' www.bbc.com/news/article...
And Dillon isn't the only case which presents a problem for the report. In NIHRC & JR295, Humphreys J arrives at the same conclusion as Dillon (note, JR295 predated the Court of Appeal in Dillon, meaning Humphreys J came to this conclusion without being bound by Dillon):
Post a movie from the year you were born. I was born in a pretty great year for film, but it had to be this one:
Today is Indian Independence Day. Sam Dalrymple's recent work, Shattered Lands, is a fascinating and engaging look at how the violent and tragic 1947 Partition was one in a series which tore up families, cultures and histories across a vast swathe of Asia. But it was also a personal read 1/
True, but I come from a religion where godhood in its female aspects is prominent alongside its masculine aspects & Hinduism is far, far, from a post-patriarchal utopia. Instead, women are often violently defined only through certain traits of divine femininity. No prizes for guessing which ones.
But what about the Sex Equality in Goods and Services Directive? Recitals 16 + 17 of the Directive say this: 2/
And the CJEU continues to have relevance in broad swathes of NI equality law. E.g. this, from Richards in 2004 (yes, it was a pension age case but its central point derives from sex equality in primary EU law, not the directive at issue) could not be clearer: acquired, not birth gender, is key: 1/
Interesting places where my PhD continues to take me, part 651: the watermelon cheque
Lord Leggatt's Shvidler dissent ironically reminded me of: "Who writes the extraordinary dissent? The one man minority decision whose time hasn't come but 20 years later, some circuit court clerk digs it up at 3 in the morning. Brennan rallying against censorship, Harlan's jeremiad on Jim Crow?"