I thought you’d all now got your own mod net email addresses 🤷🏻‍♂️

VAPCs - are they still running Andy? 😉

Or doesn’t consider their email address naming conventions from the service user (sorry, “customer”)’s perspective 😟

The AFPS 2015 rules only allow tier decision challenges within five years, so this chap is in time and I'm happy to help him sort it out

Within the first 12 months of discharge is definitely the easiest window to correct it, but I suspect fewer than 500 of those 9000 challenged their tier award
4/4

Awards that are, anecdotally, usually significantly lower than they should be.

Prime example at the moment is a chap I'm helping with a traumatic brain injury who was warned at discharge that he may only get Tier 1, in the end got Tier 2 but should absolutely have been Tier 3

3/4

That's the email address that the c.9000 service personnel medically discharged in the last five years have to email to challenge their Armed Forces Pension Scheme tier award

#AFPS 2/4

When does a government department demonstrate that it (1) rarely receives external emails and/or (2) doesn't want to receive them?

When their email address is 29 characters in length before the @ sign!

Not great #MOD #AFPS

Dbsmilpers-milops-paccc-group@mod.gov.uk
1/4

This is incredibly sad news. Giles has been at the very heart of the UK online legal community from the beginning. He had unparalleled expertise, was the scourge of bad landlords, the most effective public communicator of legal concepts and always made time to help those who needed it.

But Privy Counsel membership is conferred for life

The fact that someone passed vetting 20 years ago when made a member doesn’t mean they’ll pass vetting today

My having been a captain in the army 20 years doesn’t let me automatically command a platoon today. (Not sure this is the best analogy!)

Thanks for sharing this, of which o wasn’t aware.

As 1 May approaches, the Renters’ Rights Act information sheet 2026 has been published.

Landlords must provide it to tenants in certain assured and assured shorthold tenancies.

Read more on LAG 👉 swiy.co/u6K8

#HousingLaw #RentersRights #AccessToJustice

The Representation of the People Bill: contours of the debates to come The government’s long-awaited proposals for electoral reforms, published last month, will receive their first scrutiny in the House of Commons next Monday. Ahead of that debate, Alan Renwick analys…

In February, @alanrenwick.bsky.social wrote a blog post about which of the bill's proposals – and omissions – are likely to spark most contention.

One of these, retaining a Strategy and Policy Statement written by ministers for the Electoral Commission, has already been scrapped.

Read more 👇

21 April 2026 - Modernising Elections - Oral evidence - Committees - UK Parliament 09:30 - The Thatcher Room, Portcullis House

It is a busy morning on Committee Corridor.

@alanrenwick.bsky.social is giving oral evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee with Toby James and @profsob.bsky.social

The subject is Modernising Elections — a topic which has profound implications for democracy.

Watch 👇

✨A QUESTION FOR GAME NERDS✨

How can we use games to envision better worlds, within science and beyond?

At EUphoriaCon, I’ll be teaming up with some amazing game designers for a FREE interactive workshop where we’ll:

1. Share our top tips 🧠

2. Work with you to design your own game! 🎲

Sign up ⬇️

Lecture: Child Soldiers: Coming of Age in Atrocity

If you're in Belfast at 5pm today, pop over to the Lanyon Building at QUB for Mark Drumbl's British Academy lecture on Child Soldiers: Coming of Age in Atrocity. Free and open to the public. #Skystorians

Alt text setting

Just checked all the settings here and couldn’t see one for “read article before you share a link”

But did find that my “require alt text before posting” an image setting had got turned off. Now back on.

I have a recollection, I think from the other place, of a filter or setting that asked me “have you made sure to read the article before you share this link”?

Something I’ve forgotten to do of late, so thank you for the reminder. 🙏🏻

Are there any historic examples of a country having such a seismic expansion and contraction over 200 years?

London Underground strikes to begin at midday Tube drivers in the RMT union are taking part in two 24-hour walkouts this week.

Anybody in London today?

How to make Britain’s pensions assets work harder MPs should make the case for funds to invest in the UK, rather than forcing them

Reminds me of the 2023 pressure from UK companies for pensions to be mandated to invest more in UK businesses.

“The Conservative government has not ruled out mandating funds to invest more in the UK.”

www.ft.com/content/e565...

Love it!

The Shawshank Redemption library effect

I wonder how often this situation arises (including for me in the past!): "the FtT correctly noted that what started as a reasonable request can become unreasonable in the wider context." (para 59), then quoting Dransfield

Recent #FOI Upper Tribunal decision

Section 17(6) is procedural only; WYCA still had to show the request was vexatious, and the FTT lawfully found it was.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69dfa0...

Recent #DWP Personal Independence Payment #PIP #UT tribunal decision #disability

Summary:
FTT acted unfairly by relying on its own faulty Google Maps research, without allowing the appellant to respond, tainting credibility and requiring remittal.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69e60b...

😂

Glorious! :)

My understanding was the a qualified exemption normally requires two steps: first, decide whether the exemption is engaged; second, if it is, apply section 2 and weigh the public interest.

Has the Tribunal collapsed those steps for section 42(2), or treated the case as only being about step one?

The best reading is not that the Act abolishes the public-interest test for section 42(2), but that the Upper Tribunal was deciding only the gateway question — whether confirming or denying would disclose privileged information — and did not go on to the separate section 2(1)(b) stage.

It feels to me that the Upper Tribunal’s statement (para 41) that under section 42(2) “No balance of competing interests arises” is hard to reconcile with the text of section 2 of FOIA.