Seems a sensible move to ask an agency to keep an eye on things at this time of heightened attention on them. Judges should not have to be concerned about political attacks from right wing rags like the Daily Mail trying to stir up mistrust in our judicial system. It's not their area of expertise is it? That's the law. Judges have a right to a private life just as much as anyone else. Holding strong political views doesn't mean a plumber cannot fix a leak professionally. The law is the law. Judges judge things on that alone.

Politics would not change what a plumber does. Clearly, the Supreme Court has had it in for Boris which has affected their decision. More pandering to the Guardian readers. They probably use Sadiq's media team.

I visited the Supreme Court recently whilst I don't question their honesty the way judges are appointed is very old school tie, right thinking people appoint right thinking people.

There is no open process for any qualified person to apply for a job neither is their any public scrutiny of the candidates.

As someone said recently about people in positions of power:

Who appointed you?
Where do you get your power?
How can we get rid of you?
How do we stop you increasing your power?

I think the Supreme Court has taken the first step in increasing it's power by usurping Parliaments authority under the guise it is protecting Parliament.

That is just my non legal opinion and time will tell who is right.

That must have been a very interesting visit!

Looking at the way the Justices are appointed it seems a much better system here than the political way it is done in the USA. Judges deciding among themselves who has achieved the professional status necessary seems a pretty wise way to approach this. I personally would not want there to be any kind of public scrutiny which could then lead to political considerations coming into play. The law and only the law ought to be involved.

Parliament is where the law is made and the Courts merely apply and interpret it when required. I think this idea that the Supreme Court has "usurped Parliament's authority" to be entirely false. It has indeed reinforced it's authority by definitively ruling that it is superior to the executive.

It's own power has not changed in any way. If Parliament decides it doesn't like the effect of any judgement then it has the complete authority to legislate to change it and the Supreme Court will then apply the new law.

That's just my own non legal opinion.

Johnson walked into this and the Supreme Court took him down, his case was simply non-existent.

More of the same please.

Would you be saying this if the decision had gone the other way?

Your comment about usurping parliament is wrong. Your observations on appointment accountability and dismissal are valid.