300 'senior lawyers' wish us to know that the government's policy for a programme of 20,000 Syrians over 5 years is too little. Even the Grauniad reckons this lot have overstepped the mark, and John Humphreys didn't take too kindly, either, not to mention the Telegraph and Mail.
Not sure how much comfort we take from this high-minded journalistic disapproval. The legal profession - judges in particular, of course - have it in their power to create severe practical difficulties for a policy they don't like, especially when it needs to be implemented case-by-case in the thousands, as will be inevitable when individual migrants are involved. Long ago, when myself involved in a commercial litigation, it was explained to me in chambers that our case ran counter to a current strand of activist legal position-taking and that we would be in trouble if we ran into 'the South African tendency'.
The what? Apparently, during the apartheid era the liberal South African legal fraternity took it upon itself to interpret the law in such a way as to work consistently against government intentions - as expressed in the law - and carefully built up precedents etc to get their way, which was to thwart apartheid whenever they could. Interestingly, significant numbers of these activist legal luminaries didn't subsequently choose to pursue their careers in Mr Mandela's wonderland, I wonder why, but came to London instead where some of them rose to positions of great prominence, numbering amongst the Law Lords.
Well, I keep away from the courts wherever possible and only know what I'm told. And what I guess is that hundreds of activist lawyers and judges with what we might call a common purpose, could spell trouble for the government going way beyond silly letters to the Times. Corbyn's newly radicalised front bench will be stirring it, too (oh how quickly the 'new reality' takes hold). This one will run and run.