Hardly shambolic

The judgment says exactly what I said - the restriction is an infringement of Article 11 subject to proof of its proportionality in respect of legitimate aims - an argument which at that time was determined in a particular way, but which does not tell you either (i) how it would be determined in different circumstances, or (ii) whether a different court would agree.

Why do feel the need to be so aggressively rude about all this, by they way?

Posted By: paulg, Sep 9, 19:35:01