I really really wanted to leave the interaction of the Human Rights Act with the meaning of "incidental" (and with the meaning of the epxression "morris dancing or dancing of a similar nature") until we saw the whites of the eyes of the enemy.

When you have a malicious opponent (and I am in no doubt about that) it is better to take them by surprise than to expose your arguments in advance. However, it seems that our cover is blown on this.

I think these particular pieces of obfuscatory wording may prove to be the soft underbelly of the forces of repression, in the circs.

But be alert (or be several lerts): Falconer has been saying today in the context of alleged terrorism that he will introduce legislation to compel the courts to have regard to national security as well as human rights ( on top of the existing express wording in the convention, Peleon, Ossa, Wot?) and given the record of the government so far who is to say that he will not slip in something that attempts to alter the balance of Articles 10 and 11 in this context "by a sidewind"?

Lawyers will be reminded that UK governments have gone out of their ways to try to preserve the technicaities of UK legislative freedom in the face of diplomatic conventions, in those examples beloved of examiners - the European COmmunities Act and the Human Rights Act.