Martin Kettle says Keir Starmer believes in the rule of law, and describes Suella Braverman as “the worst attorney general of modern times” (Does Starmer believe in anything, people ask, and now we know: his credo is the rule of law, 17 October). Why, then, is Starmer’s government appealing against the high court ruling that found Suella Braverman’s protest law to be illegal? Her move to push this through using secondary legislation was described in the House of Lords as “a constitutional outrage”.
What happened to the credo that led Starmer to assist the defendants in the McLibel case? What happened to the rule of law? What is happening to the right to protest?
Gordon Garrick
Nottingham
