Sturgeon to resign as FM

[jeremyp]

That's nice. Sriram's done some reading on evolution.

What did you do to make yourself an expert?

Here is a government web page on the subject

https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court

You might be in contempt of court if you speak publicly or post on social media.

For example, you should not:

- say whether you think a person is guilty or innocent
- refer to someone’s previous convictions
- name someone the judge has allowed to be anonymous, even if you did not know this
- name victims, witnesses and offenders under 18
- name sex crime victims
- share any evidence or facts about a case that the judge has said cannot be made public

Clearly the only one that would apply to Ms Mclaughlin would be the first point. However, it might be a bit tricky to pin even that on her because Sturgeon hasn't been accused of anything yet. What is it she is innocent of? However, by only reporting what McLaughlin said, we are not in the frame at all.

[ProfessorDavey]

What did you do to make yourself an expert?

Here is a government web page on the subject

https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court

Clearly the only one that would apply to Ms Mclaughlin would be the first point. However, it might be a bit tricky to pin even that on her because Sturgeon hasn't been accused of anything yet. What is it she is innocent of? However, by only reporting what McLaughlin said, we are not in the frame at all.

I think we previously discussed when a case becomes 'active' for the purposes of contempt and while there was some lack of consistency there was one view that it would be from when there was an arrest or even before that, when an arrest warrant was issued.

If this is the case, then the case is active and therefore McLaughlin's comments would be 'in play' in terms of contempt. Now I understand that we don't know what charges there might be - there may of course be none. But if there are charges when presumably if the case is active a clear statement from someone that the person was innocent, would also be in play for contempt.

[jeremyp]

I think we previously discussed when a case becomes 'active' for the purposes of contempt and while there was some lack of consistency there was one view that it would be from when there was an arrest or even before that, when an arrest warrant was issued.

If this is the case, then the case it active and therefore McLaughlin's comments would be 'in play' in terms of contempt. Now I understand that we don't know what charges there might be - there may of course be none. But if there are charges when presumably if the case is active a clear statement from someone that the person was innocent, would also be in play for contempt.

Yes, but it's still a stretch. At this time, nobody except the police and prosecutors know what charges Sturgeon will face, if any.

I doubt if McLaughlin will face any contempt proceedings, never mind anybody on this forum.

[ProfessorDavey]

I doubt if McLaughlin will face any contempt proceedings, never mind anybody on this forum.

Agree entirely on the latter - not quite so convinced on the former.

[Nearly Sane]

Flowers for Nicola


https://www.thenational.scot/news/23586691.snp-msps-agree-send-nicola-sturgeon-flowers-arrest/

[Nearly Sane]

JfC!

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/peter-murrell-nicola-sturgeon-police-scotland-humza-yousaf-times-b1087870.html

[Nearly Sane]

And from your own 'side'...


https://robinmcalpine.org/as-the-laughter-grows-and-grows-can-anyone-end-the-joke/

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, but it's still a stretch. At this time, nobody except the police and prosecutors know what charges Sturgeon will face, if any.

I doubt if McLaughlin will face any contempt proceedings, never mind anybody on this forum.

Just to help, from someone who didn't just read a web page


https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1669077173464973313?t=j00vw1rNZfsLdwF7ccO6cg&s=19

[jeremyp]

Just to help, from someone who didn't just read a web page


https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1669077173464973313?t=j00vw1rNZfsLdwF7ccO6cg&s=19

Yeah you did.

[Nearly Sane]

Yeah you did.

Roddy Dunlop didn't.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to help, from someone who didn't just read a web page


https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1669077173464973313?t=j00vw1rNZfsLdwF7ccO6cg&s=19

Isn't this the chap that you said you were going to contact for input when we discuss this previously - so what was his response (if there was one).

But if commenting on whether something might or might not be contempt may be considered contempt itself isn't Dunlop's tweet also fall foul of the very thing he is guarding others against as he is commenting on what might be considered contempt if someone comments on whether someone else's comment is contempt. And down the rabbit hole we go.

We have been commenting on whether McLaughlin's comments may or may not be considered contempt. But contempt kick in when there is an active case - unless you know something the rest of us don't there is no active case against McLaughlin so I cannot see how any comment about whether he comment could be contempt can be contempt. Of course this would change if she is charged with contempt but that is a separate matter.

For the record I'm in agreement with the person in the comments to Dunlop's post how says this matter is a test for the authorities as to whether they act or not on McLaughlin's comment.

[Nearly Sane]

Isn't this the chap that you said you were going to contact for input when we discuss this previously - so what was his response (if there was one).

But if commenting on whether something might or might not be contempt may be considered contempt itself isn't Dunlop's tweet also fall foul of the very thing he is guarding others against as he is commenting on what might be considered contempt if someone comments on whether someone else's comment is contempt. And down the rabbit hole we go.

We have been commenting on whether McLaughlin's comments may or may not be considered contempt. But contempt kick in when there is an active case - unless you know something the rest of us don't there is no active case against McLaughlin so I cannot see how any comment about whether he comment could be contempt can be contempt. Of course this would change if she is charged with contempt but that is a separate matter.

For the record I'm in agreement with the person in the comments to Dunlop's post how says this matter is a test for the authorities as to whether they act or not on McLaughlin's comment.

This chap - Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. You - a random person.

[Nearly Sane]

Yousaf canonises Sturgeon

https://archive.vn/1Yipl

[ProfessorDavey]

This chap - Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. You - a random person.

And what exactly did this Dean tell you when you reached out to him previously?

[Nearly Sane]

And what exactly did this Dean tell you when you reached out to him previously?

The Dean - not 'this Dean'.

[jeremyp]

Roddy Dunlop didn't.

Do you think the web pages I read were made by people with less authority than a tweet from a random lawyer?

[ProfessorDavey]

The Dean - not 'this Dean'.

Nope NS - this Dean - there are many Deans. Indeed I used to be a Faculty Dean myself and I was one of a number just in my own university. I've since moved on to a more senior role in the university.

But nice distraction technique. Back to the matter at hand - what did Dunlop tell you when you reached out to him previously?

[jeremyp]

Isn't this the chap that you said you were going to contact for input when we discuss this previously - so what was his response (if there was one).

But if commenting on whether something might or might not be contempt may be considered contempt itself isn't Dunlop's tweet also fall foul of the very thing he is guarding others against as he is commenting on what might be considered contempt if someone comments on whether someone else's comment is contempt. And down the rabbit hole we go.

We have been commenting on whether McLaughlin's comments may or may not be considered contempt. But contempt kick in when there is an active case - unless you know something the rest of us don't there is no active case against McLaughlin so I cannot see how any comment about whether he comment could be contempt can be contempt. Of course this would change if she is charged with contempt but that is a separate matter.

For the record I'm in agreement with the person in the comments to Dunlop's post how says this matter is a test for the authorities as to whether they act or not on McLaughlin's comment.

A case becomes active when an arrest has been made. In this case, the case would be against Nicola Sturgeon. Sturgeon has, however, been released without charge, so I don’t see how there can be an active case against her.

Nobody is getting done for contempt over this.

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you think the web pages I read were made by people with less authority than a tweet from a random lawyer?

To give him his due - he isn't just a random lawyer but a rather senior one - indeed a Faculty Dean. But actually it is then kind of becomes his professional job to warn people to be careful in what they post. Fair enough but we what we are talking about his isn't the bluntness of the law - in other word what might, in theory, result in a contempt prosecution, but the precision of the law - in other words what comments would be sufficient to vault the threshold of likelihood to result in a serious interference with the administration of justice and that a prosecution would be in the public interest - noting that it is in the public interest to allow free speech.

As I've said previously the McLaughlin situation seems certain to clarify where the law sits in practice - on the basis of whether there is a decision to prosecute and also if that is the case whether that prosecution is successful.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope NS - this Dean - there are many Deans. Indeed I used to be a Faculty Dean myself and I was one of a number just in my own university. I've since moved on to a more senior role in the university.

But nice distraction technique. Back to the matter at hand - what did Dunlop tell you when you reached out to him previously?

Just to note it's not a university faculty.

[Nearly Sane]

Do you think the web pages I read were made by people with less authority than a tweet from a random lawyer?

You think the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates is just a random lawyer? And you reading a page which is generic on law, and isn't based on Scottish law, makes you equivalent in expertise?

[Nearly Sane]

A case becomes active when an arrest has been made. In this case, the case would be against Nicola Sturgeon. Sturgeon has, however, been released without charge, so I don’t see how there can be an active case against her.

Nobody is getting done for contempt over this.

She's been released pending further investigation
 The case is still active.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to note it's not a university faculty.

So what - the point is that there are many Deans - and actually the Faculty of Advocates is a subdivision of a College - which is the same basic structure as would be used within a university.

Roddy is a faculty Dean, I used to be a faculty Dean - each 'Faculty' sits within the structure of a University or College.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to help out Prof D who serned to think that the Faculty of Advocates was a university faculty


https://www.advocates.org.uk/faculty-of-advocates

[Nearly Sane]

So what - the point is that there are many Deans - and actually the Faculty of Advocates is a subdivision of a College - which is the same basic structure as would be used within a university.

Roddy is a faculty Dean, I used to be a faculty Dean - each 'Faculty' sits within the structure of a University or College.

No

https://www.advocates.org.uk/faculty-of-advocates