Nicola Sturgeon Arrested, Peter Murrell Charged

[alta-pete]

Awfy quiet in here for such a big story. Is there a game on the night? 

[Granny Danger]

If Murrell is found guilty of embezzlement, and that’s a very big if, the impact on the Independence movement will be enormous.

There will be some who will argue that it shouldn’t be, but it will.

 

 

[KirkieRR]

In another country this kind of scandal would involve millions and a superyacht. Here, it's six grand and a campervan.

 

This breaks on the same day that Humza tears up his climate change targets.

 

Do I keep voting for a party that is incompetent and determined to desroy itself, though nominally it represents to a great extent my own beliefs?

 

Yes, probably. Vote for the candidate. In my consituency it's a reasonable SNP incumbent whose biggest rival is a barking LibDem councillor who loves closing libraries. Oh and there's a ScoLab candidate who is as anonymous as all of them.

 

So, despite everything, it's a no-brainer, as the children say.

[Suspect Device]

1 minute ago, KirkieRR said:

In another country this kind of scandal would involve millions and a superyacht. Here, it's six grand and a campervan.

 

This breaks on the same day that Humza tears up his climate change targets.

 

Do I keep voting for a party that is incompetent and determined to desroy itself, though nominally it represents to a great extent my own beliefs?

 

Yes, probably. Vote for the candidate. In my consituency it's a reasonable SNP incumbent whose biggest rival is a barking LibDem councillor who loves closing libraries. Oh and there's a ScoLab candidate who is as anonymous as all of them.

 

So, despite everything, it's a no-brainer, as the children say.

Just for the sake of pedantry, it's 600 grand. Still small in relation to Mone et al but not insignificant.

[ICTChris]

2 hours ago, Lyle Lanley said:

BBC Scotland understands Peter Murrell has resigned his SNP membership. 

Be funny if he joined Alba.

[KirkieRR]

20 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

Just for the sake of pedantry, it's 600 grand. Still small in relation to Mone et al but not insignificant.

Indeed, my apols.

My point wasn't to minimise the wrongdoing, but rather to suggest how tinpot it was.

Edited April 18 by KirkieRR

[Hiram Holliday]

Upping the price of alcohol…stopping smoking…hate crimes…NHS on its knees…drug problems..homelessness..if ever there was a party that needs kicked out…the SNP is it!

[KirkieRR]

7 minutes ago, Hiram Holliday said:

Upping the price of alcohol…stopping smoking…hate crimes…NHS on its knees…drug problems..homelessness..if ever there was a party that needs kicked out…the SNP is it!

Minimum alcohol pricing has cross-party support. The smoking legislation is a creation of the Westminster Tory government and again has cross-party support.

Do try reading some stuff.

 

 

[lichtgilphead]

Just now, Hiram Holliday said:

Upping the price of alcohol

The biggest component of the price of alcohol is duty & VAT. Aren;t these Westminster taxes?

3 minutes ago, Hiram Holliday said:

stopping smoking

I believe that the plan to ban all citizens currently under 15 from ever buying tobacco products was initially announced by Rishi Sunak?

6 minutes ago, Hiram Holliday said:

hate crimes

Do you think that promoting hate is a good thing?

9 minutes ago, Hiram Holliday said:

NHS on its knees

Are you referring to England or to Wales here? Both perform worse than the Scottish NHS

10 minutes ago, Hiram Holliday said:

drug problems

Isn't this policy area reserved to Westminster?

13 minutes ago, Hiram Holliday said:

homelessness.

Isn't this a responsibility of Local Government? Is it significantly better in Councils run by Yoons?

16 minutes ago, Hiram Holliday said:

Flegs. Serious stuff.

 

Thanks for the inpurt Hiram, but I expect better trolling  from P'n'B's pet Yoons. You must try harder.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

 

8 hours ago, Alan Twelve said:

I think all the unionist mentalists are off having a w**k.

Some folk on X are sailing very close to the wind regards CoC.

 

Edited April 19 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Leith Green]

9 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

 

Some folk on X are sailing very close to the wind regards CoC.

 

Which will, of course, take up police time.

Of course most of those tweeting wild theories will be the same people who, a week ago, were complaining the police would need to divert massive resources to deal with the Hate Crime Bill............................

[PaddyCapri]

Nat twitter X is in meltdown.

Some of the copes are glorious! 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

10 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Just mind the contempt of court act is in play folks. 

I thought it might be worth sharing this - it explains what is and what isn't CoC in terms of social media (including website forums and blogs) - it is in relation to a Sarah Everard but goes on to mske general points about CoC.

https://theconversation.com/sarah-everard-social-media-and-the-very-real-danger-of-contempt-of-court-157068

Quote

The disappearance of Sarah Everard, the subsequent finding of human remains and the arrest of a serving Metropolitan police officer has been shocking. It has led to much speculation in the press, on TV and radio and on social media.

Such commentary is an understandable response. There is a danger, though, that any public suggestion that the person arrested is guilty – or, indeed, innocent – of a crime may amount to a contempt of court. This is a concern for all reporters – but is a particular hazard for users of social media who, unlike trained journalists, may be unaware of the rules of contempt.

A past case of contempt of court illustrates the danger, though it concerned the press rather than social media. In 2010, Christopher Jefferies was arrested for the murder of his tenant and neighbour, Joanna Yeates. Some media outlets began to trash his reputation in a way which suggested he was guilty. For example, the Daily Mirror falsely claimed on its front page that he was a “peeping Tom”. And the Sun’s front page referred to him as “The strange Mr Jefferies” while the inside pages stated that he was “weird” and “creepy”.

Jefferies was, in fact, wholly innocent. Another man, Vincent Tabak, was later arrested and convicted of Yeates’ murder.

There are various types of contempt of court but they all exist to protect the authority, impartiality and fairness of court trials. The type of contempt in the Jefferies case – and which I write about here – is known as “contempt by publication”. It exists to ensure that cases are tried only on the basis of evidence that is heard – and which may be challenged and tested – in the court room, rather than on the basis of rumour, gossip, insinuation or anything else that is external to the trial but which may influence the outcome.

This type of contempt is governed by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. It’s committed when a publication creates a “substantial risk” that a trial may be “seriously impeded or prejudiced”. The act defines publication as any “communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public”. 

This clearly includes social media – and this is why I say that the users of social media are a particular concern. Unlike trained journalists, many social media users will be unaware of the law of contempt and how it restricts what they should post or tweet (though, as the Jefferies case demonstrates, even the professionals get it wrong sometimes).

Under the 1981 act, contempt by publication may be committed when proceedings are active. This has various meanings but, generally speaking, criminal proceedings become active after an arrest.

The upshot of all this is that, once someone has been arrested, any social media post which creates a substantial threat to the impartiality of a subsequent trial may amount to a contempt of court. And the penalties for committing a contempt are significant – a substantial fine or up to two years’ imprisonment.

Ignorance is no excuse
Simply being ignorant of the law of contempt does not protect you from it. For example, the actress Tina Malone was given an eight-month suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay £10,000 costs after breaching a court order protecting the identities of the killers of James Bulger. She had shared on Facebook an image and name, purportedly of one of the killers.

Malone was found in contempt even though she told the court she did not realise she was doing anything wrong by sharing the post. This was contempt by breaching a court order, rather than by a publication risking the impartiality of a trial, but the same principle applies.

The 1981 act also defines contempt by publication under something called the “strict liability” rule. This means that a person may be found to have committed contempt even if it was not their intention. You may, for instance, tweet without meaning to influence – without even thinking of — a future or ongoing trial and still commit contempt.

And as the Christopher Jefferies case also shows, there can be a contempt even if there is no trial – contempt is committed by creating a substantial risk of serious prejudice, even if the risk does not materialise because the person in question never goes to trial.

None of this means that there can be no discussion about Sarah Everard’s disappearance. The Contempt of Court Act explicitly permits publication of material, which could be in news outlets or on social media, as part of a discussion of general public interest as long as the risk to any trial is incidental to that discussion. So, for instance, press or social media discussions, in the context of this case – about the violence that women often face from men – may not be a contempt of court. Unless, for example, it is suggested that the person arrested was guilty.

Social media has the potential to be an incredible force for good, making freedom of expression a reality for more people than ever before. Yet, there is also the potential for significant harm. There will be few who are unaware of the sometimes brutal abuse and bullying that takes place on social media. But, there will also be few social media users who are aware of the danger of committing contempt of court and of the serious penalties that committing contempt may bring them.

In short, you can report on actual facts of the case but are not allowed to discuss the trial itself.  You are allowed to have a wider discussion, for example, we can discuss wider issues such as political party funding and financial accountability within political parties.

Hope this helps.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

4 minutes ago, PaddyCapri said:

Nat twitter X is in meltdown.

Some of the copes are glorious! 

Apart from the usual "it's an MI5 conspiracy" tinfoil hatters most Nats are, quite rightly, rather subdued on the matter.

 

[Leith Green]

3 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Apart from the usual "it's an MI5 conspiracy" tinfoil hatters most Nats are, quite rightly, rather subdued on the matter.

 

Anyone sensible wanted this settled - and if that means person(s) are charged and can then defend them in court - then thats the correct outcome.

I wouldnt make the assumption that those on twitter (on either side) even understand what embezzlement means.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

18 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I thought it might be worth sharing this - it explains what is and what isn't CoC in terms of social media (including website forums and blogs) - it is in relation to a Sarah Everard but goes on to mske general points about CoC.

https://theconversation.com/sarah-everard-social-media-and-the-very-real-danger-of-contempt-of-court-157068

In short, you can report on actual facts of the case but are not allowed to discuss the trial itself.  You are allowed to have a wider discussion, for example, we can discuss wider issues such as political party funding and financial accountability within political parties.

Hope this helps.

Yep, anything which could essentially influence a potential juror and inhibit a fair trial. There are so many SNP/Yoon twitter users already riding roughshod over it.

[TheScarf]

8 hours ago, Hiram Holliday said:

Upping the price of alcohol…stopping smoking…hate crimes…NHS on its knees…drug problems..homelessness..if ever there was a party that needs kicked out…the SNP is it!

Almost all of those things are reserved to Westminster, but apart from that, excellent post.

[Lex]

Should be an interesting court case, if nothing else. I wonder if Sleazy Pete will take a deal to avoid the Nats dirty laundry being aired in open court. 

[Trogdor]

It must be a burden to be so catastrophically bald. He was the poster boy for the catastrophically bald. Where do the movement go from here?

[Leith Green]

1 minute ago, Trogdor said:

It must be a burden to be so catastrophically bald. He was the poster boy for the catastrophically bald. Where do the movement go from here?