Salmond v Sturgeon Round 3 — Comment along with Sturgeon

[PolkadotsAndMoonbeams]

Previous thread here.

I agree too; it's like a chain of small incompetences and opportunities taken, which have added up to something a lot worse when looked at in total.

I am not specifically critical of the articles sharing info that identifies people because I don’t know what’s right - I’m just critical of the way in which some people have been charged with contempt and others not

I think the reason some people have been charged and some not is that, with some it was accidental whereas others freely admit to doing it with a purpose. others also decided that on getting a letter asking them to remove the problematic article they would not bother as they knew better. I'm sure you'll have read all about that in the link at the start of the original thread. If that person had acted differently, more like how most of us would on getting a court letter, I wonder if they'd be in the situation they are in today.
To say it's okay for some and not others - I don't think it's as straightforward as that.

Ok but I’m not sure the law usually cares if something is done by accident. Secondly, in the cases where it has been an accident, why is the information all still there? We can still complete the jigsaw. I am a bit baffled by this. Not helped obviously by all the botched redactions. It raised a lot of questions about how these things should be handled in future.

But surely, regardless of prosecution, they should request a problematic article is removed. Yet they haven't- or if they have they haven't taken action when it wasn't removed

@ATieLikeRichardGere

Ok but I’m not sure the law usually cares if something is done by accident. Secondly, in the cases where it has been an accident, why is the information all still there? We can still complete the jigsaw. I am a bit baffled by this. Not helped obviously by all the botched redactions. It raised a lot of questions about how these things should be handled in future.

The botched redactions were a farce

I think there's a bit of Streisand effect going on as well — the best way to get everybody wanting to read something is by drawing attention to the fact you're banning it!

I am personally experiencing huge Streisand effect!

www.holyrood.com/news/view,new-documents-undermine-salmond-claim-that-government-tried-to-delay-judicial-review

Ok but I’m not sure the law usually cares if something is done by accident.

No - but if you can't prove you are publishing something in the public interest rather than for, let's call it, mischievous purposes (deliberately trying to reveal an identity) then you've not got as good a defence.

anyone can refer an article they're concerned about to IPSO by the way

Yes happygolurkey and that’s a problem when one group of people in power get to define what is in the public interest and what is mischievous!

As far as I’m aware, articles have been reported - -and incredibly that’s basically how I found them!

@ATieLikeRichardGere

Yes happygolurkey and that’s a problem when one group of people in power get to define what is in the public interest and what is mischievous!

If public interest was a justification then arguably Salmond's evidence shouldn't have been redacted again.

The whole thing is a mess.

I feel that someone should probably have advised the women at some point - and I hope they did - that anonymity could be protected to an extent but it could never be guaranteed.

As far as I’m aware, articles have been reported - -and incredibly that’s basically how I found them!

well they must have found they didn't pose a risk of jigsaw id on their own then!!

And to be frank, I honestly don't think people would get there without some rather sly posts here - without that third part in the jigsaw, if you like. You said yourself it was looking back on old threads that made things 'click'

I don't think it was exactly 'one group of people in power' that decided that the identity of sexual assault complainants should be protected!!! In a sense I suppose, but if you think that protection is wrong i don't know what to say to you

If public interest was a justification then arguably Salmond's evidence shouldn't have been redacted again.

I don't really understand what you mean here, but point I was making is that reporting of all of this is in the public interest - of course - the public has a right to know - but revealing the identity of complainants isn't.

No, it wasn’t posts here that got me there - they just make sense in retrospect. I’d share the articles with you and I expect you’d see what I mean, but obviously I can’t do that.

People in power can decide what constitutes public interest in an article - not the concept of protecting the complainants. So one article that’s incredibly sympathetic to the v complainants’ plight vs an article that suggests a nefarious plot could contain the same identifying info but seemingly they are viewed differently regarding public interest.

There is a bit of a conflict around protecting identities. I can obviously see why it’s important but I can also see that it is causing problems. Also the accused who was found not guilty is not afforded anonymity, but probably won’t shake the accusation. I don’t know. I think it is genuinely a tricky one.

by his own admission, the person who got into trouble for their article wrote it with this purpose

I’ve reported a sexual assault myself in the past and I probably
wouldn’t do that again in hindsight. There’s a whole big conversation around these sorts of issues. Also the complainants aren’t a monolith in this. I question the decision to put them together. There’s so much to unpack.

But happygolurkey what is the public interest if there were in fact a plot?

I'm sorry you had that experience ATieLikeGere

that's awful.

My partner has the same view as you that defendants should get anonymity the same as complainants in sexual assault cases. I strongly disagree for many reasons. We argue about it all the time .
i think I've talked myself into a cul-de-sac with the 'public interest' aspect. You're right, it is a different issue. I do think someone didn't help themselves though by being open about why they were writing something - but yes, at the end of the day it's not about whether it was accidental or not. I think they must have looked at those articles you mentioned and decided they weren't enough on their own, to the average person reading, to lead to id.

I think if i talk anymore about plots i'll end up losing the plot

Haha yes I’m on the verge myself!

Douglas Ross MP
@Douglas4Moray
·
25m
John Swinney has finally released some more of the Salmond legal advice.

He told us on Tuesday that he had published the "key legal advice" before Nicola Sturgeon’s appearance at committee.

From an initial reading of these documents, clearly he wasn’t telling the truth.

What now?!

Could anyone link to the legal advice itself?