'Heather' Herbert Charged Over Ann Widdecombe Comments

[PandorasMailbox]

About time imo

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2ln31g8gvo

Sorry, I may have missed it but I don’t remember pronouns in the first article?!

Mumsnet is read and used by people in Scotland so needs to stay in line with Scottish contempt law, which I suspect isn’t very different from English contempt law in any case.

That makes no sense, any site that isn't in the UK can't be bound by the UK laws, that's the very problem Ofcom have got at the moment, it's trying to levy fines on USA company's and they're telling it to get lost.

The same must be said for those inside the UK as well surely, we don't have our own laws in Wales, but I'm not going to be bound by Scottish Law, they've got some stupid ones up there.

The BBC article says in the first paragraph:

An Aberdeen University employee has been arrested and charged over social media comments about the death of former MP Ann Widdecombe.

I’m missing how that’s not unequivocal.

You would be bound by Scottish laws if you did business in Scotland even if you normally reside in Wales.

Just been into town and his boyfriend (Euan denim skirt Twatface) has graced us with his presence. Couldn't see the twat himself though. Small group, maybe 20 or so, half of them draped in flags of various varieties in front of a pride banner outside the Krispy Kreme shop. Being filmed and blocking the bloody pavement.

Save us from ourselves 🙄

It sounds microbial, like something with a flagellum that you don’t want in your tap water.
’We’ve advised households in the area to use bottled water, as traces of e.coli, cryptosporidium, and polycule were found in test samples.’

The fact that you don't think it makes any sense doesn't stop it being true.

Have Krispy Creme been a tad unkind? Or have they run out of Strawberry Sundae and triggered them?

Yes, but again, Scottish newspapers and their websites are read from anywhere in the world, including England, and, again, they are not held in contempt with respect to injunctions.

Don't the police/media normally state the actual charge, eg murder, kidnap, GBH, hate crime? Even with that councillor they mentioned hers as stirring up racial hatred. So what is his? Otherwise I'm going to assume it's just arrest and the police are still fact finding.

Otherwise I'm going to assume it's just arrest and the police are still fact finding.

AIUI the police have arrested him & the Procurator Fiscal decides about charging him.

I think someone earlier in the thread said that the Procurator Fiscal decides the charges ultimately? I'm not a Scot so not too clear on how it works.
I like to know Acts and sections, but then I'm a bit of an anorak.
To add crossposted

If he's been charged, there would probably be less speculation if they said what the charge is.

But surely they need a reason for that arrest even if the PF changes/tweaks it? Otherwise it's a
"I'm arresting you"
"What for?"
Shrugs

Edited for weird formatting

The police charge a person and have a few disposals open to them, one being a report to the PF, who then decide what course of action to take.

To be fair to old Herbert, that seems a bit unreasonable for him too. Better to know surely.

It's all a bit we know you're a wrongun, we've got evidence that you're a wrongun, but we haven't decided what wrongery we're going for yet. Surely a charge should follow that decision not precede it.

As I understand it, the option is there for the Scottish courts to proceed against people publishing from outside Scotland if they are creating a substantial risk of seriously prejudicing an active Scottish prosecution, so this is indeed something for media companies, including forum providers like MN to think about.

Apparently, Scottish courts are traditionally more cautious on the law around prejudicing cases than England - the different legal system, a much lower population with smaller jury pools especially outside the central belt are reasons suggested.

He will know what he is being charged with.

That’s indeed what happens. The police explain clearly what they are being charged with. They will then either be kept in custody to appear at court the next lawful day, be released on a police bail to appear at court at a later date, or submit a report to the PF who then decides if they have to appear at court or chuck it out.

There’s no ‘oh I’ve been charged but I’ve no idea what I’ve done’.

Thanks, that makes sense.

As I understand it, the option is there for the Scottish courts to proceed against people publishing from outside Scotland

How does that work? I'm sat in France posting on Mumsnet & I speculate about Herbert's crimes. Who do the Scottish courts take action against?

The police say ‘you are charged with…’ they don’t say ‘you are charged’ - even grammatically that doesn’t make sense.

They take action against Mumsnet initially