Discussion:
Witch Hunts, Historic Abuse Allegations and the Age of Consent
Add Reply
The Todal
2017-04-12 14:07:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
So here's an interesting angle. An experienced female barrister who
thinks the complainant is always being given the benefit of the doubt in
these historic abuse cases, and who has advocated reducing the age of
consent, now seems to be in trouble for making threats and committing
harassment. Not what we'd expect from m'learned friends.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4404324/Barrister-death-threats-law-student.html
Judith
2017-04-12 14:59:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
So here's an interesting angle. An experienced female barrister who
thinks the complainant is always being given the benefit of the doubt in
these historic abuse cases, and who has advocated reducing the age of
consent, now seems to be in trouble for making threats and committing
harassment. Not what we'd expect from m'learned friends.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4404324/Barrister-death-threats-law-student.html
Interesting.

I looked up further details of Harassment.

I found on the Citizen's Advice page:

"Try to get evidence of the bulling by making copies of any threatening online
conversations, for example by saving emails or taking screen shots."

Is "bulling" similar to "dogging"?
Omega
2017-04-12 15:25:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
So here's an interesting angle. An experienced female barrister who
thinks the complainant is always being given the benefit of the doubt in
these historic abuse cases, and who has advocated reducing the age of
consent, now seems to be in trouble for making threats and committing
harassment. Not what we'd expect from m'learned friends.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4404324/Barrister-death-threats-law-student.html
Uncanny, her likeness to Nicola Sturgeon.

omega
Nick
2017-04-12 16:25:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
So here's an interesting angle. An experienced female barrister who
thinks the complainant is always being given the benefit of the doubt in
these historic abuse cases, and who has advocated reducing the age of
consent, now seems to be in trouble for making threats and committing
harassment. Not what we'd expect from m'learned friends.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4404324/Barrister-death-threats-law-student.html
That is want happens to people who stand up to witch hunters. What is
she actually alleged to have done?

Called someone a Nazi and their sympathizers "sociopathic bunny boilers"
on twitter?

So what is a "harassment warning"

<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/03/police-harassment-warning-notices-diane-louise-jordan>
pensive hamster
2017-04-12 18:20:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
Post by The Todal
So here's an interesting angle. An experienced female barrister who
thinks the complainant is always being given the benefit of the doubt in
these historic abuse cases, and who has advocated reducing the age of
consent, now seems to be in trouble for making threats and committing
harassment. Not what we'd expect from m'learned friends.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4404324/Barrister-death-threats-law-student.html
That is want happens to people who stand up to witch hunters. What is
she actually alleged to have done?
Called someone a Nazi and their sympathizers "sociopathic bunny boilers"
on twitter?
So what is a "harassment warning"
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/03/police-harassment-warning-notices-diane-louise-jordan>
Here's another legal chappie being a little, err, injudicious.

Is there something about the Internet which leads people to
become intoxicated with their own opinions and throw caution
to the winds?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-39575463
12 April 2017

Judge sacked for trolling people on online news stories

A judge has been sacked for using a pseudonym to post abusive
comments on a newspaper website about cases he was involved in.

Recorder Jason Dunn-Shaw, of Maidstone Chambers in Kent, is
understood to have called one man a "donkey" and others
"narrow-minded and bigoted".

He also accused others of commenting "without thinking things
through".

Mr Dunn-Shaw told KentOnline - the site where the comments
were posted - he was "dismayed" he had been sacked.

Dunn-Shaw was commenting on news stories relating to a case
for which he was sitting as a judge at Canterbury Crown Court,
and another for which he was a barrister.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) said his
behaviour was "below standard". ...
GB
2017-04-13 08:25:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Here's another legal chappie being a little, err, injudicious.
Is there something about the Internet which leads people to
become intoxicated with their own opinions and throw caution
to the winds?
It must be really annoying to be criticised as a judge and not be
allowed to argue back.

And of course the internet gives anonymity. However, it's unclear
whether he used a pseudonym all the time. The JCIO said: "In his own
name he used publicly available social media sites to post material ...."

Otherwise, how would he have been found out?
Nick
2017-04-13 08:55:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
It must be really annoying to be criticised as a judge and not be
allowed to argue back.
Many jobs have rules. Sometimes they seem silly or overly strict. In
jobs I have had it was made clear to us that any unauthorised comment to
the press about our work was a dismissable offence. I can't believe a
competent Judge would think such behaviour acceptable.
Post by GB
And of course the internet gives anonymity. However, it's unclear
whether he used a pseudonym all the time. The JCIO said: "In his own
name he used publicly available social media sites to post material ...."
This comment appears to relate to the Facebook comments not the Kent
online comments.
Post by GB
Otherwise, how would he have been found out?
Many ways: IP address, sent from a work computer, admitted it.
GB
2017-04-13 09:08:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
Post by GB
It must be really annoying to be criticised as a judge and not be
allowed to argue back.
Many jobs have rules. Sometimes they seem silly or overly strict. In
jobs I have had it was made clear to us that any unauthorised comment to
the press about our work was a dismissable offence. I can't believe a
competent Judge would think such behaviour acceptable.
I agree, but it's still annoying, particularly if the criticism is
ill-informed and unfair. Apparently he's appealing to the Ombudsman.
pensive hamster
2017-04-13 20:41:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GB
Post by pensive hamster
Here's another legal chappie being a little, err, injudicious.
Is there something about the Internet which leads people to
become intoxicated with their own opinions and throw caution
to the winds?
It must be really annoying to be criticised as a judge and not be
allowed to argue back.
No doubt, but the BBC report said that the individual concerned
had called one man a "donkey" and had accused others of
commenting "without thinking things through".

The second comment seems reasonably measured, but the
donkey one seems injudicious for a person in his position.

People in public positions, such as judges, barristers, school
teachers, or police officers, should be aware they have a
professional responsibility to use moderate language in a
public forum. It's not going to look good if they can't manage
that.

Though I think sacking him was rather excessive, a mild
reprimand might be more appropriate in the first instance.
Post by GB
And of course the internet gives anonymity. However, it's unclear
whether he used a pseudonym all the time. The JCIO said: "In his own
name he used publicly available social media sites to post material ...."
Otherwise, how would he have been found out?
Nick
2017-04-13 08:57:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Here's another legal chappie being a little, err, injudicious.
My point was that the barrister above was that the claims of harassment
were unsubstantiated. Very much the type of allegation that is done as
when smearing someone.
pensive hamster
2017-04-13 20:26:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
Post by pensive hamster
Here's another legal chappie being a little, err, injudicious.
My point was that the barrister above was that the claims of harassment
were unsubstantiated. Very much the type of allegation that is done as
when smearing someone.
The claims of harassment weren't tested in court, they might have
been found to have some substance.

My point was more that, if it is true that a barrister, in a public
forum, described another barrister as a ‘Nazi’ and refered to her
sympathisers as ‘sociopathic bunny boilers’, that seems a bit
injudicious of them. Asking for trouble, even. Would a judge allow
that sort of language in their court?

There may be a case for these police 'harassment notices', which
seem to be the legal equivalent of a raised eyebrow. In certain
circumstances, letting a person know the police have an eye on
them, might be enough to make them moderate their behaviour.

Or perhaps they are a bit like "a clip round the ear'ole" of the
Dixon of Dock Green era. Potentially effective, but don't use
up a lot of expensive court time.
Handsome Jack
2017-04-13 13:19:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
So here's an interesting angle. An experienced female barrister who
thinks the complainant is always being given the benefit of the doubt
in these historic abuse cases, and who has advocated reducing the age
of consent, now seems to be in trouble for making threats and
committing harassment. Not what we'd expect from m'learned friends.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4404324/Barrister-death-threats-
law-student.html
Those allegations that are provable are not of criminal offences, and
the allegations of criminal offences are evidently not provable. If they
were, she'd have been arrested, not just given one of the police's
toilet-paper 'harassment notices'.
--
Jack
Altroy1
2017-04-14 00:26:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
So here's an interesting angle. An experienced female barrister who
thinks the complainant is always being given the benefit of the doubt in
these historic abuse cases, and who has advocated reducing the age of
consent, now seems to be in trouble for making threats and committing
harassment. Not what we'd expect from m'learned friends.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4404324/Barrister-death-threats-law-student.html
"now seems to be in trouble"

Quite. The operative word here is "seems". The Heil was less than overly
detailed on the nature of the allegations. Perhaps they have some sort
of excuse. The alleged tweets must have been private? Why else would the
Heil appear to find a problem direct quoting so little. Instead of
telling us that the tweets were allegedly harassing, perhaps a few
direct quotes from them to help readers make up their own minds whether
the tweets were harassing or not (along with any exculpatory explanation
from the accused barrister). Is this the same Heil that dug up a story
about Dr David Dao's alleged trouble with the law 10 years ago but
failed to demonstrate any relevance to being dragged off a plane? Bad
journalism.

Loading...