I`m struggling to find a legal reason for newsrooms, TH, so I don`t think I`m going to worry about it being too hot to deal with. I am thinking about what I should add, if any, and if not, whether I should still put something in place out of solidarity – and also, as always, when I have time! It seems to me that if you say or have said something that the SG does not want to hear, then the fighting dogs will be sent. I do not know the pros and cons of the law, but I was raised to believe that the truth will prevail. It seems that in this street you are littered and then the old – there is no smoke without fire, twisting curtains. For now, if you ask/or say something online that the crowd doesn`t want to hear, you`ll be called a “Yoon” and canceled. This is worrisome. Thank you for your legal mishaps, because it is bearable in these times to put an end to this investigation. Contact Mark Hirst on 0161 331 3885 or email – mhirst@bromleys.co.uk I would ask David. I`m trying to think for myself about the legal basis for publishers – it`s certainly not a puzzle identification or privacy issues – and I`m struggling to find anything. Off-topic but relevant I have posted this comment on other sites, recently on Iain Lawsons and others, can you tell me if it is feasible, legal or allowed. A legal fund will be set up through a participatory donor to support this action, BUT unlike other donors, if the case is successful, as we believe, and the costs and damages will be charged to the public prosecutor, any donation to this fund will be refunded. I fear that the days of bragging about the Scottish legal system to colleagues in other jurisdictions are long gone. The trust is managed by one or more trustees who hold legal ownership, protecting assets from external legal claims.
The specific wishes of the settlor may cover the longer-term horizon or diversification, where appropriate, between heirs as well as non-diversification of assets in general. A trust can prevent the liquidation of a running company by the heirs and thus ensure the sustainability of the company`s assets. Gordon, that shows how far I am from the criminal law. It appears that the situation in England is much the same as in Scotland, as defence costs are not recoverable without legal assistance, even if there is an acquittal or if the presentation of an irrefutable case is successful. FM`s goal was to distance itself as much as possible from ADR investigations. However, it was legally required to make a statement on its contacts and discussions on the matter. The April 2 meeting was the last date on which she could plausibly claim to have seen it. I have to admit that today I am so angry at the state of Scotland – all caused by the SNP (government, but many of them) and our legal institutions, and in all our other institutions (including the so-called charities, just a front for political pensioners) – between the blatant corruption associated with Alex Salmond`s sting, as well as the ideology of gender identity of cheerleading – I mean, Who would have thought anyone would consider it reasonable to enshrine a new cult religion in law? (Especially before they have managed to figure out how many cults they actually have, what the rules are – apart from “burning witches” of course – or any definition – haha, try asking what the gender means! And they intend to legislate on that. Oh, it makes me cringe, despair, curl up and pretend this isn`t my world). But the crazy SNPs are trotting into their happy world being abbotized and destroying ours. Anyway, I am so angry with the state of Scotland, I hope the Lord Advocate and the policeman.
Sigh, nothing will happen, right? Even if they admit some responsibility, they will escape unscathed, will they not? Mark also highlighted the devastating impact the process has had on his income and finances, despite the help of the crowdfunder and Craig Murray`s generous 10K donation from Craig`s own crowdfunder. It is outrageous that the COPFS can get away with imposing enormous costs on innocent citizens by maliciously pursuing fake cases with impunity. The so-called “freedom” to prosecute for malicious prosecution is only available to millionaires, not to an ordinary person who has just been financially crippled by the cost of defending their freedom. In my opinion, we urgently need legislation to correct this abuse. At the very least, it should be mandatory that if the verdict is not a case to answer or if the judge finds otherwise that the prosecution is unjust, the defendant is entitled to full reimbursement of his or her legal fees by the Crown. Clive Thomson v Lord Advocate, January 2021 Crowdfunder. I`m not sure about the legitimacy of the other things you mention, and personally I wouldn`t be in favor of it, because I don`t think it works well for anyone to threaten people because of their evidence, even with the best of intentions. I`ve seen enough shady “confessions” produced in the name of what cops call “noble corruption” to last me a lifetime.