Following my post yesterday and its reference to the blogpost from Jack of Kent I dropped him a note on twitter to indicate that a post was up referring to his.
The following details the twitter exchange (excluding the tweet deleted by Jack of Kent and my reply to that) for those readers not on twitter.
JoK: @Charonqc All it shows is that @loveandgarbage yet again will not have any word said against Scots law
JoK: @loveandgarbage Is there any area of Scots law – any at all – which you find fundamental fault with?
L&G: @jackofkent In the areas I know a lot about: our law of moveable securities is over-restrictive; our law of floating charges a mess; our >
L&G: @jackofkent >system of land registration (under the 1979 Act, not the 1617 system) is poorly drafted and thought out; our system of debt >
L&G: @jackofkent >enforcement against land needs overhauled; the law of immoveable securities has problematic system of enforcement; our system>
L&G: @jackofkent >of assignation of claims is too formalistic. On the areas I don’t know too much about I don’t know enough to comment sensibly.
L&G: @jackofkent I occasionally have to dabble with breach of the peace though & as indicated in the post it needs substantial reform in my view
JoK: @loveandgarbage Is it right, on any basis, that Gough should be serving such a sentence as his current one?
L&G: @jackofkent I don’t know enough about it but did note that I think continued prosecution is counter-productive.
JoK: If anyone wants to know what happens when law bloggers/tweeps clash, #follow the great @Charonqc and @loveandgarbage, in debate with me now.
JoK: @loveandgarbage But my question is not about “continued prosecution”. His current sentence is surely unacceptable?
JoK: @loveandgarbage But what is your view?
L&G: @jackofkent I refer you to my final para
JoK: @loveandgarbage So, you take the time to do your blogpost, with *all* those links, and you don’t have any view on the main issue?
JoK: @loveandgarbage You mean you write *all* that and have *no* idea whether Gough’s sentence is acceptable or not? Really?
JohnLinford: @jackofkent is it me or does @loveandgarbage miss the point you were making entirely…
JoK: @johnlinford No @loveandgarbage is a very clever Scots lawyer and so must be right
L&G: @jackofkent Your post is on what the law should be from a liberal position. I explained the background, linked to the best source on it &>
L&G: @jackofkent >gave you the legal context in Scotland. I thought it would be useful.
L&G: @jackofkent Always best to consider an issue from a well-informed position, surely?
johnlinford: @jackofkent @loveandgarbage actually I misread the concluding paragraphs, my apologies
L&G: RT @DanielDWilliam: @jackofkent @charonqc @loveandgarbage 3 different questions; is the law X, sd the law be X, has the law been heavy handed?
JoK: @loveandgarbage Yes, but you still have *no* view on a 21 month sentence?
L&G: @jackofkent That sentence includes a 6 month period in relation to failure to comply with conditions on release after a previous custodial >
L&G: @jackofkent >sentence. I considered only the factual position. I would need to read more (and look at other sentencing positions) to form a>
L&G: @jackofkent >view as I would need to check what the sentencing related to (breach of bail/contempt/breach of the peace/public indecency) >
L&G: @jackofkent >each of which he has been convicted of at some point. It seems excessive but it may be explicable within the system. >
L&G: @jackofkent >I therefore have no firm view on the sentence – especially given the complexity of the background (which I indicate in my post)
JoK: As @loveandgarbage explains, Scotland is not yet ready for naked ramblers.
JoK: In view of @loveandgarbage and Scots law, I would advise future naked ramblers to go from Lands End to (say) Cumbria, and then stop.
As I was due to retire for the evening I ended my evening with a couple of tweets
L&G: It’s an odd world where an explanation of what law is, is read as a justification of it. There was I thinking they were different questions.
L&G: Reserving opinion until one is in full possession of facts & context seems to have fallen out of fashion too. I blame these fact sceptics;-)
I’d be interested to know what Scottish lawyers (and others) think of the position regarding Mr Gough.
Should his refusal to dress for court hearings (when clearly he does dress for some occasions – such as boarding the flight) be contempt of court?
Should breach of the peace (in the scottish sense) cover his conduct?
Do you think his conduct constitutes public indecency?