ONLY in the "best wee country in the world" would the decision to televise court proceedings be left to a single judge - the Lord President of the Court of Session ("Leading judge backs filming for court cases", The Herald, January 29).
Other countries would leave that decision to their duly elected representatives but not here. Here, a judge decided what we should be allowed to see when proceedings are televised.
For centuries, the legal fraternity has cultivated the perception that Scotland's legal system is the envy of the world. Televising court proceedings will test and may well destroy that exercise in advanced mythology.
Mesmerised viewers are likely to witness, on a daily basis, the ultimate deployment of spontaneous ineptitude and pulsating pomposity as coteries of our legal profession compete for the attention of the cameras.
Listen carefully and you will hear the English language being put through the grinding mill of QC speak: "I put it to you that on the evening of September 10, 2009, you did indeed, with much malice aforethought, unlawfully pick up a recycled but clearly abandoned brick. With reprehensible and deadly cunning, you concealed the brick (forensically identified as a British production) in the hood of your recently stolen outer garment. Then, in the spooky shadows of an ominously quiet city street, you carefully retrieved the native brick, weaponised it and carefully deployed it, with even more malice aforethought, to brutally rearrange the countenance of your totally innocent victim. What say you to that most serious charge?"
"Ah didny dae it. That's whut ah say."
After a few weeks of similar metaphysical exchanges, a distressed legal fraternity, now soaked in ridicule, will petition the Lord President to use his authority to banish forever any item that could accurately record the essence of court proceedings in Scotland. The petition, supported by the Lord President's extensive collection of televised proceedings to date, is likely to succeed.
And so it came to pass that justice, Scottish style, ceased to be seen to be done.
Thomas Crooks,
81 Dundas Street, Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article