Either way, the social web has placed these people under renewed scrutiny, and in the eyes of the public if not the law, the issues i raise will be hardly any different to those seen by either the man on the street, or the woman sat in front of her computer.

Well I won’t drag this out, but the fact is that there IS a charter of rules for them and one for us. They are officers of the court; we are not. We can sit on juries; they cannot. They can send people to prison, award money to plaintiffs; we cannot.

They must be seen to be doing justice as well as doing it; we don’t have that burden.

Best

David

I see what you mean, but what you’re talking about is effectively a charter of rules for them and rules for us, and secrecy is never a good thing.

When all is said and done, they’re judges and lawyers, people who have lived their lives under one degree of scrutiny or another for many years, and always will do, should they pursue their careers to the fullest, and become judges.

If they have to add another subtle layer of disclaimers to their relationships, why should they be any different to anyone else in a profession that requires disclosures?

So I think perhaps the ruling means -

“Don’t put yourselves under the spotlight. Don’t conduct these kind of relationships because the public spotlight and pressure will undoubtedly color your exchanges and potentially could lead you down paths you would not go if you acted in private.

Do not do it because you may be in danger of being led into situations you might regret - situations you would not have to worry about if you had no impartiality to protect.”

Of course it could mean “Don’t do it in public or you might get caught being a fool.” but that is just one interpretation.

It must be tough being a judge if you can’t cut loose and act the fool now and again.