Here We Go (1)

There has been a considerable furore over the recent 'guidance' issued about blogging by Judicial Office Holders. Many people think that the senior judiciary were badly advised before they issued the document, and both the Magistrates' Association and the National Bench Chairmen's Forum face some searching questions from their membership about their respective Chairmen's nodding through the decree in a "Magistrates Liaison Group" that even insiders did not know existed, and without any attempt at consultation or discussion.
This blog has received a large number of emails and phone calls offering support, with the common themes that the 'guidance' is both arbitrary and unnecessary, and that the blog has never in its seven years' existence published a single post that has called into question the integrity or impartiality of the judiciary at any level. Many people have said that it is a valuable resource (even being recommended reading for a number of degree and 'A'- level courses) that has helped to dispel  myths and ignorance about the courts, and has been instrumental in persuading a considerable number of people to apply to join the bench. It was one of The Times '40 blogs that really count'.

This is a responsible blog  however, so a few changes have been made today. It is now written by a team and all posts are signed by the team, and not any individual. Its mission remains to inform, to argue for improvements to justice, and occasionally to amuse.
The Guidance says, inter alia,

 
Blogging by members of the judiciary is not prohibited. However, officer (sic) holders who blog (or who post comments on other people’s blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary.  

Done

They must also avoid expressing opinions which, were it to become known that they hold judicial office, could damage public confidence in their own impartiality or in the judiciary in general.  

Will continue as before - never have and never will

The above guidance also applies to blogs which purport to be anonymous. This is because it is impossible for somebody who blogs anonymously to guarantee that his or her identity cannot be discovered.

Noted

Judicial office holders who maintain blogs must adhere to this guidance and should remove any existing content which conflicts with it forthwith.

The blog is confident that no such material  exists. It is simply not practical to search through well over two thousand posts written over seven-and-a-half years , not to mention tens of thousands of comments. 

Failure to do so could ultimately result in disciplinary action. It is also recommended that all judicial office holders familiarise themselves with the new IT and Information Security Guidance which will be available shortly. 

Noted. We shall study the guidance as soon as it is made available.