The £18 pricetag at a petrol station in Ibrox is a wee bit jarring.

If it can happen to Gannon-Doak ... speedy recovery pal! ❤️

Never!

Why can't you just let me be happy

For anyone counting, I managed to have five baths in three days.

Anyway, here's my boss doing a better job of explaining it. www.bbc.com/news/article...

If there's a perception that defence is getting away with return to asking a woman what she was wearing when she was raped or ignoring the complex realities of abusive relationships involving sexual violence, then people just won't report what has happened to them. It's as simple as that.

When we talk about this judgment, let's not forget that changes to questioning and evidence didn't come about because we became afraid to make women a wee bit uncomfortable in court - it's because women who had raped were regularly being subjected to irrelevant, invasive and aggressive questioning.

In judgment itself, there was worryingly little exploration of why rules about evidence became necessary in first place. It accepts that certain questioning is 'embarrassing' for complainers, but stops short of considering how it can affect the outcome of cases. In short, Article 6 trumps Article 8.

Where implications of judgement are potentially more likely to play out problematically is sexual offence cases in sheriff courts, where some defence lawyers have recent form for putting complainers through irrelevant and humiliating questioning: www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/i0xjcf...

Yes, this judgment will lead to more successful applications around sexual history and character evidence. However, it was also very clear: not all evidence around sexual history or character *should* be considered relevant to the case. And Lord Advocate has indicated today that they won't be.

It is difficult to tell rape survivors that, through no fault of their own, their journey with criminal justice process might not be over. Or prepare someone for court knowing the goal posts are shifting. To tell someone who has already given evidence that there is a chance they will be recalled.

Current process isn't likely to change beyond recognition. What is concerning is that we can't give survivors advice about whether or not the person who raped them might be able to open back up a case that they thought was finished. The limbo and uncertainty is the headline issue for us right now.

Are appeals only going to look at cases where applications around sexual history and character evidence have been rejected? Or, more likely, are lawyers going to effectively argue that they never made the applications in the first place because they knew they were doomed to fail?

It's ongoing cases trying to grapple with the gap in guidance created by the SC judgment. It's the recently concluded cases, now likely to go straight to appeal. It's historic cases which potentially have legitimate grounds for appeal, but will end up tied up in an under-staffed case review process.

Oh pal, sorry you had some shite luck. The weather has been wild.

I was cutting about looking about 10 years older and decidedly more hungover than any social media profile photo tbh

You folks pulled another blinder. ✨