Is it ever the case that they are already in that position - reporting back not u
I rephrased this post for a member called Lucy, as it was written without much thought about the content or structure, however, it was deeply criticised by someone sounding like they were perhaps a barrister or civil servant, as though a senior government official cannot and would not ever pick up the phone to a judge, and as though somehow the 'rule of law' takes precedence over relationships and precludes discussions in such matters. It was also implied that this is somehow a garden variety criminal trial and not one which has the potential to be a significant national talking point (and distraction). It clearly is not. However, there were admittedly a number of errors on my part, in what I was merely speculating, and some helpful input was introduced later by someone with far greater expertise than me, a mere observer speculating admittedly in a stream of consciousness fashion.
Then a history teacher weighed in implying that somehow drawing attention to potential interest in the case by those more involved in the governance than the legal side somehow implies an unfriendliness towards the justice system. There was concern expressed that ministers or other government people might be trying to influence judges or that judges might be swayed by government influences. This was considered an absurd idea - that was the position in effect. However, this was not what the speculation was about. I was simply speculating that this case will have such reverberations in society, that it is likely to be on the radar of officials and thus, members of the highest levels of governance in the country, and that actions are likely to be being taken as to how the outcomes might be handled, and how the press might be briefed in such a regard, and that cross government collaboration on that might include senior people across 3 potential departments / ministries. Among many other priorities of course. The posts which critiqued and seemed to make bullying and mocking, condescending remarks seemed also to have noble aspirations regarding what government should and shouldn't do and how judges should and shouldn't behave, again written in the spirit of rule of law primacy but were far removed from the reality, IMO. Though I feel these sentiments were perhaps slightly naive, I appreciate though the spirit with which the critiques were written.
