• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Cunning Plan

Freedom of speech

Recommended Posts

Wanted to start this in case other threads need removing.

Please do not refer to any current events on this thread.

Hopefully @The Masked Tulip will be able to help guide us through the legal minefield.

My initial confusion is can you have a change.org petition about something that can't be discussed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we can't discuss what can't be discussed, how do we know what not to discuss? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this is odd. I got notification that @spunko2010 quoted me in this thread but I see no such quote.

Has he been redacted?

2 minutes ago, QP1 said:

If we can't discuss what can't be discussed, how do we know what not to discuss? 

You will get a knock on the door. Then you will find out what you shouldn't have been discussing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

Wanted to start this in case other threads need removing.

Please do not refer to any current events on this thread.

Hopefully @The Masked Tulip will be able to help guide us through the legal minefield.

My initial confusion is can you have a change.org petition about something that can't be discussed?

 

I posted this on the other thread but will post it here also. Perhaps there needs to be a sticky at the top of the forum?

 

Hopefully the below will give people an understanding of things re now and also to bear in mind for the future regarding ongoing court cases.

1. Speculation on ongoing trials is illegal in the UK because a basic tenet of our legal system is that ALL get a fair & just trial without prejudice. This is drummed into every trainee journalist.

There is a lot of nonsense online this morning about D-notices barring reporting of this trial. That does not appear to be the case from what I can tell - only my guess. What appeared to be in place is simply the above normal trial restrictions which apply to every court case in the country.

2. Court Reporters adhere to very tight guidelines when they report on trials - they do not speculate. They do not report, mention or speculate about anything which has not been mentioned in the court. They simply report the facts of the case on any given day.

(One of the tragic things about the demise of regional newspapers is that court reporting generally across the UK is dying out rapidly. That has implications for the entire country. I hear that the So-Called BBC is now beginning to fund court reporters at certain regional newspapers to keep this important role alive.)

3. Hypothetically, if someone, stupidly IMPO, breaches 1 & 2 above - i.e. breaks the law - then the courts may place a ban on reporting of that person, and any subsequent action by the court against that person, in order for the original trial to be able to continue unprejudiced.

The last thing that the court wants is for a very long, costly and important trial to have to begin again or even for either the defence or prosecution to claim that a fair trial can no longer take place.

Please understand the above and bear it in mind during all live court trials in this country. Once a trial is over - and AFTER sentencing - you can comment upon it but only as long as you do not libel anyone involved.

OK, onto something different but just as important and, arguably, relevant.

4. There is much confusion that I see online between what US citizens can say and what UK subjects can say - notice the important difference there to begin with.

US citizens are protected and enabled by their Constitution for free speech. Even their libel laws are slightly different to ours in the UK and whilst, generally, an American should be careful in what they say or write online they have that enormously powerful US Constitution protecting them.

We have no such thing in the UK. Nothing.

Bottom line - just because an American writes or says something about any given subject does not mean that a British person has the same right to say exactly the same thing. We speak the same language, we watch the same TV shows but we do NOT have the same rights of expression.

British law applies to British subjects wherever they are in the world and whatever medium they may use - this includes everything online such as websites, forums & social media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cunning Plan said:

Now this is odd. I got notification that @spunko2010 quoted me in this thread but I see no such quote.

Has he been redacted?

You will get a knock on the door. Then you will find out what you shouldn't have been discussing. 

I was directing people to a certain place but realised not everyone is blessed so i removed it.

TMT is correct in that it's just a simple reporting restriction which is almost a given nowadays with controversial topics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Fuck it comrades lets just get with the program!

Edit: Got it wrong...

or this

or this

Oh our glorious future comrades. Brothers and sisters. Inshallah!

 

Edited by JackieO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't sentencing complete? That is why everyone is so shocked /angry? 

Or is it that the sentence was for reporting on a case where sentencing isn't complete? Wonder how far that can be nested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

 

I posted this on the other thread but will post it here also. Perhaps there needs to be a sticky at the top of the forum?

 

Hopefully the below will give people an understanding of things re now and also to bear in mind for the future regarding ongoing court cases.

1. Speculation on ongoing trials is illegal in the UK because a basic tenet of our legal system is that ALL get a fair & just trial without prejudice. This is drummed into every trainee journalist.

There is a lot of nonsense online this morning about D-notices barring reporting of this trial. That does not appear to be the case from what I can tell - only my guess. What appeared to be in place is simply the above normal trial restrictions which apply to every court case in the country.

2. Court Reporters adhere to very tight guidelines when they report on trials - they do not speculate. They do not report, mention or speculate about anything which has not been mentioned in the court. They simply report the facts of the case on any given day.

(One of the tragic things about the demise of regional newspapers is that court reporting generally across the UK is dying out rapidly. That has implications for the entire country. I hear that the So-Called BBC is now beginning to fund court reporters at certain regional newspapers to keep this important role alive.)

3. Hypothetically, if someone, stupidly IMPO, breaches 1 & 2 above - i.e. breaks the law - then the courts may place a ban on reporting of that person, and any subsequent action by the court against that person, in order for the original trial to be able to continue unprejudiced.

The last thing that the court wants is for a very long, costly and important trial to have to begin again or even for either the defence or prosecution to claim that a fair trial can no longer take place.

Please understand the above and bear it in mind during all live court trials in this country. Once a trial is over - and AFTER sentencing - you can comment upon it but only as long as you do not libel anyone involved.

OK, onto something different but just as important and, arguably, relevant.

4. There is much confusion that I see online between what US citizens can say and what UK subjects can say - notice the important difference there to begin with.

US citizens are protected and enabled by their Constitution for free speech. Even their libel laws are slightly different to ours in the UK and whilst, generally, an American should be careful in what they say or write online they have that enormously powerful US Constitution protecting them.

We have no such thing in the UK. Nothing.

Bottom line - just because an American writes or says something about any given subject does not mean that a British person has the same right to say exactly the same thing. We speak the same language, we watch the same TV shows but we do NOT have the same rights of expression.

British law applies to British subjects wherever they are in the world and whatever medium they may use - this includes everything online such as websites, forums & social media.

 "I hear that the So-Called BBC is now beginning to fund court reporters at certain regional newspapers to keep this important role alive.)"

Blimmin' heck, I'd rather have zero reporting than let those bastards at the So-Called BBC get their hands on more propaganda opportunities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks TMT..  the "after sentencing" bit explains a lot about recent events.

Seems silly,  because how can a trial be biased after the verdict has passed..  sentencing is just up to the judge who presumably can be relied upon to be impartial?  But I guess if that is the law it is the law,  no matter how stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Libspero said:

Thanks TMT..  the "after sentencing" bit explains a lot about recent events.

Seems silly,  because how can a trial be biased after the verdict has passed..  sentencing is just up to the judge who presumably can be relied upon to be impartial?  But I guess if that is the law it is the law,  no matter how stupid.

Yes I understand the reason for it all.

The question is less why he was arrested and jailed but why the MSM appear not to be reporting the latter fact if in fact that is what has happened . If someone is convicted of contempt of court and sent to prison then you would at very least expect the media to report that bare fact which has nothing to do with any other criminal trial. That does not appear to be the case here. Trying people in secret and then 'disappearing' them without any public record is what dictatorships do.

BTW unlike many on here I am not an unalloyed admirer of the individual concerned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Libspero said:

Thanks TMT..  the "after sentencing" bit explains a lot about recent events.

Seems silly,  because how can a trial be biased after the verdict has passed..  sentencing is just up to the judge who presumably can be relied upon to be impartial?  But I guess if that is the law it is the law,  no matter how stupid.

 

Sometimes a judge will lift reporting restrictions after the verdict but prior to sentencing. This may happen in trials of major news interest and/or when sentencing might be delayed for several weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what CPS has to say on the matter

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-reporting-restrictions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings

The MSM have reported the arrest but not the conviction or sentence which would have been carried out by the trial judge where the contempt ocurred. One assumes that the latter process may come under the wider reporting restrictions while the former does not. It does seem to provide a means of law officers banging people up for up to 2 years and then suppressing the information about the fact at least over the near term which seems contrary to the principle of public visibility of justice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Virgil Caine said:

Yes I understand the reason for it all.

The question is less why he was arrested and jailed but why the MSM appear not to be reporting the latter fact if in fact that is what has happened . If someone is convicted of contempt of court and sent to prison then you would at very least expect the media to report that bare fact which has nothing to do with any other criminal trial. That does not appear to be the case here. Trying people in secret and then 'disappearing' them without any public record is what dictatorships do.

BTW unlike many on here I am not an unalloyed admirer of the individual concerned. 

I'm not a fan either to be honest. But this has been going on since IIRC Blair or possibly Brown introduced it under the guise of preventing terrorism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no right to freedom of speech. You can say stuff, but the gullible are programmed (already) not to hear it , as few people are comfortable with ideas that challenge what they "know". I say man up to it ( in a non sexist way ) as if you are not listening to "other" ideas, you are living on your own Island ( not the DB one), and I want to know more than that.O.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that publishing the details of Robinson's trial/offence would in turn breach the restrictions on reporting on the trial that Robinson was judged in contempt of.

If that is the case, reporting of Robinson's offence will be allowed once the main trial and sentencing are over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Happy Renting said:

My guess is that publishing the details of Robinson's trial/offence would in turn breach the restrictions on reporting on the trial that Robinson was judged in contempt of.

If that is the case, reporting of Robinson's offence will be allowed once the main trial and sentencing are over.

I am not particularly comfortable with that process. Depriving someone of their liberty for over a year should be a matter of public record when it occurs. It is not unknown for trials to last months. What happens if the trial was still in process when the individual jailed for contempt comes up for parole. At the very least the bare fact that someone has been convicted and sentenced should be in the public space. It is rather too convenient a way for the authorities to silence dissenters of all flavours.

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Goat said:

Without wishing to comment on the case, it seems obvious that if someone is guilty of breaching a reporting restriction, then making that fact public makes the original breach worse because it encourages others to look up what was said.

I'm not sure how you get around this problem.

The media is reporting that in this case the individual was arrested for ' Breach of the Peace' which incidentally is a civil not a criminal offence in English Law and in itself is not punishable by fine or imprisonment.

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/breach-of-the-peace/

Arrest for contempt is a separate process and usually requires a warrant from an officer of the court.

So basically someone has been arrested for an offence that itself carries no term of imprisonment but according to the Hull Mail is being detained in prison in Hull.

Riddle your way out of that Batman.

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that the person now jailed was only reporting what had ALREADY been reported in the local newspaper.

Also is there a Jury in this particular trial? If not, then how does one influence it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.