• 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  
spunko

Court cases - feedback needed

Recommended Posts

If anyone has any feedback on discussing court cases and how to implement a policy please share feedback here. The resulting ideas I may put to a poll to get some wider opinions etc.

Important! Please only share feedback and keep on topic. If possible please do not refer directly to ongoing cases. Any discussions about anything veering off-piste I will remove, to keep it easy to read and refer back to etc. :Old:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll start. I think a "mainstream media" approach is one to explore, eg if the court case is mentioned and allows comments etc. This does happen, but not too often. One obvious website to check is Mail Online who do allow comments on some court case related stories, but not too many. Perhaps copying what they and several other mainstream UK websites do? EG: Mirror.co.uk, TheSun.co.uk, etc.

With the latest thread, I don't know how that one works, I'll fully admit. How can the Independent refer to it when there is a restriction on reporting imposed by a UK Court? This has happened before with high profile cases but, I just can't see it with them. They're uber SJW.

Paging @Frank Hovis @The Masked Tulip @One percent @onlyme @dgul @Carl Fimble and @MrPin :ph34r::D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view FWIW is along your lines.  If the Mail etc is allowing comments on a story, then we should feel free to discuss. Obviously not is what is going on in court - unless that is discussed in the press - it often is.  

If there is a reporting ban, then the discussion should be in the private place so that it is not open to the general public (GCHQ) stumbling on it.  Then, it would be like a virtual pub where things are just discussed.

Perhaps on a couple of threads over the weekend, we have been sailing a bit too close to the wind.  I myself have been guilty I think.  These need to be moved off the main board

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you read the independant it looks to me, that they are only reporting his arrest and the demonstration

The restriction was on what happen in court those that were in court have made that very clear 

Rt have reported everything including his sentence basically it`s a rehash on what Helen LeL Gower posted as an official statement and they were in court aswell 

Edited by Long time lurking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Part of me thinks we should be cautious, part of me thinks we should just speak freely. I think somewhere in between those two ends would be right, not sure which end we should be nearer, but I worry the consequences of us over censoring ourselves will be worse for the country and the world than us getting hassle or criminal records, way worse. We have a chance to make things better, the recent thing with that guy being sent down has shown that the numbers are too large for them to try and stop everyone speaking.

I'm not a lawyer though, as is obvious from reading that jumbled mess of a post. 

I would not ever want to risk prejudicing a trial, especially not one as important as the ones involving the abuse of children. 

 

Edited by Carl Fimble
things not thing. adding the last paragraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately  i think it`s up to spunko  to decide, we can all make our own decisions on what we  are prepared to post and the risk that might pose to us as individuals ,but spunko  could be dragged into this if he can be held liable for what we post as individuals, i`m no to sure about the regulations on this other than what Facebook said in court as in we are not a news source we are just a publisher what came to fruition on that case is still not clear and i`m not even sure if it was in the UK  

Another thought on this is ,most of what gets  posted on here has been posted on twitter/facebook if its not from a MSM/official source, from what i know there are plenty of people that have been convicted for posting all manner of things on those platforms but i don`t think either have ever been charged with any offence in connection with those cases.

Ultimately i think it should be down to spunko  ,but like Carl said do we realy want to behave like we are living in the 1970`s soviet union 

Basicaly i`m happy to make my own decisions on what i post ,but i don`t want someone else to be held liable for what i might post 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree witth your suggestion @spunko2010 though wouldn't wish to be presecriptive on which sites.  Essentially if it is being reported and commented upon (by comments or within the reporting) on a MSM site in the UK then that's carte blanche IMO; however the thread would have to start with this being evidenced so it's clear that it is being reported at this level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

I agree witth your suggestion @spunko2010 though wouldn't wish to be presecriptive on which sites.  Essentially if it is being reported and commented upon (by comments or within the reporting) on a MSM site in the UK then that's carte blanche IMO; however the thread would have to start with this being evidenced so it's clear that it is being reported at this level. 

The thing that concerns me is that despite the fact that the reporting restrictions were removed on 'that' case and it has since been widely reported, sites like Mail Online are still not allowing comments etc. Bit of a tricky one, although to apply a policy going forward to other/all cases I think something needs to be decided upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, spunko2010 said:

The thing that concerns me is that despite the fact that the reporting restrictions were removed on 'that' case and it has since been widely reported, sites like Mail Online are still not allowing comments etc. Bit of a tricky one, although to apply a policy going forward to other/all cases I think something needs to be decided upon.

That's because people in the comments will mention the alleged muslim rape trial case that reporting on is still banned. This ban isn't about reporting the event but it's contents.

Only by going to the court, sitting down, listening to it and then posting on here about what you heard would that happen.

We are nowhere close to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Carl Fimble said:

Part of me thinks we should be cautious, part of me thinks we should just speak freely. I think somewhere in between those two ends would be right, not sure which end we should be nearer, but I worry the consequences of us over censoring ourselves will be worse for the country and the world than us getting hassle or criminal records, way worse. We have a chance to make things better, the recent thing with that guy being sent down has shown that the numbers are too large for them to try and stop everyone speaking.

I'm not a lawyer though, as is obvious from reading that jumbled mess of a post. 

I would not ever want to risk prejudicing a trial, especially not one as important as the ones involving the abuse of children. 

 

Pretty good for a stonemason though. o.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, One percent said:

Pretty good for a stonemason though. o.O

I've told you before...

I'm not a mason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm a Stone Cutter!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If no comments are allowed on the dailymail story then perhaps we shouldn’t discuss it on this forum to be on the safe side.

Regarding the thread about the current court case I don’t think anything's been said that is out of order but we’re living in dangerous times!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/05/2018 at 20:22, XswampyX said:

That's because people in the comments will mention the alleged muslim rape trial case that reporting on is still banned. This ban isn't about reporting the event but it's contents.

Only by going to the court, sitting down, listening to it and then posting on here about what you heard would that happen.

We are nowhere close to that.

I disagree. 

It would be possible to look at the list of names that the So-Called BBC have reported. Do some digging, and say something like; "That Mr Mo X, I've seen a report that he was prosecuted for ... (or acquitted, for that matter)"...

Doesn't matter if you're right or wrong (there's probably several Mr Mohamed Xs in the area - each one with a different spelling of the "prophet's" name). Intent doesn't matter either, so I'm told.

All it would take is one stupid juror to google his name, find your comment and gain an impression of Mo X's guilt or innocence which isn't based purely on the evidence placed before the court.

Hence the need for reporting restrictions.

Which is why the TR case is so bizarre at face value to lay people like ourselves.

What did he do that actually broke those restrictions?

[Probably best not to answer that publicly yet]

But if he didn't actually do anything apart from being a thorn in the authorities' collective backsides; then when the court cases are finally over, serious questions will be raised about the competence of those who claim to know better than us plebs.

Because being a pain in the rear end isn't a custodial offence (at least not since 1967).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, unregistered_guest said:

I disagree. 

It would be possible to look at the list of names that the So-Called BBC have reported. Do some digging, and say something like; "That Mr Mo X, I've seen a report that he was prosecuted for ... (or acquitted, for that matter)"...

Doesn't matter if you're right or wrong (there's probably several Mr Mohamed Xs in the area - each one with a different spelling of the "prophet's" name). Intent doesn't matter either, so I'm told.

All it would take is one stupid juror to google his name, find your comment and gain an impression of Mo X's guilt or innocence which isn't based purely on the evidence placed before the court.

Hence the need for reporting restrictions.

Which is why the TR case is so bizarre at face value to lay people like ourselves.

What did he do that actually broke those restrictions?

[Probably best not to answer that publicly yet]

But if he didn't actually do anything apart from being a thorn in the authorities' collective backsides; then when the court cases are finally over, serious questions will be raised about the competence of those who claim to know better than us plebs.

Because being a pain in the rear end isn't a custodial offence (at least not since 1967).

 

I can answer the what did he do bit. He was broadcasting live video to people on facebook from outside the court having already received a suspended sentence for doing the same thing before.

The biggest crime he committed was doing something he had been told not to do before which meant they had no choice but to imprison him this time around.  

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/ is a good rundown of why it happened.

As for this site, the important thing is to have a documented process and to follow it. Which means you allow things to be posted, close a thread if someone complains - run your checks and then reopen it if others are allowing comments or hide it if they are not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my tuppence worth on it all.

1. The law is the law.

Whilst it all seems distant when you are typing away at the keyboard the law on current court cases is very clear. You can't discuss them. Just because other sites are allowing people to post on things doesn't mean that the law no longer applies.

I have, as I posted elsewhere, no sympathy for TR re his jail sentence. He was reporting on things that he was not allowed to report upon - you could see it coming though as he simply appears to have no understanding of the law. It would have been bad enough to do what he did if he had no suspended sentence hanging over his head but to do so was just stupid.

Worse - and this is the heart of the matter - what he did could have resulted in the trial collapsing and possibly those people allegedly abused not getting the justice that they may deserve. (Note how carefully I have chosen my words.). Not reporting on trials is there to protect both the accused and those are the potential victims. The judge did the right thing.

Going forward what I am concerned about is TPTB potentially could have used, or could still use, the above to crack-down on free expression online against anyone who just writes or says anything that questions things such islamification, open borders, endless migration, even their political policies.

It is very easy to see how it could snowball considering the stuff that we see coming from parts of the UK establishment.

The Saturday after TR was jailed I was very concerned that TPTB could have then targetted numerous other people online in order to emphasise their power and use the TR case as a means of shutting down free speech in the UK so that they control the agenda. I suspect, years from now, we may well learn just how close we came.

So why give TPTB more ammunition?

Don't break the law by discussing live court cases. Do not libel yourselves by saying things about people that you cannot prove.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Masked Tulip said:

This is my tuppence worth on it all.

1. The law is the law.

Whilst it all seems distant when you are typing away at the keyboard the law on current court cases is very clear. You can't discuss them. Just because other sites are allowing people to post on things doesn't mean that the law no longer applies.

I have, as I posted elsewhere, no sympathy for TR re his jail sentence. He was reporting on things that he was not allowed to report upon - you could see it coming though as he simply appears to have no understanding of the law. It would have been bad enough to do what he did if he had no suspended sentence hanging over his head but to do so was just stupid.

Worse - and this is the heart of the matter - what he did could have resulted in the trial collapsing and possibly those people allegedly abused not getting the justice that they may deserve. (Note how carefully I have chosen my words.). Not reporting on trials is there to protect both the accused and those are the potential victims. The judge did the right thing.

Going forward what I am concerned about is TPTB potentially could have used, or could still use, the above to crack-down on free expression online against anyone who just writes or says anything that questions things such islamification, open borders, endless migration, even their political policies.

It is very easy to see how it could snowball considering the stuff that we see coming from parts of the UK establishment.

The Saturday after TR was jailed I was very concerned that TPTB could have then targetted numerous other people online in order to emphasise their power and use the TR case as a means of shutting down free speech in the UK so that they control the agenda. I suspect, years from now, we may well learn just how close we came.

So why give TPTB more ammunition?

Don't break the law by discussing live court cases. Do not libel yourselves by saying things about people that you cannot prove.

 

Is that the reason the live stream is still on youtube ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Long time lurking said:

Is that the reason the live stream is still on youtube ?

 

Is you mean the video of him being arrested then that is just a video of someone being arrested.

If you mean the entire stream that he broadcast live I have no idea about that. No idea what may be in that video. Whether it has been edited or not to cut out information pertaining to the case.

If it is the entire live stream then it should not be up. If it is the entire live stream please do not post it or any link to it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Long time lurking I am removing this video about Tommy because this thread is not for discussing current court cases, as per my opening post, just about agreeing forum policy.

I think going forward the best solution is to not discuss UK court cases generally, unless they are being discussed (commented on) on at least ONE of the following websites:

DailyMail.co.uk
Breitbart UK
Guardian.co.uk
Independent.co.uk

 

 

Can anyone think of any more?

PS: I am not sure about Guido Fawkes (order-order.com) as his website is based in Nevis and St Kitts which he states openly is to avoid UK libel laws. I admit I don't know enough about this grey area, he appears to be a UK & Irish citizen and living in London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, spunko2010 said:

@Long time lurking I am removing this video about Tommy because this thread is not for discussing current court cases, as per my opening post, just about agreeing forum policy.

I think going forward the best solution is to not discuss UK court cases generally, unless they are being discussed (commented on) on at least ONE of the following websites:

DailyMail.co.uk
Breitbart UK
Guardian.co.uk
Independent.co.uk

 

 

Can anyone think of any more?

PS: I am not sure about Guido Fawkes (order-order.com) as his website is based in Nevis and St Kitts which he states openly is to avoid UK libel laws. I admit I don't know enough about this grey area, he appears to be a UK & Irish citizen and living in London.

I f you are unsure of that vid i`m sure the vid has been posted on other threads 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, spunko2010 said:

@Long time lurking I am removing this video about Tommy because this thread is not for discussing current court cases, as per my opening post, just about agreeing forum policy.

I think going forward the best solution is to not discuss UK court cases generally, unless they are being discussed (commented on) on at least ONE of the following websites:

DailyMail.co.uk
Breitbart UK
Guardian.co.uk
Independent.co.uk

 

 

Can anyone think of any more?

PS: I am not sure about Guido Fawkes (order-order.com) as his website is based in Nevis and St Kitts which he states openly is to avoid UK libel laws. I admit I don't know enough about this grey area, he appears to be a UK & Irish citizen and living in London.

Telegraph and times (although I know they are subscription only.

Paul actually knows what he is doing here. The first you need to do is to ensure you are not personally liable so get a limited company and transfer this site to it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also helps if you know where the website is hosted and who owns it, remember all those celebrity "gagging orders" a couple of years ago where the papers here couldn't identify the person but everyone else in the world got all the details, even the Scottish newspapers printed one of the stories.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-scottish-newspaper-names-stars-be/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Option5 said:

I also helps if you know where the website is hosted and who owns it, remember all those celebrity "gagging orders" a couple of years ago where the papers here couldn't identify the person but everyone else in the world got all the details, even the Scottish newspapers printed one of the stories.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-scottish-newspaper-names-stars-be/

 

I don't understand this because their server location won't ever match the HQ location etc. Unless they have their servers in a back cupboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spunko2010 said:

I don't understand this because their server location won't ever match the HQ location etc. Unless they have their servers in a back cupboard.

I meant if they're hosted in the UK (I know most aren't) or held on the servers of a company with a UK presence.

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.