| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths 13:53 - Oct 15 with 1924 views | onehunglow |
Are we in a position whereby no comments whatsoever are allowed on a current court case ?
Thanks
My point was about how we deal with these people,as a whole.
|  |
| |  |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 13:34 - Oct 16 with 933 views | Jack123 |
If my understanding of the law on this is correct, I'm guessing nobody should say anything on social media, in case a juror gets influenced by this?
When I was thinking of this last night, I find it puzzling that this was brought in this way, to stop any jurors being influenced you have two choices, one is to stop millions of people offering an opinion on an on-going court case, or the second option is the jurors must not look at social media for the duration of the trial.
Surely it would be easier to control 12 people than millions.. |  |
| |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 15:17 - Oct 16 with 876 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 13:34 - Oct 16 by Jack123 |
If my understanding of the law on this is correct, I'm guessing nobody should say anything on social media, in case a juror gets influenced by this?
When I was thinking of this last night, I find it puzzling that this was brought in this way, to stop any jurors being influenced you have two choices, one is to stop millions of people offering an opinion on an on-going court case, or the second option is the jurors must not look at social media for the duration of the trial.
Surely it would be easier to control 12 people than millions.. |
Discussion is inevitable. They can never stop people discussing cases like this and they are never realistically stop jurors from going on social media either. Here are a few guidelines from the yougov site:
You might be in contempt of court if you speak publicly or post on social media.
For example, you should not:
say whether you think a person is guilty or innocent
refer to someone’s previous convictions
name someone the judge has allowed to be anonymous, even if you did not know this
name victims, witnesses and offenders under 18
name sex crime victims
share any evidence or facts about a case that the judge has said cannot be made public
That top one is the most likely to be breached. And to be fair they’ve got a point. We only see snippets and over sensationalised headlines whereas those poor jurors have to sit through six months of the most harrowing evidence imaginable (a few have dropped out after a few days). [Post edited 16 Oct 2022 15:21]
|  |
| |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 15:24 - Oct 16 with 869 views | controversial_jack |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 15:17 - Oct 16 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
Discussion is inevitable. They can never stop people discussing cases like this and they are never realistically stop jurors from going on social media either. Here are a few guidelines from the yougov site:
You might be in contempt of court if you speak publicly or post on social media.
For example, you should not:
say whether you think a person is guilty or innocent
refer to someone’s previous convictions
name someone the judge has allowed to be anonymous, even if you did not know this
name victims, witnesses and offenders under 18
name sex crime victims
share any evidence or facts about a case that the judge has said cannot be made public
That top one is the most likely to be breached. And to be fair they’ve got a point. We only see snippets and over sensationalised headlines whereas those poor jurors have to sit through six months of the most harrowing evidence imaginable (a few have dropped out after a few days). [Post edited 16 Oct 2022 15:21]
|
Surely, there's no restrictions on members of the public discussing cases they aren't involved with. | | | |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 16:12 - Oct 16 with 838 views | CountyJim |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 15:24 - Oct 16 by controversial_jack |
Surely, there's no restrictions on members of the public discussing cases they aren't involved with. |
If you want to talk in say a pub no problem but you can't on line
Everyone should have a fair trial I can't believe an ex old bill on here started a thread on an ongoing trial he for one should know better |  | | |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 17:06 - Oct 16 with 818 views | onehunglow |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 13:16 - Oct 16 by Sirjohnalot |
This isn’t my full time job, neither Keith or I have got time to go through every posts to delete snidely remarks grown ups use to each other. Everyone needs to take responsibility |
It’s because you cannot interpret what you read James.
Don’t stigmstise
Savile was a hospital porter ,too. | |
| |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 17:10 - Oct 16 with 813 views | CountyJim |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 17:06 - Oct 16 by onehunglow |
It’s because you cannot interpret what you read James.
Don’t stigmstise
Savile was a hospital porter ,too. |
What are you talking about 🤔 The defence barristers must have loved you as a witness | | | |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 17:17 - Oct 16 with 810 views | onehunglow |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 17:10 - Oct 16 by CountyJim |
What are you talking about 🤔 The defence barristers must have loved you as a witness |
You shave to ask them James
You are not as erudite as you think
Your hatred of police stands out
Read what was posted. I ain’t explaining it to you. You are a waste of my time so tata. (Nothing to do with you being an ex steelworker). Enjoy the books I sent you | |
| |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 17:39 - Oct 16 with 792 views | controversial_jack |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 16:12 - Oct 16 by CountyJim |
If you want to talk in say a pub no problem but you can't on line
Everyone should have a fair trial I can't believe an ex old bill on here started a thread on an ongoing trial he for one should know better |
This is a new one on me. Is there an actual law preventing this, or just terms and conditions of the social media site? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 17:48 - Oct 16 with 784 views | KeithHaynes |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 16:12 - Oct 16 by CountyJim |
If you want to talk in say a pub no problem but you can't on line
Everyone should have a fair trial I can't believe an ex old bill on here started a thread on an ongoing trial he for one should know better |
Some of the things said on here would result in far more than a ban in real life Jim.
It’s a safe place to be. |  |
| |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 19:42 - Oct 16 with 752 views | GixerJack |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 17:17 - Oct 16 by onehunglow |
You shave to ask them James
You are not as erudite as you think
Your hatred of police stands out
Read what was posted. I ain’t explaining it to you. You are a waste of my time so tata. (Nothing to do with you being an ex steelworker). Enjoy the books I sent you |
Other glues are also available 😂🤣😂🤣 |  | | |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 19:56 - Oct 16 with 736 views | Dr_Winston |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 17:10 - Oct 16 by CountyJim |
What are you talking about 🤔 The defence barristers must have loved you as a witness |
I think that's why he hates solicitors/barristers so much.
Every brief within travelling distance of Merseyside must have rubbed their hands with glee when they found out he was a witness on any case. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 21:21 - Oct 16 with 700 views | onehunglow |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 17:48 - Oct 16 by KeithHaynes |
Some of the things said on here would result in far more than a ban in real life Jim.
It’s a safe place to be. |
And this was a question of how we punish evil | |
| |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 12:06 - Oct 17 with 643 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 15:17 - Oct 16 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
Discussion is inevitable. They can never stop people discussing cases like this and they are never realistically stop jurors from going on social media either. Here are a few guidelines from the yougov site:
You might be in contempt of court if you speak publicly or post on social media.
For example, you should not:
say whether you think a person is guilty or innocent
refer to someone’s previous convictions
name someone the judge has allowed to be anonymous, even if you did not know this
name victims, witnesses and offenders under 18
name sex crime victims
share any evidence or facts about a case that the judge has said cannot be made public
That top one is the most likely to be breached. And to be fair they’ve got a point. We only see snippets and over sensationalised headlines whereas those poor jurors have to sit through six months of the most harrowing evidence imaginable (a few have dropped out after a few days). [Post edited 16 Oct 2022 15:21]
|
Anyone should be able to discuss anything they like as long as what they are saying is not universally offensive. Opinions are great, it’s quite sad they are being stamped out in this day and age where people are terrified that others won’t agree with them.
Anyone afraid of debate either knows they are on the wrong side of it and debating the point will expose that or they have an agenda and want only one side of the narrative.
Grown ups and adults discuss things. |  |
| |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 12:27 - Oct 17 with 619 views | CountyJim |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 12:06 - Oct 17 by Dr_Parnassus |
Anyone should be able to discuss anything they like as long as what they are saying is not universally offensive. Opinions are great, it’s quite sad they are being stamped out in this day and age where people are terrified that others won’t agree with them.
Anyone afraid of debate either knows they are on the wrong side of it and debating the point will expose that or they have an agenda and want only one side of the narrative.
Grown ups and adults discuss things. |
That's a fair comment but everyone should have a fair trial and anything said online could influence a juror
The press can of course print what's been said in court but can't comment I think that's fair | | | |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 12:28 - Oct 17 with 620 views | onehunglow |
Talking in generic terms isn’t contempt,or is it now ? | |
| |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 13:16 - Oct 17 with 584 views | KeithHaynes |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 12:06 - Oct 17 by Dr_Parnassus |
Anyone should be able to discuss anything they like as long as what they are saying is not universally offensive. Opinions are great, it’s quite sad they are being stamped out in this day and age where people are terrified that others won’t agree with them.
Anyone afraid of debate either knows they are on the wrong side of it and debating the point will expose that or they have an agenda and want only one side of the narrative.
Grown ups and adults discuss things. |
Scenario.
Juror is a swans fan and utilises websites to find out information on the team.
They read opinion on a ‘debate’ regards a specific case or the actual case they are a juror on.
They report it ( that’s happened four times from my research) and the websites owner is charged with a criminal offence of contempt because that’s the law. Anyone happy to put up the money to pay for my defence and go to court and take the rap ?
With two qualified people on this website with experience and qualifications to judge when a post should be removed or a thread ended I think we will stick with that professional guidance. As for adults debating intelligently ? I’ve been asking that for two years, that doesn’t work for certain posters either.
The law isn’t afraid of debate, it just locks people up who can’t, not in this circumstance of course the law is clear. | |
| |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 18:12 - Oct 17 with 496 views | NotLoyal |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 13:16 - Oct 17 by KeithHaynes |
Scenario.
Juror is a swans fan and utilises websites to find out information on the team.
They read opinion on a ‘debate’ regards a specific case or the actual case they are a juror on.
They report it ( that’s happened four times from my research) and the websites owner is charged with a criminal offence of contempt because that’s the law. Anyone happy to put up the money to pay for my defence and go to court and take the rap ?
With two qualified people on this website with experience and qualifications to judge when a post should be removed or a thread ended I think we will stick with that professional guidance. As for adults debating intelligently ? I’ve been asking that for two years, that doesn’t work for certain posters either.
The law isn’t afraid of debate, it just locks people up who can’t, not in this circumstance of course the law is clear. |
Most on here would drop the website In an instant.
The behaviour of a few recently should tell anyone that.
You stick to making the right calls as ever. |  |
| |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 21:57 - Oct 17 with 410 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 13:16 - Oct 17 by KeithHaynes |
Scenario.
Juror is a swans fan and utilises websites to find out information on the team.
They read opinion on a ‘debate’ regards a specific case or the actual case they are a juror on.
They report it ( that’s happened four times from my research) and the websites owner is charged with a criminal offence of contempt because that’s the law. Anyone happy to put up the money to pay for my defence and go to court and take the rap ?
With two qualified people on this website with experience and qualifications to judge when a post should be removed or a thread ended I think we will stick with that professional guidance. As for adults debating intelligently ? I’ve been asking that for two years, that doesn’t work for certain posters either.
The law isn’t afraid of debate, it just locks people up who can’t, not in this circumstance of course the law is clear. |
No issue with that, I wasn’t specifically referring to this case. I was replying to Joesus who stated that discussion is inevitable.
There are plenty of things people like to talk about with regards to modern affairs. Not all have legal consequences to them, in fact most don’t. However debate is shut down because people don’t want to admit they may have been wrong, don’t have much substance behind what they say other than they think it makes them appear on the right side of something.
Debate should be encouraged at every single level, especially on platforms designed for it (and especially when the subject involves the club and it’s fans). [Post edited 17 Oct 2022 22:04]
| |
| |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 22:26 - Oct 17 with 381 views | builthjack |
| Deleted thread on Mulitiple baby deaths on 18:12 - Oct 17 by NotLoyal |
Most on here would drop the website In an instant.
The behaviour of a few recently should tell anyone that.
You stick to making the right calls as ever. |
Keith and John are doing a great job. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.