Chris Martin thread

[Pete Raven 276]

Before we get 50 posts asking where it went, a reminder of the forum rules...Do not post anything which could prejudice court proceedings currently

or in the future. It is basically contempt of court to comment on any

crime once someone has been arrested for it, even if they have not yet

been charged.

[Yella Foreva 0]

Sorry SDP- i should of considered that before posting. Apologies again

[Superflash 0]

Sorry, but I find it slightly baffling. Surely this matter comes under public interest? It''s already been reported by Archant themselves. What happens if someone is discussing a crime in say, one of the big tabloid newspaper forums? Does that get pulled down too?Note, this isn''t meant as an attack by the way, just an observation.

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="Sports Desk Pete"]Before we get 50 posts asking where it went, a reminder of the forum rules...Do not post anything which could prejudice court proceedings currently

or in the future. It is basically contempt of court to comment on any

crime once someone has been arrested for it, even if they have not yet

been charged.[/quote]

Like I said on the thread you''ve deleted, it shouldn''t be and isn''t worthy of being discussed - regardless of any legalities.

[Yella Foreva 0]

Shyster

Just out of curiosity, would you feel the same if your family were involved?

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="Superflash"]Sorry, but I find it slightly baffling. Surely this matter comes under public interest? It''s already been reported by Archant themselves. What happens if someone is discussing a crime in say, one of the big tabloid newspaper forums? Does that get pulled down too?Note, this isn''t meant as an attack by the way, just an observation. [/quote]

Drop it, you pillock - discussion will only serve to blow things out of proportion and that is about as much use as tits on a fish to both the club and player/s.

[TIL 1010 5,246]

[quote user="Sports Desk Pete"]Before we get 50 posts asking where it went, a reminder of the forum rules...

Do not post anything which could prejudice court proceedings currently or in the future. It is basically contempt of court to comment on any crime once someone has been arrested for it, even if they have not yet been charged.
[/quote]

As they say Pete just an observation and please don''t take this as a dig but how come the Steven Gerrard affray case was plastered all over the papers virtually chapter and verse before it went to court.For what it is worth i think outside pressure was been made from the other end of Rouen Road,after all it won''t be the first time now will it?[;)]

[morty 0]

I''ll repeat what I said on the thread. Seriously, you''d think that some people here have never had a few bevvies too many and done something daft or lairy. Or never been out in any town on virtually any night of the week and seen a scrap.And people don''t start fights on their own, there is always another party who plays their part.I look forward to sharing a beer with Tilly on Friday at the Pup''s do, where he can fill me in on what actually happened.

[CanaryJames 0]

It makes no difference if it is in ''the public interest'', things that were said were still massively in contempt of court, and would have potentially affected any trial.

Also, I don''t see how it''s ''public interest'' other than getting some gossip about a footballer. The public at large is not in a position of danger, nor do they have any relevance to the matter whatsoever, so claiming a ''public interest defence'' would never stand up in court anyway.

[Pete Raven 276]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="Sports Desk Pete"]Before we get 50 posts asking where it went, a reminder of the forum rules...Do not post anything which could prejudice court proceedings currently or in the future. It is basically contempt of court to comment on any crime once someone has been arrested for it, even if they have not yet been charged.[/quote]

As they say Pete just an observation and please don''t take this as a dig but how come the Steven Gerrard affray case was plastered all over the papers virtually chapter and verse before it went to court.For what it is worth i think outside pressure was been made from the other end of Rouen Road,after all it won''t be the first time now will it?[;)]

[/quote]Lord knows. I''m sticking to the forum rules. No call from the club - I deleted that thread all on my own.

[ncfc_1902 0]

If anyone missed the details they are on the Wrath............

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="Yella Foreva"]Shyster

Just out of curiosity, would you feel the same if your family were involved?[/quote]

It wouldn''t have got to the ol'' bill if my family were involved.Now let''s not discuss this subject any further.

[Jim Smith 2,608]

Clearly it is of interest to and will be a topic of discussion to Norwich fans but you can''t have one of the involved family members posting an in detail account of their side of the story on a public internet forum. I am not doubting what the poster put (although the description given in that deleted thread does not appear to marry up with the charge) but it is clearly only one side of the story and could prejudice the hearing of the case (for either side) when it comes to court as well as influence any accounts from witnesses etc.

Hopefully Lambert will tick Martin off for getting involved in something stupid (whether or not he is guilty of an offence he has still put himself in a bad situation although no more so than many of us do every weekend), he will knuckle down and continue to play as he did on saturday and if he has done anything he will be given a suitable (and i suspect minor community based) sentence when the matter goes to court.

[Yella Foreva 0]

Jim Smith

I completely agree with you hence my above apology. I will think before posting next time. I just got a bit angry that some people were thinking it was a laughing matter. Sorry again

[First Wizard 0]

I''m backing super Chrissy 100%.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="Sports Desk Pete"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="Sports Desk Pete"]Before we get 50 posts asking where it went, a reminder of the forum rules...Do not post anything which could prejudice court proceedings currently or in the future. It is basically contempt of court to comment on any crime once someone has been arrested for it, even if they have not yet been charged.[/quote]

As they say Pete just an observation and please don''t take this as a dig but how come the Steven Gerrard affray case was plastered all over the papers virtually chapter and verse before it went to court.For what it is worth i think outside pressure was been made from the other end of Rouen Road,after all it won''t be the first time now will it?[;)]

[/quote]Lord knows. I''m sticking to the forum rules. No call from the club - I deleted that thread all on my own.[/quote]So why not pull it down under ''forum rules''  rather some BS about contempt of court?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

Tabloids usually use the wonderful phrase "allegedly" if reporting before a trial, or use official statements from either party. Most of the reporting happens when the case is in court, and all statements are then public record and can be repeated in the press.

As the hearing is only in a couple of weeks we shall all soon find out what actually went down in Wymondham that fateful night.

[cambscanary 0]

Trust me, this couldnt be further from being contempt of court. The public are aforded the right of free speech to speculate on ongoing cases. Contempt of court is an act brought in to protect the runnings of court cases and to allow the courts to act if someone is disrespectful to a judge or is basically acting like a prat in a court room!!

So long as no-one says ''this is a fact and ???? told me it'' there is absolutely no issue with speculating on and internet forum. even if someone did say this anything like the above it wouldnt actually land anyone in trouble so long as the forum rules are made clear.........................which they are!!

happy speculating

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="cambscanary"]Trust me, this couldnt be further from being contempt of court. The public are aforded the right of free speech to speculate on ongoing cases. Contempt of court is an act brought in to protect the runnings of court cases and to allow the courts to act if someone is disrespectful to a judge or is basically acting like a prat in a court room!!

So long as no-one says ''this is a fact and ???? told me it'' there is absolutely no issue with speculating on and internet forum. even if someone did say this anything like the above it wouldnt actually land anyone in trouble so long as the forum rules are made clear.........................which they are!!

happy speculating[/quote]It''s always instructive to read a post from someone who purports to be right about something. This post above is, of course, simply wrong in every respect. News organisations are forbidden from publishing anything that might prejudice a fair trial once there is a possibility that there might be such a trial. There does not even have to be the certainty of a trial.And a messageboard such as this counts as something that a news organisation publishes.How likely a prosecution for contempt of court would be would depend on the circumstances. In this case, perhaps, not very likely, But still a risk. There is also the danger of defamation in a case like this.But please don''t let that stop cambscanary from speculating. I''m sure we''d all like him to carry on...

[Tumbleweed 106]

Strikes me that this isn''t anything to do with contempt of court as I am not even sure how you could be in contempt if no charges have been issued? However, it could be defamation and I would have thought that the pink''un would be more concerned about that aspect and the speculation about who, what, why, costume size etc than court rules. After all, suspects are named all the time in the papers, even during the trial so its a bit premature on that count.

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="Tumbleweed"]Strikes me that this isn''t anything to do with contempt of court as I am not even sure how you could be in contempt if no charges have been issued? However, it could be defamation and I would have thought that the pink''un would be more concerned about that aspect and the speculation about who, what, why, costume size etc than court rules. After all, suspects are named all the time in the papers, even during the trial so its a bit premature on that count.[/quote]Firstly, he has been charged. But even if he hadn''t been, but was likely to be, then comments on what might or might not have have happened could be ruled as being prejudicial to a trial.

[O.T.B.C 1]

That''s cr@p, all cases are now over the news now.

If there is anything that the police will see then they have an obligation to disclose this.

As for the defence, then they will use what they like to get him off.

The police have enough to charge, which means that they have probably have a confession or other witnesses that have put him forward. To charge that quickly means that they have that.

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]That''s cr@p, all cases are now over the news now.[/quote]I''m simply explaining what the law is, and the law is that news organisation may be had up for contempt of court if they publish anything (and that includes stuff on messageboards) that might prejudice a trial.It is true that newspapers - particularly national newspapers - try all the time to push at the boundaries of what is acceptable, especially before charges are laid. But even the nationals will back off once charges have been laid, which is the case here.

[O.T.B.C 1]

Wasn''t talking to you PP, the actualy decision to stop this post.

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Canaries in Bed"]That''s cr@p, all cases are now over the news now.[/quote]

I''m simply explaining what the law is, and the law is that news organisation may be had up for contempt of court if they publish anything (and that includes stuff on messageboards) that might prejudice a trial.

It is true that newspapers - particularly national newspapers - try all the time to push at the boundaries of what is acceptable, especially before charges are laid. But even the nationals will back off once charges have been laid, which is the case here.

[/quote]

The Nationals will close their Comments Section regarding cases where charges have been brought to protect themselves and their readership, see no reason why Archant should be any different.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

I do not know nor have any need to know Chris Martin. He is obviously a young man with a very public career and no doubt a good income. Both of these things are a blessing and a curse for a young man and he has to learn to deal with them.

I do, however, know and as a season ticket holder take a sense of ownership of Chris Martin the highly promising home grown Norwich City striker.

Whatever he is like as a person he gets my total support as he goes about his working life.

There are, however, complications. When footballers get into trouble with the law and it is allowed to unsettle them the player often end up re-locating. Chris Martin did this himself when his immaturity caused him issues (allegedly) and his drop in performance saw him sent to Luton while he grew up.

Another complication is where the act proven to have been committed, and we can all think of cases, is so serious that it forever taints the player with even his own supporters or where the player''s acts become a focus for rival fans or players. This may be why Wolves appeared to be trying to rile Barton last weekend.

At the moment we know nothing and it is not in the public arena. If Chris Martin''s solicitors are doing their job in a case they intend to contest they will be scanning all the media and making use of anything that affects the due process.

So, in summary, this is a situation that most probably needs proper management by Norwich City to ensure Chris Martin is not affected in a way that allows him to become unsettled. If you were a rival Club interested in signing a good young striker on the cheap you would be paying very close attention. In this respect supporters have a role to play regarding Chris Martin the player and that is to protect their assett as the situation to become known deserves.

[Bobert 0]

For those of you, who like me, have waded all through this post without finding out what they are all talking about ,the answer is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-11133267

Seems the BBC has more balls than Argent or Pete does not know what he is talking about!

 

[Pete Raven 276]

[quote user="Bobert"]

For those of you, who like me, have waded all through this post without finding out what they are all talking about ,the answer is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-11133267

Seems the BBC has more balls than Argent or Pete does not know what he is talking about!

 

[/quote]Or here as originally reported by Archant:http://www.pinkun.com/content/pinkun/norwich-city/story.aspx?brand=PINKUNOnline&category=Norwich&tBrand=PINKUNOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED30%20Aug%202010%2017%3A15%3A10%3A297More than happy to publish what is fact...

[ZiggyPiggy 0]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]I do not know nor have any need to know Chris Martin. He is obviously a young man with a very public career and no doubt a good income. Both of these things are a blessing and a curse for a young man and he has to learn to deal with them.

I do, however, know and as a season ticket holder take a sense of ownership of Chris Martin the highly promising home grown Norwich City striker.

Whatever he is like as a person he gets my total support as he goes about his working life.

There are, however, complications. When footballers get into trouble with the law and it is allowed to unsettle them the player often end up re-locating. Chris Martin did this himself when his immaturity caused him issues (allegedly) and his drop in performance saw him sent to Luton while he grew up.

Another complication is where the act proven to have been committed, and we can all think of cases, is so serious that it forever taints the player with even his own supporters or where the player''s acts become a focus for rival fans or players. This may be why Wolves appeared to be trying to rile Barton last weekend.

At the moment we know nothing and it is not in the public arena. If Chris Martin''s solicitors are doing their job in a case they intend to contest they will be scanning all the media and making use of anything that affects the due process.

So, in summary, this is a situation that most probably needs proper management by Norwich City to ensure Chris Martin is not affected in a way that allows him to become unsettled. If you were a rival Club interested in signing a good young striker on the cheap you would be paying very close attention. In this respect supporters have a role to play regarding Chris Martin the player and that is to protect their assett as the situation to become known deserves.[/quote]Excellent post RH.

[Superflash 0]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Superflash"]Sorry, but I find it slightly baffling. Surely this matter comes under public interest? It''s already been reported by Archant themselves. What happens if someone is discussing a crime in say, one of the big tabloid newspaper forums? Does that get pulled down too?Note, this isn''t meant as an attack by the way, just an observation. [/quote]

Drop it, you pillock - discussion will only serve to blow things out of proportion and that is about as much use as tits on a fish to both the club and player/s.[/quote]That has got to be the worst logic I have ever seen. It''s a discussion forum about Norwich City, hence any pressing Norwich City manners will be discussed in the forum. Why should it be dropped? This is hardly the most controversial story coming out of the club in recent years. It''s a public interest story, if Archant really didn''t want to cause a stir they wouldn''t have reported it in the first place. But by putting it in the papers and making it a public interest story, it''s bound to be discussed. When Mr.Moat went crazy, would any forum discussions on him be dropped when people presented their theories as to the cause of the disturbance? I''m sure any sane poster on this board such as yourself would see that looking through threads such as the removed one, there are plenty of morons with wretched grammar spouting cock and bull theories about what did/didn''t happen. If anyone in their right mind took those statements seriously, they clearly need to get a life of some sort. The general vibe of the sensible posts, mainly from the few members in the forum that actually have a clue about what they are talking about and can actually, *gasp*, string a sentence together, read something along the lines of "I''ll reserve judgment until I know the full story." Regarding your comment about making life difficult for the club, do you honestly think they give a hoot about what a bunch of keyboard warriors think?