Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pete Raven

Chris Martin thread

Recommended Posts

And nothing there that hasnt already been published on PU and other Archant websites.I should imagine that the deleted topic has been removed due to the fact that someone appeared to be ''stating as fact'' a version of events in relation to the incident, and by doing so could quite possibly prejudice any forthcoming trial hindering the possibility of a fair trial for all concerned.So Archant and in particular Pete are quite right to have deleted the topic![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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Sports Desk Pete"][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...[/quote]Precisely. You are allowed to publish certain facts, such as ages and addresses and what the charges are, and some background, provided it doesn''t prejudice a trial. There is nothing there that would prejudice a trial.But you cannot, for example, publish any previous convictions that a defendant might have. And you can''t publish comment - especially on the lines of "they''re guilty as h*ll  because..." - that might possibly influence the minds of potential jurors into deciding the case before they''ve actually heard it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Forces2Canaries"]And nothing there that hasnt already been published on PU and other Archant websites.I should imagine that the deleted topic has been removed due to the fact that someone appeared to be ''stating as fact'' a version of events in relation to the incident, and by doing so could quite possibly prejudice any forthcoming trial hindering the possibility of a fair trial for all concerned.So Archant and in particular Pete are quite right to have deleted the topic![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][/quote]It''s phrases like that, that makes me giggle.  Common assault is so low level crime, the accused are only be up against a couple magistrates who''ll generally rap them on the knuckles with community service.Yes it is technically a contempt of court.  But quite honestly you''ve a better chance of being abducted by aliens, if anyone thinks you''ll be ''done'' if we talk about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So because it is a low level crime you deam that neither the victim or the accused are allowed a fair trial?Irregardless of the level of crime, it is The Pink Un''s responsibility to control what it publishes; including postings on a message-board especially when someone posts as ''fact'' what occurred during an incident. [quote user="ſilly ſauſage"][quote user="Forces2Canaries"]And nothing there that hasnt already been published on PU and other Archant websites.I should imagine that the deleted topic has been removed due to the fact that someone appeared to be ''stating as fact'' a version of events in relation to the incident, and by doing so could quite possibly prejudice any forthcoming trial hindering the possibility of a fair trial for all concerned.So Archant and in particular Pete are quite right to have deleted the topic![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][/quote]It''s phrases like that, that makes me giggle.  Common assault is so low level crime, the accused are only be up against a couple magistrates who''ll generally rap them on the knuckles with community service.Yes it is technically a contempt of court.  But quite honestly you''ve a better chance of being abducted by aliens, if anyone thinks you''ll be ''done'' if we talk about it.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Forces2Canaries"]So because it is a low level crime you deam that neither the victim or the accused are allowed a fair trial?Irregardless of the level of crime, it is The Pink Un''s responsibility to control what it publishes; including postings on a message-board especially when someone posts as ''fact'' what occurred during an incident. [quote user="ſilly ſauſage"][quote user="Forces2Canaries"]And nothing there that hasnt already been published on PU and other Archant websites.I should imagine that the deleted topic has been removed due to the fact that someone appeared to be ''stating as fact'' a version of events in relation to the incident, and by doing so could quite possibly prejudice any forthcoming trial hindering the possibility of a fair trial for all concerned.So Archant and in particular Pete are quite right to have deleted the topic![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][/quote]It''s phrases like that, that makes me giggle.  Common assault is so low level crime, the accused are only be up against a couple magistrates who''ll generally rap them on the knuckles with community service.Yes it is technically a contempt of court.  But quite honestly you''ve a better chance of being abducted by aliens, if anyone thinks you''ll be ''done'' if we talk about it.[/quote][/quote]Irrespective of the legalities, there is a simple test that posters could do well to apply when it comes not just to defamation and contempt of court but more generally, and it is this. If THEY were the person being commented on, would they be quite happy for the kind of thing they have said about other people to be said about them? Would they be totally relaxed, for example, for unproven "facts" about a case in which they were the defendant to be all over the internet, to be read by potential jurors, or would they be straight round to their solicitor? And the same with defamatory remarks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as well we''re not making a massive drama just because Pete pulled a thread.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An interesting read.

you are indeed correct...............it is always instructive to read a post from someone who purports to be right about something. Thank you for your post......

On a serious note, we could argue over who is right or wrong but if i''m right in thinking he has been charged with common assault then this will be heard at the magistrates court and therefore regardless of his plea at his first hearing there will be no trial by jury. This is of course assuming that there are no agrravating factors to the offence that would make it necessary for it to be passed up to the crown court.

Considering it is not permissable to anounce any fact that may influence or prejudice a trial i would be very amused to meet a magistrate who may be swayed in their opinion of how a trial should conclude based on what is written on a football fans message board. I certainly wouldn''t want such a magistrate employed within my local court. I like most wouldn''t consider anything written in such an environment would be deemed to pose a reasonable chance of influencing the finder...... this is of course assuming the finder considers what is written to be a fact. Basically, by the letter of the law you are perhaps not wrong but we do live in a real world and not that of a textbook.

If i did purport to know anything about the facts of this case i would be more than happy to write anything in such a forum and would not be concerned about any risk of being imprisoned or fined as a result of any citation for contempt..

Happy speculating............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="cambscanary"]An interesting read.

you are indeed correct...............it is always instructive to read a post from someone who purports to be right about something. Thank you for your post......

On a serious note, we could argue over who is right or wrong but if i''m right in thinking he has been charged with common assault then this will be heard at the magistrates court and therefore regardless of his plea at his first hearing there will be no trial by jury. This is of course assuming that there are no agrravating factors to the offence that would make it necessary for it to be passed up to the crown court.

Considering it is not permissable to anounce any fact that may influence or prejudice a trial i would be very amused to meet a magistrate who may be swayed in their opinion of how a trial should conclude based on what is written on a football fans message board. I certainly wouldn''t want such a magistrate employed within my local court. I like most wouldn''t consider anything written in such an environment would be deemed to pose a reasonable chance of influencing the finder...... this is of course assuming the finder considers what is written to be a fact. Basically, by the letter of the law you are perhaps not wrong but we do live in a real world and not that of a textbook.

If i did purport to know anything about the facts of this case i would be more than happy to write anything in such a forum and would not be concerned about any risk of being imprisoned or fined as a result of any citation for contempt..

Happy speculating............[/quote]When it comes to law there is only the textbook.Also it may have only been posted on a message board for now, but a jurno may see it and then publish it in a local paper, which in turn would be picked up by a national or the BBC. As a previous poster said, would you be happy if people were anonymously making statements about your purported guilt? Even if it is only on a message board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="morty"]Just as well we''re not making a massive drama just because Pete pulled a thread.......[/quote]And there I was with my "Peter Pan/will he never grow up?" joke all ready to fly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="cambscanary"]Basically, by the letter of the law you are perhaps not wrong but we do live in a real world and not that of a textbook.

If i did purport to know anything about the facts of this case i would be more than happy to write anything in such a forum and would not be concerned about any risk of being imprisoned or fined as a result of any citation for contempt..

Happy speculating............[/quote]My knowledge of this subject is based of decades of experience in the real world. I left the textbooks behind a long time ago. Which is probably why I am, as you admit, if you strip away the "not wrong" double negative, right about this.You might well be happy to massage your ego by posting such stuff on someone else''s website and so take what you consider to be a minimal risk. Bully for you. That is not the point. The far greater risk is being run by whoever publishes what you post. And they live in the real world, where news organisations can be and are had up for contempt of court.If you really want to be brave about this, set up your own website and take all the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nail - Head - Hit![quote user="PurpleCanary"]You might well be happy to massage your ego by posting such stuff on someone else''s website and so take what you consider to be a minimal risk. Bully for you. That is not the point. The far greater risk is being run by whoever publishes what you post. And they live in the real world, where news organisations can be and are had up for contempt of court.If you really want to be brave about this, set up your own website and take all the risk.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Forces2Canaries"]So because it is a low level crime you deam that neither the victim or the accused are allowed a fair trial?Irregardless of the level of crime, it is The Pink Un''s responsibility to control what it publishes; including postings on a message-board especially when someone posts as ''fact'' what occurred during an incident. [quote user="ſilly ſauſage"][quote user="Forces2Canaries"]And nothing there that hasnt already been published on PU and other Archant websites.I should imagine that the deleted topic has been removed due to the fact that someone appeared to be ''stating as fact'' a version of events in relation to the incident, and by doing so could quite possibly prejudice any forthcoming trial hindering the possibility of a fair trial for all concerned.So Archant and in particular Pete are quite right to have deleted the topic![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][/quote]It''s phrases like that, that makes me giggle.  Common assault is so low level crime, the accused are only be up against a couple magistrates who''ll generally rap them on the knuckles with community service.Yes it is technically a contempt of court.  But quite honestly you''ve a better chance of being abducted by aliens, if anyone thinks you''ll be ''done'' if we talk about it.[/quote][/quote]Did I say that?  I''m saying low level crime in a tin pot magistrates court isn''t going to be swayed one way or the over by some keyboard warriors on a s**t kickers message board.It''s hardly the Old Bailey & the Kray Twins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i saw the original thread and someone was stating something about the incident which was not true, it was confirmed not true by someone far better in the know than any of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="jas the barclay king"]i saw the original thread and someone was stating something about the incident which was not true, it was confirmed not true by someone far better in the know than any of us.[/quote]People must be idiots to believe it anyway... slipping on a banana skin and his penis falling inside a nun, who happened to be cycling past with a basket full of petroleum jelly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[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.

[/quote]

Exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[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]

May I suggest you understand the difference between,  x has been charged with y offence and a post / newspaper report that gives detail of what may (note - two sides )  have happened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do we know what time he is dues at Swaffham magistrates court on the Doncaster game ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="cityangel"]So do we know what time he is dues at Swaffham magistrates court on the Doncaster game ??[/quote]

 

It doesn''t matter, he won''t turn up now that the club captain has set the precedent[;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What''s gwarnin then?He been released on bail, and going to court on the day of the Donny game? Why are they always on the days of games? [:P] [:@]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="cityangel"]So do we know what time he is dues at Swaffham magistrates court on the Doncaster game ??[/quote]And how long does it take for a chopper to get from A to B?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well its only 2.5 hours from Swaffham to Doncaster so guess as long as he''s in court before lunch he''ll have plenty of time to get there and prepare.

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  

×
×
  • Create New...