Michael Lee Charged With Rape

[Conkers in Gravy]

As Gustix said, any comment or discussion on this would be seen as prejudicial and even as contempt of court, something the law really doesn't like. Do yourselves and the forum a favour and leave well alone until it's all over.

[SCB]

We can if it is in the public domain, (i.e. in this case the BBC article).

Doesn't matter. The case we're not allowed to mention was all over the BBC, local papers website and news sites in Australia but any mention of it on the BSF meant a ban.

[emerald tyke]

Not too many people to read this in Suffolk!! No, in all fairness how many airfilled sack kickers have been up for this kind of thing....seems its quite the norm in the papers these days. (not that I'm condoning it!)

[LagutaRacingFan]

My friend got charged with rape but he was cleared.

 

He wants anonymity for people charged with rape as it damages their reputation and any females who lie about being raped should be handed the rape sentence and not just a short spell in prison.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Hougaard Racing Fans

[dave69]

Maybe the thread could be locked and just there for information.

Quite.

Rolf has got his solicitors all over this site.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/204435-rolf-harris-innocent-until-etc.html

[spencebel]

They have just done a report on Mr Lee on Local East News, showing him as a rider, and also him in i think in the Peterborough Pits.?

[orion]

Who made you judge and jury?

 

Maybe you could wait to see if he's guilty, before condemning the man.

 

All the best

Rob

In fairness guilty or not guilty it is a sad chapter in his life .

[phillipsr]

Even if he is found guilty some on here will defend him because of who he is. If he's found guilty they should throw away the key

[Lioness]

The BSF the only forum in the world where in speedway and discussions the supporters want a current topic in the news to be not talked about

 

I dont think its quite meant that way Keith. Its a court case and an emotive subject so most people naturally want to make sure that things dont get out of hand with inaccurate comments when information is not known. Sadly there will always be people with their own agenda's wanting to throw mud and I assume what was suggested was to stop the mud slingers coming in on the act

[Guest]

Innocent until proven guilty?

 

Although the media seem to like naming those who have been accused no matter the

consequences should they be proven not guilty :-(

 

Should we not give Mr Lee the benefit of the doubt until such time that we know otherwise?

The law does allow for the media to report that people have been charged with an offence. What it does not allow for is debate on the case in any way that could prejudice the actual findings in regard to the offence.

 

Doesn't matter. The case we're not allowed to mention was all over the BBC, local papers website and news sites in Australia but any mention of it on the BSF meant a ban.

What you would refer to would be that a person has been charged with an offence, etc. There would have been no reference as to what had allegedly actually taken place. That is nothing descriptive into what was alleged to have happened.

 

Quite.

Rolf has got his solicitors all over this site.

http://www.arrse.co....-until-etc.html

 

What has happened in regard to the allegations against Rolf Harris should be used as a guideline to what the BSF should consider doing. It just wants one wrong Post to slip on to the BSF site in regard to the case under debate before going to trial and be seen by the legal profession and there could be mega problems.

Think of certain cases that have fallen foul of the law on other media sites and the consequences of what happened because what was said broke the law by giving presumptions of guilt before the case was heard in a court of law,

 

They have just done a report on Mr Lee on Local East News, showing him as a rider, and also him in i think in the Peterborough Pits.?

I am certain that when checked these articles dealt only in substance with allegations that an offence may have been committed by a person who the law allows to be named. Giving the background to a charged person is not a contravention of the law providing it does not link directly in any way in regard to the outcome of the charge against them.

[shazzybird]

I'd like to think we all live in a perfect world where none of us have ever done anything wrong, I'm still a great believer of innocent until proven guilty but as for not being able to discuss on the forum is wrong everyone is entitled to an opinion. If you don't like comments which are being made quite simply stay away from the thread. I've not been on here regularly for quite a while every now and then I pop in have a read and quietly close the door on the way out.

 

The Darcy case last year I followed it on twitter rather than on here due to comments from certain ones that I knew I would bite on and either lose friends or get myself a ban hopefully Michaels case will return the same verdict and we can all live happily ever after in our perfect little bubbles.

 

I will just add Michael Lee was and still is one of my all time speedway heroes even when he was banned and sent to prison for things, I didn't condone what he had done and thought he deserved all he got but that didn't take away the fact on track he was still my hero.

 

Like I say everyone is entitled to their opinions, just remember when all of this is over you still have a forum with friends so just don't fall out over each other's comments

[Guest]

I'd like to think we all live in a perfect world where none of us have ever done anything wrong, I'm still a great believer of innocent until proven guilty but as for not being able to discuss on the forum is wrong everyone is entitled to an opinion. If you don't like comments which are being made quite simply stay away from the thread. I've not been on here regularly for quite a while every now and then I pop in have a read and quietly close the door on the way out.

 

It's not whether or not we should be able to discuss cases on a forum. It's the law that prevents opinions in regard to a case before it is held in a court. Basically, it's known as prejudice and can have very serious consequences if that is breached - both for the poster and the forum concerned that carries the item.

[Arson fire]

 

 

It's not whether or not we should be able to discuss cases on a forum. It's the law that prevents opinions in regard to a case before it is held in a court. Basically, it's known as prejudice and can have very serious consequences if that is breached - both for the poster and the forum concerned that carries the item.

do you seriously think that remarks on a speedway forum would prejudice this or any case??..... It's people's opinions, not fact.

[arthur cross]

Doesn't matter. The case we're not allowed to mention was all over the BBC, local papers website and news sites in Australia but any mention of it on the BSF meant a ban.

 

While I can understand SCB's (and others') frustration about simply mentioning last year's case on this forum risking a ban when it was "all over the BBC, local papers and news sites in Australia", frankly those who run this forum didn't have much choice but to stamp out any mention of that case for the following reasons ...

 

Any coverage about it which was "all over the BBC" was still very carefully written within the BBC's legal guidelines for the various stages of covering such a case ... in fact, the BBC has a rota of lawyers on duty 24/7 who can be called by anyone working at any level of the BBC (national or local, tv or radio or website) to check out anything that's about to be broadcast/published ... because of the safety net of that duty-lawyer rota, any legal clanger by a BBC journalist will see that journalist suffer heavy in-house sanctions ... any other tv or radio stations have similar legal safety nets.

 

Similarly, all local papers (never mind the national ones) have relatively easy access to legal checking of anything they're about to publish.

 

Because the internet has trampled all over any traditional national boundaries for newspapers/radio/tv it's currently impossible to stop foreign media covering British cases in greater depth than the British media can cover those same cases ... the only way to stop it would be if two countries set up reciprocal deals with one another over media matters in the same way that some countries have agreements to extradite each other's suspected criminals so that they can stand trial in the country where they've allegedly committed the crime.

 

It's why Sky News in the UK always go very big on any dramatic American court case (as they've done repeatedly over the various aspects of the death of Michael Jackson) because they know they're able to report much more background info during those trials without being accused in the USA of affecting those cases.

 

Meanwhile, in the UK, anyone who feels they've been libelled by any media outlet is entitled to sue that outlet as a company or sue the reporter/contributor as an individual (or a combination of both) ... in practice, you sue whichever's likely to be the easiest to be forced to pay up if your legal action wins and there are already plenty of legal examples where online forums have been regarded as part of the general media alongside newspapers, radio or tv because postings on a forum are clearly available for the general public just like anyone in the general public can read a paper, listen to the radio or watch tv.

 

Now put yourself in the shoes of anyone running this forum ... and then ask yourself how you're going to cope with forum members who can't reasonably be expected to have any legal knowledge of their own, certainly don't have access to 24/7 legal guidance like the BBC (or any other reporters) and are probably less likely than the forum-owners themselves to be sued if a legal problem crops up.

 

Given what I've just explained, if the forum owners are in any doubt over their legal safety on any particular speedway story, they have little option but to stamp on anything awkward.

 

The vast majority of the time, I like the way SCB and others on this forum strongly challenge the often daft ways in which this sport seems to be run (a prime example is SCB's recent comparison of ice-hockey games in this country being presented at their arenas much better than many of our speedway meetings).

 

But please when it comes to legal matters, everyone needs to understand they're treading onto much trickier ground compared to most of the matters discussed (or slagged off) on this forum.

Edited October 8, 2013 by arthur cross

[Starman2006]

I'd like to think we all live in a perfect world where none of us have ever done anything wrong, I'm still a great believer of innocent until proven guilty but as for not being able to discuss on the forum is wrong everyone is entitled to an opinion. If you don't like comments which are being made quite simply stay away from the thread. I've not been on here regularly for quite a while every now and then I pop in have a read and quietly close the door on the way out.

 

The Darcy case last year I followed it on twitter rather than on here due to comments from certain ones that I knew I would bite on and either lose friends or get myself a ban hopefully Michaels case will return the same verdict and we can all live happily ever after in our perfect little bubbles.

 

I will just add Michael Lee was and still is one of my all time speedway heroes even when he was banned and sent to prison for things, I didn't condone what he had done and thought he deserved all he got but that didn't take away the fact on track he was still my hero.

 

Like I say everyone is entitled to their opinions, just remember when all of this is over you still have a forum with friends so just don't fall out over each other's comments

 

Good post Shazz, nice to see you on here darling. Hope you are well. You coming down for the Blue Riband meeting?

[Guest]

do you seriously think that remarks on a speedway forum would prejudice this or any case??..... It's people's opinions, not fact.

Having dealt with court reporting - yes I do if comment steps into the realms of tending to pass debate on what may have happened and in what trend the result of such a case should be decided. Just because a case is being debated on a forum it still falls within the realms of the current law.

 

But please when it comes to legal matters, everyone needs to understand they're treading onto much trickier ground compared to most of the matters discussed (or slagged off) on this forum.

 

Arthur Cross - I am sorry to have edited down your fuller excellent Post. This comment is the crux of what I have also been trying to put across.

[Ray Stadia]

Obviously the law now has to run it's course, as it has with Michael Le Vell (Turner) and will do with Rolf Harris, Max Clifford etc. But it still does not take away Michael's achievements as a rider. Do we really expect our riders to be perfect citizens? Ideally yes, but it is not realistic, as the stars on TV can have flawed personalities, but can still be entertaining. I hope the accusations are incorrect, but if not, he was still a great rider.

[arthur cross]

do you seriously think that remarks on a speedway forum would prejudice this or any case??..... It's people's opinions, not fact.

 

In reality, most remarks on most forums wouldn't prejudice any case ... but just occasionally, a single remark could prejudice a single case even if the forum-poster making that remark doesn't realize it's going to cause legal trouble.

 

Therefore, whether you like it or not, as far as the law's concerned there's a "zero tolerance" to extra comments beyond what's legally acceptable at each stage of any court case ... the knock-on effect of that is that any lawyer defending someone accused of a crime is always on the look-out in any media for the slightest remark in the hope it could scupper the whole case (especially if that's probably the only way of avoiding a guilty verdict).

 

In today's Michael Lee example, the BBC or any other media are strictly limited to what they can or can't report ... they're able to clearly identify him by his name/age/address/photo and any current job or previous career achievement (especially important here because there are probably plenty of men called Michael Lee in East Anglia but only one who's a previous world speedway champion) ... they're also able to report what he's been charged with and when the next stage of the case will take place.

 

And that's just about all they can report for the time being ... even if a particular reporter knows a lot more information it must be saved for use only when it's permitted to be used, probably only when the case is finally over.

 

It's why newspapers have several pages of background reporting ready to be published as soon as a verdict's delivered ... likewise tv/radio will have several minutes of background material (sometimes even a whole extra programme) recorded well in advance of a big verdict so that it can be broadcast as soon as the verdict's announced ... there are even a few occasions in cases where the verdict's finely balanced that both a "guilty" and a "not guilty" background report will be prepared in the knowledge that only one of them's ever going to be used and the other one's going to be binned.

 

Over the last 25 years, I've been threatened with legal action (along with a few colleagues) by a football manager unhappy with the way his resignation was reported ... I've also threatened legal action against both a speedway promoter and the journalist who quoted that promoter when they inaccurately referred to another rider's background away from speedway.

 

I won't go into lengthy detail on this forum on either of those cases ... the football manager reluctantly dropped his legal threat when we all proved he had said that he'd lost his motivation for the job he'd just quit (the manager wanted to sue us because he feared our reporting of that comment could affect his chances of getting another managerial job in the future) ... the promoter and journalist swiftly amended their quote when they accepted their inaccuracy about the other rider.

Edited October 8, 2013 by arthur cross

[Arson fire]

 

 

In reality, most remarks on most forums wouldn't prejudice any case ... but just occasionally, a single remark could prejudice a single case even if the forum-poster making that remark doesn't realize it's going to cause legal trouble.

 

Therefore, whether you like it or not, as far as the law's concerned there's a "zero tolerance" to extra comments beyond what's legally acceptable at each stage of any court case ... the knock-on effect of that is that any lawyer defending someone accused of a crime is always on the look-out in any media for the slightest remark in the hope it could scupper the whole case (especially if that's probably the only way of avoiding a guilty verdict).

 

In today's Michael Lee example, the BBC or any other media are strictly limited to what they can or can't report ... they're able to clearly identify him by his name/age/address/photo and any current job or previous career achievement (especially important here because there are probably plenty of men called Michael Lee in East Anglia but only one who's a previous world speedway champion) ... they're also able to report what he's been charged with and when the next stage of the case will take place.

 

And that's just about all they can report for the time being ... even if a particular reporter knows a lot more information it must be saved for use only when it's permitted to be used, probably only when the case is finally over.

 

It's why newspapers have several pages of background reporting ready to be published as soon as a verdict's delivered ... likewise tv/radio will have several minutes of background material (sometimes even a whole extra programme) recorded well in advance of a big verdict so that it can be broadcast as soon as the verdict's announced ... there are even a few occasions in cases where the verdict's finely balanced that both a "guilty" and a "not guilty" background report will be prepared in the knowledge that only one of them's ever going to be used and the other one's going to be binned.

 

Over the last 25 years, I've been threatened with legal action (along with a few colleagues) by a football manager unhappy with the way his resignation was reported ... I've also threatened legal action against both a speedway promoter and the journalist who quoted that promoter when they inaccurately referred to another rider's background away from speedway.

 

I won't go into lengthy detail on this forum on either of those cases ... the football manager reluctantly dropped his legal threat when we all proved he had said that he'd lost his motivation for the job he'd just quit (the manager wanted to sue us because he feared our reporting of that comment could affect his chances of getting another managerial job in the future) ... the promoter and journalist swiftly amended their quote when they accepted their inaccuracy about the other rider.

yes granted, now and again there will be, but in normality remarks on a speedway forum wouldn't prejudice a court case.... If that was the case, there would be no forums at all...anywhere on the net... If its widely reported in the media then surely it's acceptable to debate what we already know?? Without prejudice?

[arthur cross]

yes granted, now and again there will be, but in normality remarks on a speedway forum wouldn't prejudice a court case.... If that was the case, there would be no forums at all...anywhere on the net... If its widely reported in the media then surely it's acceptable to debate what we already know?? Without prejudice?

 

Most remarks on most forums are on matters that don't have legal connections, hence those remarks are absolutely fine.

 

But, as I've mentioned earlier. once something develops into a court case (like the charging of Michael Lee this week), most forum members can't be expected to have the legal know-how of what's regarded as "prejudicial" or "not prejudicial" as each stage of the court process develops ... hence, everyone on this forum should just let this case develop and then comment/debate upon it when the verdict's made in a few months' time.

 

What you're regarding (understandably so) as being "widely reported in the media" is actually being "reported in strictly limited fashion by a wide range of the media" ... rest assured, all the media outlets in East Anglia would've gladly published a lot more about this case concerning Michael Lee if they could have done so (a famous name getting charged with such serious offences is guaranteed to sell papers or keep viewers/listeners interested) but they have to wait for the case to develop before they can do so.

 

Because those media outlets are always dealing with a few on-going legal stories at any time, it should be routine for their staff to keep on-side with the various reporting restrictions and thus keep their organizations safe from legal trouble ... even if an individual member of staff makes an error, his/her editor should be able to avoid it being broadcast/published (or at the very least, swiftly limit the damage if it is broadcast/published).

 

But none of us on this forum have an editor automatically checking our contributions before they appear in any of this forum's threads ... and while every forum member will have a different view of what they think is prejudicial or not, the only view that actually counts is the "law of the land" even if you don't agree with it.

 

It all adds up to a far riskier situation for a forum operator than for a newspaper/tv/radio editor.