The Doctor... Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 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? Exactly...there is a big difference between passing an idle comment and, let's say for instance, naming someone or a place - basically something that could actually prejudge the case. Passing opinion means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Unfortunately, unless a website has some serious muscle behind it, they could easily buckle on something like this - even more so here, where it's not where it's not even the forum bods who are in control of the content, but ultimately a single bloke. I don't know Phil or any of the mods to my knowledge, but am sure what happened a couple of years ago was enough aggro then. Let's not repeat that eh.. On a personal level, as i came in to speedway, Michael Lee was banned for something - to be fair Gary Havelock was also banned at the time, but anyway...since then, my only real knowledge of Lee was a few two bob appearances at Reading, followed by another ban for something and then all this stuff... He was i'm sure a great rider, and a lovely guy, but to a 30 something bloke like me, (and with a lawyer girlfriend standing behind me with a Next directory ready to crack me round the head) i say this with no prejudicial influence (ahem...) he has certainly courted a fair deal of controversy throughout his life - and quite a bit this very year. I hope that justice is served no matter what... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzybird Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 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. Well that didn't worry certain ones that had an opinion on the last court case did it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conkers in Gravy Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 Some posters seem to be struggling to grasp something that's fairly simple. Gustix and Arthur Cross are dead right. You may want to debate or comment on the case on the forum, but the fact is that you cannot - it's illegal. Even the mildest form of comment on someone's past or their character is considered potentially prejudicial. Forums and any other websites in the public domain are subject to exactly the same the rules as newspapers, magazines and the broadcast media. The penalties for breaking these laws are heavy, large fines are the norm, but there is an option of a custodial sentence. You may think it's all a bit of 'banter', but the law takes a very different view. Do everyone a favour and leave it alone until the case is over. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arson fire Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 Well I'm both shocked and saddened to learn mr lee has been charged with these awful crimes, saying that he has been charged with other crimes in his chequered past.... Innocent until proven guilty though. Now if they want they can lock me up and fine me if I've prejudiced the case.... Pathetic!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 Well I'm both shocked and saddened to learn mr lee has been charged with these awful crimes, saying that he has been charged with other crimes in his chequered past.... Innocent until proven guilty though. Now if they want they can lock me up and fine me if I've prejudiced the case.... Pathetic!! That is the kind of comment that gets you in trouble. Mike Lee's past misdemeanour's are nothing to do with the current case and shouldn't be mentioned in context Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arson fire Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) That is the kind of comment that gets you in trouble. Mike Lee's past misdemeanour's are nothing to do with the current case and shouldn't be mentioned in context i know, it even has them on Wikipedia... So are the prejudicing his case by not removing his past offences from public viewing??..... Funny how they can label saville this and that with no threat of comebacks though, oh yes because the blokes dead we can say what we like about him.... Cowardly spineless country that we are. Edited October 9, 2013 by Arson fire 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conkers in Gravy Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 Well I'm both shocked and saddened to learn mr lee has been charged with these awful crimes, saying that he has been charged with other crimes in his chequered past.... Innocent until proven guilty though. Now if they want they can lock me up and fine me if I've prejudiced the case.... Pathetic!! Usually it's not the writer/reporter who would be locked up, it is the editor or, in this case, the moderators who take the ultimate responsibility for anything published. Still, if that makes you feel big and clever. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arson fire Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) Usually it's not the writer/reporter who would be locked up, it is the editor or, in this case, the moderators who take the ultimate responsibility for anything published. Still, if that makes you feel big and clever. . . not big and clever at all, just the usual pc brigade going ott.... Have you said the same on other threads about court cases, convictions and allegations?, or are you jumping on this because of the speedway connection?? No one is saying he's guilty blah blah, just the likes of you trying to tell others what they should and shouldn't post.( I'm sure the mods will delete what isn't appropriate) andI'm sure your above posts will be replicated in the Michael la vell, Rolf Harris, jimmy saville threads. etc etc??? No one is prejudicing anything, it's common knowledge and widely reported in the past.... I'd love to stand up in court and argue the case that I've prejudiced a trial by my posts.... The law and the country is a laughing stock. Edited October 9, 2013 by Arson fire 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 not big and clever at all, just the usual pc brigade going ott.... Have you said the same on other threads about court cases, convictions and allegations?, or are you jumping on this because of the speedway connection?? No one is saying he's guilty blah blah, just the likes of you trying to tell others what they should and shouldn't post.( I'm sure the mods will delete what isn't appropriate) and I'm sure your above posts will be replicated in the Michael la vell, Rolf Harris, jimmy saville threads. etc etc??? No one is prejudicing anything, it's common knowledge and widely reported in the past.... I'd love to stand up in court and argue the case that I've prejudiced a trial by my posts.... The law and the country is a laughing stock. That maybe so, but it is the law and you are putting the forum at risk by breaking it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arson fire Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) That maybe so, but it is the law and you are putting the forum at risk by breaking it i don't believe I have been prejudiced one bit and don't believe Ive broke it by repeating something I've read, ( i didnt make it up),that is proven fact, common knowledge and free for all to see, be it judge, jury, family etc etc.... Do you know if its classed as prejudice have someone's past readily available in print whilst they have been charged with an offence??.... Surely they should remove it so that the accused gets a fair trial?? I take your point, but by someone saying ah what a waste, his life has gone downhill since being world champ, first the drug offences and now this, it's commenting on facts not prejudicing or wanting to prejudice any outcome.... Edited October 9, 2013 by Arson fire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthur cross Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) i know, it even has them on Wikipedia... So are the prejudicing his case by not removing his past offences from public viewing??..... Funny how they can label saville this and that with no threat of comebacks though, oh yes because the blokes dead we can say what we like about him.... Cowardly spineless country that we are. It only risks prejudicing a current case if someone's past convictions are clearly mentioned during a report about that person's current on-going case. In practice, Google-searches and online sites like Wikipedia have made it far easier for any past convictions to be checked out if someone's later accused in another case ... hence it's now clearly impossible to stop a jury-member or a reporter checking out anyone's previous history. However, where the law does still stand firm is that any such previous information can't then be used by those who've found it out during their involvement in the current case ... hence the jury-member can't say to his/her fellow jurors "the accused must have done it because he/she has already done such-&-such a few years ago" and once the current charges have been made, any reporter can't list any previous convictions of the accused while reporting on the current case. In turn, anyone trying to discuss a current case on a forum like this opens the door for the accused's lawyer to claim such a discussion is prejudicing that client's case ... the accused's lawyer will know at what date/time the current charges were made and any forum comments after that date/time risk being challenged as prejudicial ... if the judge agrees with that lawyer's claim, it doesn't matter how small the prejudice might be, it still counts as a "contempt of court" and such an offence is likely to be heavily punished. Many years ago, my father did a fortnight's jury service during which one of the afternoon sessions was delayed just a couple of minutes by another jury-member returning late from some lunchtime shopping ... the judge asked why she was late and she apologised for taking slightly longer than expected to buy a new coat in a nearby department store ... to her shock, she was instantly deemed to be in "contempt of court" for wasting those couple of minutes of everyone else's time ... then she was asked how much the coat had cost because she was fined twice that amount for the contempt offence !! Yes, it must all seem pedantic, even pathetic, for many forum members who simply want to enjoy debating all things speedway with their fellow forumites and don't really care how the rest of the world views their opinions ... but if you're not prepared to respect the wider legal issues wrapped up within taking part in an internet-forum, then you're going to make it very easy for any forum moderator to justify dishing out any bans ... the moment anyone on this forum presses "post" at the end of anything they're adding to this forum, the contents of what they've just written carries the same legal responsibilities as any newspaper report or radio/tv broadcast. Regarding the Jimmy Savile scandals, the law clearly states that a dead person can't be libelled so the moment he died, it became far easier for those suspicious of his behaviour to state their views ... it was no surprise that plenty of his victims stepped forward soon after his death but the unexpected twist has been that all the investigations about Savile's behaviour have also encouraged (much more than expected) victims of other still-alive famous people to press ahead with their accusations. Far from being a "cowardly spineless" situation, the fact a dead person can't be libeled has meant Savile's death has actually helped to flush out several other high-profile names who've either been convicted already (notably Stuart Hall) or whose cases are still on-going. And there are times when the reporting of a particular case can be turned inside-out by how the law affects the various stages of it being reported ... the most bizarre situation at the moment concerns the 15-year-old Sussex schoolgirl who ran off abroad with one of her teachers last year. In the original few days when the pair could have fled anywhere in Europe, the CCTV-pictures of them together on a cross-Channel ferry could be shown without pixellating either of their faces and they could both be named ... clearly that was all ok from a legal standpoint because no charges could be served until they'd been found. But once they were tracked down (the teacher's attempt to get a bar job in the French city of Bordeaux proved his undoing) and brought home on separate planes, the teacher was charged (and later convicted and imprisoned) ... the moment he was charged, the schoolgirl's name could no longer be used in any reports about the story because she was underage ... also, because she was underage, any further usage of those CCTV-pictures aboard the ferry now required her face to be pixelled-out even though most viewers knew what the pixels were hiding because they'd been allowed to see her face (and encouraged to remember it) only a few days earlier !! Edited October 9, 2013 by arthur cross Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elephantman Posted October 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 You may want to debate or comment on the case on the forum, but the fact is that you cannot - it's illegal. That's all anyone needs to know really; arguing the toss over the rights and wrongs of this fact are a waste of time. Still that won't stop one or two! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arson fire Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 It only risks prejudicing a current case if someone's past convictions are clearly mentioned during a report about that person's current on-going case. In practice, Google-searches and online sites like Wikipedia have made it far easier for any past convictions to be checked out if someone's later accused in another case ... hence it's now clearly impossible to stop a jury-member or a reporter checking out anyone's previous history. However, where the law does still stand firm is that any such previous information can't then be used by those who've found it out during their involvement in the current case ... hence the jury-member can't say to his/her fellow jurors "the accused must have done it because he/she has already done such-&-such a few years ago" and once the current charges have been made, any reporter can't list any previous convictions of the accused while reporting on the current case. In turn, anyone trying to discuss a current case on a forum like this opens the door for the accused's lawyer to claim such a discussion is prejudicing that client's case ... the accused's lawyer will know at what date/time the current charges were made and any forum comments after that date/time risk being challenged as prejudicial ... if the judge agrees with that lawyer's claim, it doesn't matter how small the prejudice might be, it still counts as a "contempt of court" and such an offence is likely to be heavily punished. Many years ago, my father did a fortnight's jury service during which one of the afternoon sessions was delayed just a couple of minutes by another jury-member returning late from some lunchtime shopping ... the judge asked why she was late and she apologised for taking slightly longer than expected to buy a new coat in a nearby department store ... to her shock, she was instantly deemed to be in "contempt of court" for wasting those couple of minutes of everyone else's time ... then she was asked how much the coat had cost because she was fined twice that amount for the contempt offence !! Yes, it must all seem pedantic, even pathetic, for many forum members who simply want to enjoy debating all things speedway with their fellow forumites and don't really care how the rest of the world views their opinions ... but if you're not prepared to respect the wider legal issues wrapped up within taking part in an internet-forum, then you're going to make it very easy for any forum moderator to justify dishing out any bans ... the moment anyone on this forum presses "post" at the end of anything they're adding to this forum, the contents of what they've just written carries the same legal responsibilities as any newspaper report or radio/tv broadcast. Regarding the Jimmy Savile scandals, the law clearly states that a dead person can't be libelled so the moment he died, it became far easier for those suspicious of his behaviour to state their views ... it was no surprise that plenty of his victims stepped forward soon after his death but the unexpected twist has been that all the investigations about Savile's behaviour have also encouraged (much more than expected) victims of other still-alive famous people to press ahead with their accusations. Far from being a "cowardly spineless" situation, the fact a dead person can't be libeled has meant Savile's death has actually helped to flush out several other high-profile names who've either been convicted already (notably Stuart Hall) or whose cases are still on-going. And there are times when the reporting of a particular case can be turned inside-out by how the law affects the various stages of it being reported ... the most bizarre situation at the moment concerns the 15-year-old Sussex schoolgirl who ran off abroad with one of her teachers last year. In the original few days when the pair could have fled anywhere in Europe, the CCTV-pictures of them together on a cross-Channel ferry could be shown without pixellating either of their faces and they could both be named ... clearly that was all ok from a legal standpoint because no charges could be served until they'd been found. But once they were tracked down (the teacher's attempt to get a bar job in the French city of Bordeaux proved his undoing) and brought home on separate planes, the teacher was charged (and later convicted and imprisoned) ... the moment he was charged, the schoolgirl's name could no longer be used in any reports about the story because she was underage ... also, because she was underage, any further usage of those CCTV-pictures aboard the ferry now required her face to be pixelled-out even though most viewers knew what the pixels were hiding because they'd been allowed to see her face (and encouraged to remember it) only a few days earlier !! good post and point taken, it's the way some people jump on the issues because they are speedway related, id rather speak my mind though...obviously without forming an opinion or deformation of any character....I accept its the law but its ridiculous not to be able to mention anything whilst debating a situation.How a judge or jury would rule that some nobody not connected in anyway discussing or even mentioning an accused former charges with no malice on a speedway forum is laughable... Be interesting to know how many cases of this there were or even how many have been brought, and the outcomes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 i don't believe I have been prejudiced one bit and don't believe Ive broke it by repeating something I've read, ( i didnt make it up),that is proven fact, common knowledge and free for all to see, be it judge, jury, family etc etc.... Do you know if its classed as prejudice have someone's past readily available in print whilst they have been charged with an offence??.... Surely they should remove it so that the accused gets a fair trial?? I take your point, but by someone saying ah what a waste, his life has gone downhill since being world champ, first the drug offences and now this, it's commenting on facts not prejudicing or wanting to prejudice any outcome.... It's not so much to do with the available knowledge of past offences being available if researched. The new offence of prejudice occurs if they are again directly associated with a new offence that still has to go for trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny the spud Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 Jeeez. This topic has had more lines on this forum than any news company could be bothered with. Even the tabloids with their love of seeing celebreties and sports stars get their comeuppance can't be bothered with the case. Just goes to show how far our beloved sport has fallen. Is it really THAT interesting a thread to warrant all these pseudo leal eagles coming on here to give us their learned opinions ? On a related note ( and just as boring I suppose ) the teacher who ran off with the girl we couldn't name ( <removed - YOU might be willing to get charged over a stupid ruling in UK law but WE wont on your behalf>) was caught in my pub in Bordeaux. It was my daughter who recognised him and set up the sting. Funny old world eh ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted October 9, 2013 Report Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) It's not so much to do with the available knowledge of past offences being available if researched. The new offence of prejudice occurs if they are again directly associated with a new offence that still has to go for trial. At the risk of 'prejudicing' this particular case, isn't it weird that folk were allowed to post on here that drug-taking should be legalised and that Lee should have been left in peace with his cannabis and amphetamines but god help anyone mentioning it here now. Edited October 9, 2013 by Vincent Blackshadow 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 At the risk of 'prejudicing' this particular case, isn't it weird that folk were allowed to post on here that drug-taking should be legalised and that Lee should have been left in peace with his cannabis and amphetamines but god help anyone mentioning it here now. Not stopping you though is it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny the spud Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Jeeez. This topic has had more lines on this forum than any news company could be bothered with. Even the tabloids with their love of seeing celebreties and sports stars get their comeuppance can't be bothered with the case. Just goes to show how far our beloved sport has fallen. Is it really THAT interesting a thread to warrant all these pseudo legal eagles coming on here to give us their learned opinions ? On a related note ( and just as boring I suppose ) the teacher who ran off with the girl we couldn't name ( <removed - YOU might be willing to get charged over a stupid ruling in UK law but WE wont on your behalf>) was caught in my pub in Bordeaux. It was my daughter who recognised him and set up the sting. Funny old world eh ? It's post conviction. She Is now over 16. Her name has been splashed all over the Sun in her "exclusive story". No legal problems with naming her at all now do no need to get all outraged. Edited October 10, 2013 by Jonny the spud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclone Posted October 10, 2013 Report Share Posted October 10, 2013 It's post conviction. She Is now over 16. Her name has been splashed all over the Sun in her "exclusive story". No legal problems with naming her at all now do no need to get all outraged. Whereas the report in the Independent on 7th October states: "At the end of the trial, Judge Michael Lawson QC questioned the evidence given by the teenager, who cannot be named for legal reasons" So perhaps the Moderator was justified to expurgate your previous post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 I am not Posting anything about this until the FULL facts are known and the Verdict given to the Court by the Jury. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.