What has happened to the UK

[BobTheCoward]

They are not hidden from public view. The reporting of them is temporarily restricted to try an ensure an impartial trial.

The accusation isn't necessarily that it is hiding anything. The accusation is that regardless of motives, it is unjust to temporarily restrict reporting.

ETA: by people not reporting on the trial or the events of the trial.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The whole idea is that the trials aren’t hidden from public view. There are just restrictions on what can be published while the trial is still continuing.

It has been suggested in the thread that trials should be Hidden from public view so that participants cannot be identified. See if you can spot who did that.

I don't think anyone has had any objection to government restrictions of reporting or comments from people attending the trial and are in the room while keeping those rooms open to the public.

 

[Worm]

The accusation isn't necessarily that it is hiding anything. The accusation is that regardless of motives, it is unjust to temporarily restrict reporting.

While the entire purpose of the restrictions is to support justice. I think you'll just have to live with it.

 

[Seismosaurus]

I am. He was outside in a public place, he observed others in a public place and made inferences. And he talked about those. It is difficult to describe a more basic human right than his activity.

No it isn't. The right to a fair trial is a more basic human right than that.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No it isn't. The right to a fair trial is a more basic human right than that.

They are both basic rights of equal weight. And if the government cannot respect both, it is illegitimate.

 

[BobTheCoward]

While the entire purpose of the restrictions is to support justice. I think you'll just have to live with it.

Most government abuses are committed with good purposes and intent in mind. I am not impugning their intent.

 

[Worm]

I don't think it's accurate to portray it as an abuse. It is a measure brought in to try and prevent/reduce abuses of justice that have happened in the past.

It should not be necessary, but many things should not be necessary and turn out to be absolutely necessary.

 

[Mojo]

I don't think anyone has had any objection to government restrictions of reporting or comments from people attending the trial and are in the room while keeping those rooms open to the public.

Well, actually, people are free to report what goes on in the courtroom as long as they do it factually, without potentially predjudicial comment. You will frequently see the press publishing accounts of what was said in evidence in court the day before, often ending, “...the trial continues”.

 

[Seismosaurus]

They are both basic rights of equal weight.

I disagree. The right to a fair trial seems more basic.

And if the government cannot respect both, it is illegitimate.

In any society there will be instances where one right clashes with another. Mediating such clashes is one of the primary functions of government. So what you said is literally the opposite of the truth; it would be failure to value one more than the other that would be the real failure here.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I disagree. The right to a fair trial seems more basic.


In any society there will be instances where one right clashes with another. Mediating such clashes is one of the primary functions of government. So what you said is literally the opposite of the truth; it would be failure to value one more than the other that would be the real failure here.

There is literally nothing that needs balancing here. It is solved with a tinted taxi and a tent.

 

[MikeG]

Well, actually, people are free to report what goes on in the courtroom as long as they do it factually, without potentially predjudicial comment. You will frequently see the press publishing accounts of what was said in evidence in court the day before, often ending, “...the trial continues”.

There are many, many instances of reporting restrictions during trials in the UK. This is a good thing, if it allows trials to be conducted fairly.

 

[MikeG]

The idiocy of "the government should allow blah blah" and "the government.........illegitimate" continues, I see. This despite it being spelled out in terms that a five year old could understand that this has nothing whatever to do with the government, and everything to do with the judiciary.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The idiocy of "the government should allow blah blah" and "the government.........illegitimate" continues, I see. This despite it being spelled out in terms that a five year old could understand that this has nothing whatever to do with the government, and everything to do with the judiciary.

It is. We are not bound to honor arbitrary, parochial distinctions that are not relevant to the wider world.

ETA: if it makes anyone feel better to replace in their heads the word government with judiciary, it has no impact on my position.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Sorry, libertarians, sometimes people try to protect others. In law, in society, in business, in government, and in person.

Protecting jurors from being videoed and targeted seems to be reasonable, IME. YMMV.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

It is. We are not bound to honor arbitrary, parochial distinctions that are not relevant to the wider world.

ETA: if it makes anyone feel better to replace in their heads the word government with judiciary, it has no impact on my position.

I'm going to assume (and I definitely mean "assume" because I can never predict what argument you will bring up.) I assume you believe in the concept of a fair trial. How can you have that when people are intent on demolishing that? That's anarchism.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

There is literally nothing that needs balancing here. It is solved with a tinted taxi and a tent.

Hey, you know what? That might be something I agree with. But that's a matter of procedure. If you want to argue that they should handle things differently, great. I might be on your side.

I'm not on the side of people who willfully disrupt other people's lives for their own aggrandizement.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm going to assume (and I definitely mean "assume" because I can never predict what argument you will bring up.) I assume you believe in the concept of a fair trial. How can you have that when people are intent on demolishing that? That's anarchism.

In this case, a taxi with tinted windows and a tent.

 

[jimbob]

From elsewhere

 

[Filippo Lippi]

No, no, no. The state and the judiciary should do all it can to accommodate the wishes of a violent, repeat offender who is quite possibly trying foment race riots. Yaxley-Lennon's rights are paramount

 

[fuelair]

No, no, no. The state and the judiciary should do all it can to accommodate the wishes of a violent, repeat offender who is quite possibly trying foment race riots. Yaxley-Lennon's rights are paramount

I still say he should get life picking oakum!!!!! 'Twere good enough in the good old days!!!!!