• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Car Incident in Liverpool

LDE1976 said:
Charged with:

  • Two counts of unlawful and malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
  • Two counts of causing unlawful and malicious grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
  • Two counts of attempted unlawful and malicious grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
  • One count of dangerous driving

www.bbc.co.uk

Man charged after Liverpool crash is father-of-three, businessman, and former Royal Marine

Paul Doyle, 53, faces six charges related to grievous bodily harm and one count of dangerous driving after the incident at Liverpool FC's parade.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Six charges.

79 injured.


.
 
Attempt murder was never going to work, since it requires an intention to kill, not just an intention to injure.

But I suspect these are specimen charges and once he gets to court, there'll be a whole bunch of lesser offences taken into account.
 
The charges have a bit of a "Murder, Arson and Jaywalking" vibe about it, get him for improper parking too. (I have a theory/strong opinion on parking enforcement).
 
So he's white, has an Irish name and served in the Royal Marines.

What conspiracy can we get out of that?
 
Mojo said:
Nonsense, you're just making stuff up again. Gaslighting doesn't work when people can just scroll up the thread and see what's actually been posted.
Click to expand...


What stuff have I made up?

The Merseyside Police requested no speculation or sharing of video footage and to send such footage to the police. Consequently, the national press have been conscientious about only showing neutral shots of the car with crowd. There have been no clips of people flying through the air as the car speeds forward. This clip is widely available on X-Twitter. Then yesterday, SKY News published some footage showing the car at its end stage coming to a halt. I commented, looks like SKY has cleared this video with the police. Someone asked why would they do that. I mentioned the Merseyside Police request. I also went on to explain for overseas subscribers that in the UK police are very guarded whilst in the early stages of an investigation as to what information they put out to the public. The explanation for this is that they do not want a future trial to be prejudiced. For example, contempt of court laws. So a poster came along sounding outraged about this, saying he hasn’t been charged yet so what has it do with contempt of court? Perhaps this poster was unaware that the Sky News footage was the first such showing that much of the footage as the car came to a halt (but not the people flying about bouncing of the windscreen and scattering about the road stricken). So I said, okay, maybe a better word was that the UK press were ‘honouring’* the Merseyside Police’s request by not publishing the footage. So now the poster seems dissatisfied by this, which indicates to me the poster was not aware that the mass media hadn’t published the footage of the car’s latter stages thus far, hence the bafflement over my Sky News comment about Sky having cleared it as being okay with the police. So, something that was patently obvious to me appears to have caused all kinds of bewilderment and confusion, needing a series of about a dozen posts to explain what was meant by whom when they said what. So yes, given the police had asked not to share footage I said in passing, looks like Sky News have cleared it with the police as being okay to publish.


AI Overview

Learn more

Sharing footage of a crime scene could be considered contempt of court if it interferes with ongoing legal proceedings or prejudices a fair trial. Generally, it's not allowed to share information about a case or its proceedings without court permission, and this includes sharing footage, documents, or witness statements.
Edited by Agatha: 
Trimmed for rule 4









*This seemed to caused more upset for some reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mojo said:
The stuff about being six steps ahead. Stuff that would mean that "maybe 'honoured' is a better word."
Click to expand...

If the national press were under no obligation to take on board the Merseyside Police's request not to share video footage - which I doubt, given they had a person under suspicion in custody constituting an investigation underway of said suspect - then the fact none of them has thus far used the footage circulating on X-Twitter showing people flying off the windscreen and being scattered about before coming to a halt means they must have been 'honouring' the Merseyside Police's request not to share (if it doesn't come under 'contempt of court'). Please let me know if you still find this observation controversial, stating your reasons.
 
Vixen said:
If the national press were under no obligation to take on board the Merseyside Police's request not to share video footage - which I doubt, given they had a person under suspicion in custody constituting an investigation underway of said suspect - then the fact none of them has thus far used the footage circulating on X-Twitter showing people flying off the windscreen and being scattered about before coming to a halt means they must have been 'honouring' the Merseyside Police's request not to share (if it doesn't come under 'contempt of court'). Please let me know if you still find this observation controversial, stating your reasons.
Click to expand...
We were talking about the fact that your response made no sense in the context of the posts (including your own) that it was replying to.

Do keep up.
 
steenkh said:
Is this harassment for imprecise use of the words really necessary?
Click to expand...
What harassment? And it is not about imprecise use of words. Vixen made two claims, one that the police would have to have cleared a non-police video a UK broadcaster decided to run. That is a totally false claim, none of the police forces in the UK have such powers. The second was that the media avoided showing anything because they were concerned about "contempt of court". This claim was also false as the alleged criminal hadn't even been charged at that point.

Anyone reading Vixen's claims without knowing her claims were nonsense would have been badly misinformed.
 
Darat said:
What harassment? And it is not about imprecise use of words. Vixen made two claims, one that the police would have to have cleared a non-police video a UK broadcaster decided to run. That is a totally false claim, none of the police forces in the UK have such powers. The second was that the media avoided showing anything because they were concerned about "contempt of court". This claim was also false as the alleged criminal hadn't even been charged at that point.

Anyone reading Vixen's claims without knowing her claims were nonsense would have been badly misinformed.
Click to expand...


No, I did not say, one that the police would have to have cleared a non-police video a UK broadcaster decided to run.

Please do not put words in my mouth and please quote me in full context. Thanks.


.
 
Vixen said:
No, I did not say, one that the police would have to have cleared a non-police video a UK broadcaster decided to run.

Please do not put words in my mouth and please quote me in full context. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Here you are, quoted with a link for full context:

Vixen

Post in thread 'Car Incident in Liverpool'

SKY News has updated some footage of the incident, presumably cleared with the police as OK to show.


https://twitter.com/x/status/1927749955453600231


In the interim, police have been given extra time to interview the suspect, who has not yet been charged, A person can only be held for X length of time after which a warrant has to be obtained from a magistrate to hold the person longer without charge.

Total number of officially report as injured so far: 79. Eleven still in hospital.

Vixen said:
SKY News has updated some footage of the incident, presumably cleared with the police as OK to show.
Click to expand...
 
Making your posts longer with the addition of the extra lines and full stops is disruptive formatting. Please stop
Mojo said:
Here you are, quoted with a link for full context:

Vixen

Post in thread 'Car Incident in Liverpool'

SKY News has updated some footage of the incident, presumably cleared with the police as OK to show.


https://twitter.com/x/status/1927749955453600231


In the interim, police have been given extra time to interview the suspect, who has not yet been charged, A person can only be held for X length of time after which a warrant has to be obtained from a magistrate to hold the person longer without charge.

Total number of officially report as injured so far: 79. Eleven still in hospital.
Click to expand...


And in which way is that controversial, given it was only uploaded by SKY News a couple of days after the event and Merseyside Police had asked people not to share?

What is your gripe?
Edited by jimbob: 
do not keep adding unnecessary carriage returns and full stops to the end of your posts
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darat said:
The second was that the media avoided showing anything because they were concerned about "contempt of court". This claim was also false as the alleged criminal hadn't even been charged at that point.
Click to expand...
Actually, it looks as if sub judice runs from when the accused is arrested:
Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.

Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction.
Click to expand...
www.pinsentmasons.com

The sub judice rule and contempt of court

The sub judice rule regulates the publication of matters which are under consideration by the court.
www.pinsentmasons.com www.pinsentmasons.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom