MOD Warning post #20 Late Late Show, March 27th

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

sunbabe08 wrote: »

thank goodness that's over

Ol' Donie wrote: »

Sometimes it doesn't work when I thank posts on boards. It works for a while, then it just doesn't.

This happen to anyone else?

Skid X wrote: »

I think I know what you mean.

You do the thank, but you look again and it is gone.

But I think if you refresh, the thank is there. I think






That's the kind of rubbish I used to say when I did technical support.

Skid X wrote: »

I think I know what you mean.

You do the thank, but you look again and it is gone.

But I think if you refresh, the thank is there. I think






That's the kind of rubbish I used to say when I did technical support.

amdublin wrote: »

United Chester Man - see post no #20, post no #431 and the warning in post #1 re your post.


MOD:
All, thanks for last night.
Rather than dragging this thread off topic, and discussing why or why not, what can't be mentioned can't be mentioned, the place to bring that up for discussion is over on the Feedback forum.

I'd prefer not to do this but if the thread goes off topic I waill have to lock it.

Welsh Megaman wrote: »

Agreed.

Plus, I also learned that there are Nando's restaurants in Ireland, yet you Irish yearn for Greggs

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm not too sure where to begin in relation to this stuff so I'll just start out by saying that the sub judice rule is in place to protect the integrity of the justice system. It protects both the accused person, the alleged victim and society in general. That is because if people were allowed to speak freely and publicly, there is a risk that this could have an influence on the outcome of the case. For example, if some evidence that the jury wasn't allowed to see is reported on or discussed publicly, there is a real risk the jurors will hear or read about it and that could have a massive impact on the outcome of the case - in other words, it could prejudice the accused person to such an extent that it directly leads to a conviction.

Contempt of court is an overlapping but separate issue - that is where someone does something that interferes with the workings of the courts (to put it plainly). That's a crime and it's largely up to the trial judge to deal with it there and then. Public discussion of an ongoing case might not quite reach the threshold for contempt of court but it could still be enough to prejudice the accused.

What happens when these things are discussed publicly is that the defence will invariably point to the ongoing reporting and debate as being something that necessarily effected the outcome of the case. No one is necessarily "liable" for the prejudice - it's usually more of a cumulative thing where reporting is so widespread and discussion so loose that in combination, this meant that the tribunal (judge + jury) must have been effected by it. Even if one person or outlet was deemed to have been the one who prejudiced the jury, the likelihood is that they would not be brought before the court to answer for it, unless they were also in contempt.

Also, you can't be sued by anyone for contempt - you can for defamation but I'm not getting into that here because I don't believe it's directly relevant in this case. What is important to say is that a take down notice, as some have suggested, is utterly useless regarding cases of prejudice. Once it is posted/printed/uttered, that's that. It's prejudiced the accused. No take backs.

So, the reality is that the ban is in place on boards not because boards can't fund litigation where litigation is unlikely but because of the principle of it. I personally certainly wouldn't like to have something I'd posted here being raised by someone on trial as evidence of prejudice and I doubt many others would like to feel like they contributed to either (a) effecting the case one way or another, or (b) seeing someone they believe to be guilty get an aquittal.

As for the other outlets who have reported on the case or allowed discussion, let them at it. If they're happy enough to risk the consequences of openly prejudicing an ongoing case, that's up to them. Boards management or whoever have obviously decided that the risk isn't worth it. FWIW, I agree with that decision because I've seen how incapable some people are of keeping their shit together when it comes to discussions about this sort of thing.

Regarding the actual case at hand, whilst the jury have made a decision, there is still sentencing. I agree that lifting the ban should be considered at this point because as others have pointed out, the judge can only do one thing. Having said that, though, I fully expect that the verdict will be appealed fully and that probably has a bearing on whoever is making this decision on boards.ie's behalf.