Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Locked thread
kingturnip
Apr 18, 2008


Someone in the last thread suggested it would be sedition, but it won't be because England, Wales & Scotland abolished the common law offence of sedition for UK nationals a couple of years ago. (Although Rupert Murdoch could still be charged as an alien).

Personally, I'm keen to see when this hits the BBC News website. They're obviously playing it safe for now, while nothing official is happening with the allegations, but they've been so utterly spineless in their reporting for the last year or so, I'm interested to see the timing and content of how they report this.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

kingturnip
Apr 18, 2008


thebardyspoon posted:

You might be overestimating how much the average person gives a poo poo about this.

I remember back while Leveson was still going on, friends saying they wished it was all over, because they were getting tired of hearing about it. If it looks like it involves politicians, lots of people just turn off. Short of making people take a 50-item multiple-choice test before they're allowed to vote, I'm not sure it's possible to force people to pay attention.

kingturnip
Apr 18, 2008


Mr Cuddles posted:

I didn't realize it was possible to get off it, I thought it was a legal requirement to attend. Maybe I need to actually read the letter instead of playing torchlight 2.

I think he's probably suggesting that if you appear to be a complete nutter, they'd probably find someone else to sit for a major trial.

kingturnip
Apr 18, 2008


So, Brooks' compensation for being sacked includes clawback clauses. Who wants to bet that she'll lose a bunch of that money if she mentions anything suggesting Roopy or James knew about the phone hacking?

Not that we'll ever find out. Hopefully she'll go to prison, but I assume she'll be able to get another job with NI when she's released, assuming she keeps her mouth shut.

kingturnip
Apr 18, 2008


The Entire Universe posted:

That's not a UK paper, that's an Australian one. However, I was under the impression the libel laws in the UK were actually accommodating to the victims of libel and less so the libelers. That, however, is a highly generalized take on a field I know hardly anything about in a country I have spent less than a month in collectively over my lifetime. Concisely, I may be wrong.

Yeah, the UK's acquired itself a reputation for 'libel tourism'.
Some of our judges - Justice Eady chief among them - are clowns when it comes to things like 'common sense' and just plain stupid at others (see Simon Singh vs. British Chiropractic Association).

Also, the BBC are reporting that a deal's been reached that would result in "no statutory underpinning".
I'm really hoping that's just Maria Miller being optimistic.

kingturnip
Apr 18, 2008


FightingMongoose posted:

Obviously I am very ignorant, I had thought reporting restrictions only applied to jury cases to prevent the juries being prejudiced.

It probably depends on the judge, given some of the Super-Injunction bullshit we've had in the last couple of years.

kingturnip
Apr 18, 2008


Mr. Squishy posted:

Is that under parliamentary privilege or did he talk the police around?

It's being reported that Vaz gave them an ultimatum - you publish it, or we will.

kingturnip
Apr 18, 2008


tentish klown posted:

I'd rather have a group of 12 legally trained public school boys decide my complicated fraud case than 12 people picked at random from the public.

Well yes, because in your case they'd be more likely to find you Not Guilty purely because you're wealthy.
The rest of us... well, I'm not sure legally trained public school boys give the slightest poo poo what happens to the 90% of the population below your wage bracket, tentish.

kingturnip
Apr 18, 2008


Also, when the Government is looking to make more 'austerity savings', no superintendent is going to stick his/her neck out to name names for fear of the Chancellor's Cuts Lottery drawing the Home Office.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

kingturnip
Apr 18, 2008


I like that the justification for having Janner attend court was
"Well, yes it'll be very confusing and traumatic for him and he almost certainly won't be able to understand any questions, let alone answer them, but gently caress it, he's got Alzheimers so he won't remember any of it anyway!"

I'm not opposed to alleged criminals having 'traumatic' experiences in court as part of the trial, but this just seems like an exercise in futility.

  • Locked thread