By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Thread deleted ‘cos some old codger from Ixworth said so? on 10:11 - Oct 20 by StokieBlue
It shouldn't have been deleted though.
Highlighting and discussing historic cases has no bearing on contemporary cases.
It does however have a bearing on how the fans might see him and lets face it - he deserves to be seen in the light of all his actions.
SB
That's not strictly true. Previous offences are often not mentioned when cases come to trial and highlighting them on social media, here or wherever can potentially be prejudicial, as I understand it.
Thread deleted ‘cos some old codger from Ixworth said so? on 10:11 - Oct 20 by StokieBlue
It shouldn't have been deleted though.
Highlighting and discussing historic cases has no bearing on contemporary cases.
It does however have a bearing on how the fans might see him and lets face it - he deserves to be seen in the light of all his actions.
SB
....the "revelation" would prejudice a fair trial.
As if Sitters was some some of modern day Sherlock Holmes who had tracked down a previously unknown piece of evidence.
I can imagine the Judge:
"You will receive a 6 month ban from driving"
"Oh hang on, I've just been on a football forum and discovered something new. You will now have your balls chopped off and be sent to chokey for 10 years"
Thread deleted ‘cos some old codger from Ixworth said so? on 10:22 - Oct 20 by PhilTWTD
That's not strictly true. Previous offences are often not mentioned when cases come to trial and highlighting them on social media, here or wherever can potentially be prejudicial, as I understand it.
I can see why that would be the advice you were given.
However all media publish details of previous offences which are in the public domain when reporting on current cases.
"X, who was convicted of Y in 2000, will be facing new charges in court on Monday".
You'll find a sentence to that gist in most papers on most days.
Fully understand your position though, especially as you're not a huge media outlet with endless resources and given that I can see why you've removed it.
Thread deleted ‘cos some old codger from Ixworth said so? on 10:22 - Oct 20 by PhilTWTD
That's not strictly true. Previous offences are often not mentioned when cases come to trial and highlighting them on social media, here or wherever can potentially be prejudicial, as I understand it.
.....I think you are over egging that Phil.
Perhaps we'd better watch out for "MagistrateBlue" or "ITFCJudge"
Thread deleted ‘cos some old codger from Ixworth said so? on 10:22 - Oct 20 by PhilTWTD
That's not strictly true. Previous offences are often not mentioned when cases come to trial and highlighting them on social media, here or wherever can potentially be prejudicial, as I understand it.
Surely it’s on his record and they will know of it? It’s hardly a secret?
I thought for driving offences they punish you more if you re-offend?
Thread deleted ‘cos some old codger from Ixworth said so? on 10:35 - Oct 20 by hype313
Ahh, ok.
I didn't know which thread it was either but by looking at some posts on this one and then seeing the Norwood one had gone AWOL I thought to myself that there might be a connection.
0
I "lolled" at the comment that.... on 10:38 - Oct 20 with 2128 views
I "lolled" at the comment that.... on 10:22 - Oct 20 by Bloots
....the "revelation" would prejudice a fair trial.
As if Sitters was some some of modern day Sherlock Holmes who had tracked down a previously unknown piece of evidence.
I can imagine the Judge:
"You will receive a 6 month ban from driving"
"Oh hang on, I've just been on a football forum and discovered something new. You will now have your balls chopped off and be sent to chokey for 10 years"
Roflcopter.
DCI Sitters should focus his attentions on the still unsolved missing trainers case.
1
Thread deleted ‘cos some old codger from Ixworth said so? on 10:50 - Oct 20 with 2061 views
Thread deleted ‘cos some old codger from Ixworth said so? on 10:37 - Oct 20 by PJH
I didn't know which thread it was either but by looking at some posts on this one and then seeing the Norwood one had gone AWOL I thought to myself that there might be a connection.
The thread that I thought was missing is NOT missing so I now have no idea which thread this thread is about.
0
Thread deleted ‘cos some old codger from Ixworth said so? on 10:53 - Oct 20 with 2048 views
Thread deleted ‘cos some old codger from Ixworth said so? on 10:25 - Oct 20 by StokieBlue
I can see why that would be the advice you were given.
However all media publish details of previous offences which are in the public domain when reporting on current cases.
"X, who was convicted of Y in 2000, will be facing new charges in court on Monday".
You'll find a sentence to that gist in most papers on most days.
Fully understand your position though, especially as you're not a huge media outlet with endless resources and given that I can see why you've removed it.
SB
They're often careful not to mention previous convictions in that way if, for example, they're being withheld from a jury. Obviously, it may not come to that in this case, but just keeping to the principle.
1
I "lolled" at the comment that.... on 10:55 - Oct 20 with 2030 views
I "lolled" at the comment that.... on 10:22 - Oct 20 by Bloots
....the "revelation" would prejudice a fair trial.
As if Sitters was some some of modern day Sherlock Holmes who had tracked down a previously unknown piece of evidence.
I can imagine the Judge:
"You will receive a 6 month ban from driving"
"Oh hang on, I've just been on a football forum and discovered something new. You will now have your balls chopped off and be sent to chokey for 10 years"
Roflcopter.
I think the point is more about previous matters not being revealed to juries. I take your point re overegging but just keeping to the principle.
Thread deleted ‘cos some old codger from Ixworth said so? on 10:30 - Oct 20 by SitfcB
Surely it’s on his record and they will know of it? It’s hardly a secret?
I thought for driving offences they punish you more if you re-offend?
It does depend on how old previous convictions are whether they're brought up. Obviously with the Internet nothing is ever forgotten these days but I think there is still a potential issue with highlighting old convictions. As I say, just keeping to the principle.
0
Thread deleted ‘cos some old codger from Ixworth said so? on 11:13 - Oct 20 with 1887 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
