| Oh, Jim on 12:45 - Jan 31 with 1513 views | Swansea_Blue |
Let's hope it's not life Jim |  |
|  |
| Oh, Jim on 12:46 - Jan 31 with 1465 views | Archer4721 |
Headbutt? |  | | |
| Oh, Jim on 12:47 - Jan 31 with 1434 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Oh, Jim on 12:45 - Jan 31 by Swansea_Blue |
Let's hope it's not life Jim |
When the magistrate asked Jim if he had anything to say he replied "beam me up Scotty". |  |
| |
| Oh, Jim on 12:49 - Jan 31 with 1338 views | Dolly2.0 |
I can't understand why the judge allowed him to be named. What purpose does that serve? |  |
| |
| Oh, Jim on 12:50 - Jan 31 with 1312 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Oh, Jim on 12:47 - Jan 31 by GlasgowBlue |
When the magistrate asked Jim if he had anything to say he replied "beam me up Scotty". |
Thanks. I'm glad my appalling attempt at humour wasn't completely wasted. | |
| |
| Oh, Jim on 12:52 - Jan 31 with 1270 views | clive_baker |
He's a hot head, but hopefully this is BS. |  |
| |
| Oh, Jim on 12:52 - Jan 31 with 1259 views | NoCanariesAllowed |
| Oh, Jim on 12:49 - Jan 31 by Dolly2.0 |
I can't understand why the judge allowed him to be named. What purpose does that serve? |
Because there is no sound legal justification for banning identifying him. This is not a sex assault. I'm amazed the defence even applied for that restriction. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Oh, Jim on 12:59 - Jan 31 with 1162 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Oh, Jim on 12:52 - Jan 31 by NoCanariesAllowed |
Because there is no sound legal justification for banning identifying him. This is not a sex assault. I'm amazed the defence even applied for that restriction. |
Because he's well known and you're innocent until proven guilty?
I'll ask again, what does it achieve by identifying him? | |
| |
| Oh, Jim on 13:00 - Jan 31 with 1109 views | Vic |
Oh Jim indeed. |  |
| |
| Oh, Jim on 13:15 - Jan 31 with 963 views | mutters |
| Oh, Jim on 12:45 - Jan 31 by Swansea_Blue |
Let's hope it's not life Jim |
but not as we know it..... |  |
| |
| Oh, Jim on 13:16 - Jan 31 with 952 views | PhilTWTD |
Obviously as this is ongoing posters should avoid speculating on the case. |  | | |
| Oh, Jim on 13:16 - Jan 31 with 947 views | RoyKeanesDog |
Hope it's false. |  |
| |
| Oh, Jim on 13:19 - Jan 31 with 914 views | NoCanariesAllowed |
| Oh, Jim on 12:59 - Jan 31 by Dolly2.0 |
Because he's well known and you're innocent until proven guilty?
I'll ask again, what does it achieve by identifying him? |
The press is free to report on open court proceedings as long as the hearing isn't subject to certain restrictions. Just because a person is well known that doesn't give them any greater right to protection from being named in the media than any average Joe Bloggs who ends up in court.
As long as court reports aren't making any insinuations over guilt and don't impact upon the actual proceedings then it makes no difference - the defendant is still innocent until proven guilty, regardless of what stupid conclusions readers might want to jump to. It's a free press. | | | |
| Oh, Jim on 13:49 - Jan 31 with 780 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Oh, Jim on 13:19 - Jan 31 by NoCanariesAllowed |
The press is free to report on open court proceedings as long as the hearing isn't subject to certain restrictions. Just because a person is well known that doesn't give them any greater right to protection from being named in the media than any average Joe Bloggs who ends up in court.
As long as court reports aren't making any insinuations over guilt and don't impact upon the actual proceedings then it makes no difference - the defendant is still innocent until proven guilty, regardless of what stupid conclusions readers might want to jump to. It's a free press. |
I'll ask for a third time, what does it achieve by identifying him?
I understand it in cases where there might be other victims the police want to come forward. But overall, why can't they just say "a man" until he's proven guilty or otherwise? What do we actually gain from knowing who it is? | |
| |
| Oh, Jim on 13:55 - Jan 31 with 755 views | NoCanariesAllowed |
| Oh, Jim on 13:49 - Jan 31 by Dolly2.0 |
I'll ask for a third time, what does it achieve by identifying him?
I understand it in cases where there might be other victims the police want to come forward. But overall, why can't they just say "a man" until he's proven guilty or otherwise? What do we actually gain from knowing who it is? |
A famous person walks down a public street and into court. It's no secret, they've not got a bag on their head, people can see who they are and wonder why they are there. The press then tells you they are appearing on such and such a charge or whatever. No insinuations, just the facts to inform you why they attended court. Not naming them achieves nothing, other than letting prats who saw them start spreading whatever speculation they wish on social media without any reliable factual account available to set the record straight.
Trust me, if a famous person turns up to answer charges in court, a reporter will damn sure name them unless there's a bloody good legal reason not to. If you start giving every Tom, Dick or Harry anonymity in court without sound legal reasoning then you're setting a dangerous precedent for letting any public figures who might commit serious misdemeanours to go totally under the public radar. Then the press really isn't doing its job.
You name them unless there's a good reason in law not to. That's how it works. | | | |
| Oh, Jim on 14:17 - Jan 31 with 675 views | Dolly2.0 |
| Oh, Jim on 13:55 - Jan 31 by NoCanariesAllowed |
A famous person walks down a public street and into court. It's no secret, they've not got a bag on their head, people can see who they are and wonder why they are there. The press then tells you they are appearing on such and such a charge or whatever. No insinuations, just the facts to inform you why they attended court. Not naming them achieves nothing, other than letting prats who saw them start spreading whatever speculation they wish on social media without any reliable factual account available to set the record straight.
Trust me, if a famous person turns up to answer charges in court, a reporter will damn sure name them unless there's a bloody good legal reason not to. If you start giving every Tom, Dick or Harry anonymity in court without sound legal reasoning then you're setting a dangerous precedent for letting any public figures who might commit serious misdemeanours to go totally under the public radar. Then the press really isn't doing its job.
You name them unless there's a good reason in law not to. That's how it works. |
"If you start giving every Tom, Dick or Harry anonymity in court without sound legal reasoning then you're setting a dangerous precedent for letting any public figures who might commit serious misdemeanours to go totally under the public radar."
What?! What dangerous precedent?! What would be dangerous about not releasing Jim Magilton's name before he's been found guilty of anything?
I've asked 3 times now and you still haven't answered what the benefit of releasing his name is. That someone might have seen him walking in and start speculating on twitter?! A man walks 10 steps from a cab into a court reception and one bloke walking his dog at that moment thinks to himself, "Is that Jim Magilton walking into a courtroom? I wonder what he's up to".
I'm not asking how it works, I'm asking why. What's the benefit? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
