I find this disturbing

**Midnight Blue** · 07-20-2012, 01:23 PM

It seems the courts are playing the role of censor by banning a program about the Riots last August made for the BBC.

Read the full story HERE.

I find this type of censorship very disturbing, even more so as the name of the judge or why the decision was made, in a hearing about what, has not been revealed.

Free country my arse.

**Rembrandt Rob** · 07-20-2012, 02:49 PM

I have to disagree. The Guardian has been a bit misleading in that he program has not been banned, it had an injunction against it being shown during the trial of eight men accused of murder during the riots. The BBC can show it any day they want. They just couldn't show it while the court case was running.

This is because the law of contempt is there to ensure that people get a fair trial. Thus a program which could influence the outcome of a trial would find itself "in contempt" if it broke the rules. If you were on trial, you wouldn't want the BBC showing a program which could inflame the jury and maybe result in you being found guilty, not because of the evidence, but because of a fact-fiction film.
That was the problem. It wasn't a "straight" documentary but rather, as the BBC describe it, a "drama-documentary" which mixes fiction with fact.

They are trying to give the impression that the Judge has banned the documentary, which he hasn't. Now that the trial is over, it can be shown any time the BBC wants.

I'm the first to defend press freedom but, more importantly to me, is defending someone's right to a fair trial.

BTW the Judge's name and reasons have to be given in such a case, which it was, it was Mr Justice Faux and his reasons are in the article.

**Rembrandt Rob** · 07-20-2012, 03:05 PM

More disturbing is the way the Guardian has been less than open about their involvement and somewhat lax with the facts...

In the original article they failed to mention that the Guardian was one of the producers of the documentary, which might explain why they are somewhat biased in their reporting. Also it begs the question, why is a newspaper producing fact-fiction documentaries? Shouldn't they be concerned with reporting true facts, not made up possibilities?

They also give the impression that it was the Judiciary who objected to the documentary when, in fact, it was the defendant's lawyers who raised the matter. They claimed that the documentary would prejudice and mislead the jury and so the Judge, issued an injunction.

In the good old days the Guardian used to stand up for the rights of defendants and used to be on the side of the accused.

**Midnight Blue** · 07-20-2012, 03:07 PM

Well that explains it. I'm with you on the right to a fair trial. I've just taken another look at the piece and it's totally different to the one I first read. I don't know what's happened, the one I saw played it much differently, painting it as though a secret judge, in a secret court, had secretly made, a secret decision, to secretly ban etc.... You get my drift. The article has changed !

Bloody news papers. The only good thing inside a news paper is fish & chips.

**Rembrandt Rob** · 07-20-2012, 03:10 PM

I agree. If it had been a secret trial etc. etc. It would have been awful.

However (even though I personally think that the people were guilty and were lucky to get off) I think a fair trial is the basis of our freedoms and when there is a clash, the freedom to a fair trial is more important than the freedom of a newspaper to influence a trial.