Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: I find this disturbing

  1. #1

    Default I find this disturbing

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,192
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,192
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    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.

  4. #4

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    4,192
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    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.

  6. #6

    Default

    Seconded. If I were in the dock I wouldn't want anyone to prejudice my obvious acquittal.

  7. #7

    Default

    Enjoyed reading this thread very much.
    And also enjoyed seeing MB as a "super Mod!!!"
    Been away for a while and he goes all super......damn right !!!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,844
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slimbob View Post
    And also enjoyed seeing MB as a "super Mod!!!"
    I think he's nicked the title that was created specifically for Andy Lockwood!
    Tim

  9. #9

    Default

    I didn't put it there. Is there a way we can change it ourselves ?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    10,844
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midnight Blue View Post
    I didn't put it there. Is there a way we can change it ourselves ?
    I thought so but apparently not. At least as far asi I can tell.
    Tim

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Easiest method to insert still without disturbing audio
    By Simplefi in forum Sony Vegas video editing apps
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-04-2011, 09:17 PM
  2. Vegas Pro 9 - Inserting audio without disturbing other timeline elements.
    By paulmoreland in forum Sony Vegas video editing apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-30-2011, 04:57 PM
  3. Find the Ball
    By Midnight Blue in forum 3:33 - The (Late) Summer Video Contest 2009
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-24-2009, 12:01 PM
  4. How do I find this?
    By seodevhead in forum Forum Announcements and News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-04-2006, 02:39 PM
  5. What a find!
    By codyharris in forum The Perfect Video Editing PC
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-07-2004, 01:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •