ChatterBank4 mins ago
Is It Any Wonder That Some Hate The Daily Mail So Much?
21 Answers
http://
/// Judge Hughes accepted the argument and banned reporting of the case but then changed his mind after a two-day legal battle with the Mail. ‘We are dealing with members of the legal profession charged with perverting the course of justice,’ he said. ///
It would seem in this case if it hadn't been for the Daily Mail, this case would not have been reported on, simply for cultural reasons only.
/// Judge Hughes accepted the argument and banned reporting of the case but then changed his mind after a two-day legal battle with the Mail. ‘We are dealing with members of the legal profession charged with perverting the course of justice,’ he said. ///
It would seem in this case if it hadn't been for the Daily Mail, this case would not have been reported on, simply for cultural reasons only.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
from wikipedia
Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality
By banning reporting in the first place, then reversing the judgement, has given the case much more attention than if had gone ahead unhampered in the firs place.
Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality
By banning reporting in the first place, then reversing the judgement, has given the case much more attention than if had gone ahead unhampered in the firs place.
//He banned reporting of the case of Asha Khan, 30, and her brother Kashif, 34, to prevent them allegedly being shamed in the eyes of their community.//
But she is guilty now of perverting the course of justice on speeding points (haven't we heard that before?) so wont she go to Jail? I would hope her community do shame her.
But she is guilty now of perverting the course of justice on speeding points (haven't we heard that before?) so wont she go to Jail? I would hope her community do shame her.
@AOG
The DM does bad journalism - and they get rightly panned for that.
At other times, the DM does throurough and valuable journalistic digging and comes up with stuff that we all need to know and it's right to praise them for it.
On the other hand, maybe other papers decide (out of fearfulness) not to go digging when Asians or other non-white ethnicity is involved "in case it looks racist". In a wierd way, this behaviour - differentiating between who you dig the dirt on and who you don't - is, itself subtly racist.
I wish I could word it better but the attitude, I think, is that the DM goes looking for trouble at the doorstep of whomsoever it wants to make look bad and turns a blind eye to other categories. Bankers are too easy a target at the moment but that's the sort of area I think they should be looking at.
;-)
The DM does bad journalism - and they get rightly panned for that.
At other times, the DM does throurough and valuable journalistic digging and comes up with stuff that we all need to know and it's right to praise them for it.
On the other hand, maybe other papers decide (out of fearfulness) not to go digging when Asians or other non-white ethnicity is involved "in case it looks racist". In a wierd way, this behaviour - differentiating between who you dig the dirt on and who you don't - is, itself subtly racist.
I wish I could word it better but the attitude, I think, is that the DM goes looking for trouble at the doorstep of whomsoever it wants to make look bad and turns a blind eye to other categories. Bankers are too easy a target at the moment but that's the sort of area I think they should be looking at.
;-)
-- answer removed --
@younmafbog
I would have thought that perverting the course of justice is FAR more serious a crime than speeding offences. How long is it going to take the general public to learn the Huhne's lesson?
Meanwhile, on the lighter side, here's a fun Freudian slip-cum-typo from the comments section under the article
// E* S*, Cambridge, 1 hour ago
She can't be struck off as she's not been admitted to the roll of solicitors. However, she now has a criminal record and she will have to connivance the Solicitors Regulation Authority that she's reformed. Probably got a bit of an up hill struggle there.//
I would have thought that perverting the course of justice is FAR more serious a crime than speeding offences. How long is it going to take the general public to learn the Huhne's lesson?
Meanwhile, on the lighter side, here's a fun Freudian slip-cum-typo from the comments section under the article
// E* S*, Cambridge, 1 hour ago
She can't be struck off as she's not been admitted to the roll of solicitors. However, she now has a criminal record and she will have to connivance the Solicitors Regulation Authority that she's reformed. Probably got a bit of an up hill struggle there.//
Not a bad time to actually consider whether the open reporting of cases is a good thing.
This started before the advent of mass-media and there are a lot of difficulties with it.
People found not-guilty especially in rape or other sexual cases can have their lives ruined.
Juries are influenced by media reports.
The major benefits of reporting during trials - rather than banning reports until after sentencing seems mostly to be that it sells newspapers.
So obviously the press (not just the DM) paint themselves as heroes of justices - enabling justice to be seen to be done.
But what exactly would we lose if reporting *during* trials were to be banned.
Precious little I'd suggest
This started before the advent of mass-media and there are a lot of difficulties with it.
People found not-guilty especially in rape or other sexual cases can have their lives ruined.
Juries are influenced by media reports.
The major benefits of reporting during trials - rather than banning reports until after sentencing seems mostly to be that it sells newspapers.
So obviously the press (not just the DM) paint themselves as heroes of justices - enabling justice to be seen to be done.
But what exactly would we lose if reporting *during* trials were to be banned.
Precious little I'd suggest
I'm pretty sure court reporting was banned somewhere in the 1960s - it might have been Australia or New Zealand. I can't find any link but it appears to have ended.
A ban might be seen as an affront to "open justice". Then again, the trial of Nigella's PAs suggests that open justice can be injustice, at least for witnesses with no way of defending themselves. There's scope for rethinking all this, I believe.
A ban might be seen as an affront to "open justice". Then again, the trial of Nigella's PAs suggests that open justice can be injustice, at least for witnesses with no way of defending themselves. There's scope for rethinking all this, I believe.
The defendants were named and shamed in a newspaper in October
http://
I do think the Mail tends to over egg their reports.
http://
I do think the Mail tends to over egg their reports.
hc4361
/// The defendants were named and shamed in a newspaper in
October ///
I think you will find that the judge banned reporting of the case of Asha Khan, 30, and her brother Kashif, 34, to prevent them allegedly being shamed in the eyes of their community, was referring to their later court appearances in November.
*** No pleas were entered and they were all granted unconditional bail to appear at Carlisle Crown Court on November 7. Kashif Khan will also appear at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court on November 28 so the less serious offences can be committed to crown court. ***
/// The defendants were named and shamed in a newspaper in
October ///
I think you will find that the judge banned reporting of the case of Asha Khan, 30, and her brother Kashif, 34, to prevent them allegedly being shamed in the eyes of their community, was referring to their later court appearances in November.
*** No pleas were entered and they were all granted unconditional bail to appear at Carlisle Crown Court on November 7. Kashif Khan will also appear at Carlisle Magistrates’ Court on November 28 so the less serious offences can be committed to crown court. ***
The argument put forward was that one would be frightened, intimidated, in giving evidence. That may be seen as 'cultural reasons' but the DM doesn't otherwise specify what the cultural reasons, plural, were. Pity really , because , without that sad omission is impossible to judge whether that phrase represents one argument or several arguments, how valid it is, or how valid any individual argument was.
The Mail must have appeared by counsel, in which case we should be proud that a newspaper , not itself a party to proceedings, is granted right of audience before the judge in those proceedings.
It is by no means unusual for restrictions on reporting to be imposed until verdict. Had this continued under restrictions, any verdict of guilty would not have been covered by them.
Must say, I can see such a rule as being of universal benefit. What is the benefit to justice in having the prosecution opening, not itself evidence,given and then daily selective reporting of every piece of damning evidence? When the accused is acquitted, they have the whole world thinking they did it, regardless of the result. This is particular pernicious in local papers, which habitually headline the prosecution opening, but never give any prominence to the acquittal
The Mail must have appeared by counsel, in which case we should be proud that a newspaper , not itself a party to proceedings, is granted right of audience before the judge in those proceedings.
It is by no means unusual for restrictions on reporting to be imposed until verdict. Had this continued under restrictions, any verdict of guilty would not have been covered by them.
Must say, I can see such a rule as being of universal benefit. What is the benefit to justice in having the prosecution opening, not itself evidence,given and then daily selective reporting of every piece of damning evidence? When the accused is acquitted, they have the whole world thinking they did it, regardless of the result. This is particular pernicious in local papers, which habitually headline the prosecution opening, but never give any prominence to the acquittal
It seems that we are in debt to the DM for their action here, so well done.
But I am much more interested in why the Judge decided that the original restrictions were a good idea in the first place. Surely all criminals would find it rather inconvenient for details of their crime to be made public, so I am unsure why the Judge acted as he did.
I would hope some kind of higher authority to be asking him to explain himself. Surely he must be responsible to somebody ?
But I am much more interested in why the Judge decided that the original restrictions were a good idea in the first place. Surely all criminals would find it rather inconvenient for details of their crime to be made public, so I am unsure why the Judge acted as he did.
I would hope some kind of higher authority to be asking him to explain himself. Surely he must be responsible to somebody ?
Cant do the time then dont do the crime...and that includes these muslims
if your "community" hears about it then tough schit, you shoulda thought about that beforehand
so if a non muslim wnats to have that as an excuse i'd bet it wouldnt even get off the starting blocks...yet more pandering to these people
lets hope they get put inside like others found guilty of the same
if your "community" hears about it then tough schit, you shoulda thought about that beforehand
so if a non muslim wnats to have that as an excuse i'd bet it wouldnt even get off the starting blocks...yet more pandering to these people
lets hope they get put inside like others found guilty of the same
Were details of prosecution opening speeches and juicy bits of evidence banned from publication before guilty verdicts, the living Savile would have kept his reputation until then. Nothing wrong with that. The reputation should remain until the crimes are proved, rather than it being besmirched before that moment, as so often happens at the hands of the press.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.