How many would like their prosecution not to be made public because of the embarrassment it could cause? Unbelievable... Reporting of Muslim lawyers' trial banned 'for cultural reasons': Judge's gagging order lifted after appeal by the Daily Mail | Mail Online
I would love to have insight into why you believe this is bollocks simply because its been reported by the Daily Mail Pete. Do you know that everything they print is false , obviously they cant be or they would be bankrupt from libel writs . So are you guessing Pete, not something a lawyer should be basing a case on surely . Are you closing ranks with the profession regardless , hmmm not much integrity , I would hope you are more honourable than that . So what is your basis for such a flippant comment Pete. Surely not a I am a more superior than you comment , take it as gospel. Very interesting. ?
Glad this was overturned for 2 reasons. 1. Wrongdoers should be shamed, whatever wrong they have done. In the old days, the stocks were used for this purpose. 2. There shouldn't be "communities" within the UK. When you live in the UK, you should be part of the UK community, and that community has values which everyone should abide by. There shouldn't be all these enclaves with the own culture and identity, if that culture and identity trumps that of the UK as a whole. I can't see what the problem with this is. Over the last 20 or 30 years, sensitivity to minorities (a good thing) has totally got out of control to the extent that it trumps sensitivity to the majority (a bad thing).
I know. So that's why I'm going to bed now. Have taped the Superbike (I think. On my TV it just calls itself "World Championship". It could be tiddlywinks, but I'm taking a punt that it's the motorbicycles) so I don't need to get up early. Night!
Courts are often asked to impose reporting restrictions about some aspect of a case, for example somebody's personal details. The thing is, once the cat is let out of the bag it cannot be put back in - once the details are published, they can never be "unpublished". So what judges often have to do (to preserve the position) is impose reporting restrictions for a limited time period, then invite submissions later about whether there are real and genuine reasons for the restrictions or not. Very often, the reporting restrictions are lifted at this stage so the details get published - as in the instant case. The Daily Mail pretends not to understand this process. It often feigns outrage at the imposition of temporary reporting restrictions, claims some kind of credit for them being lifted later, and makes some wholly unjustified criticism of the judge. There are frequent Mail stories on these lines. They are, of course, utter rubbish wholly unconnected to reality. As usual, the astonishing thing it that there is still anyone with the ability to read who is prepared to give any credence to this kind of bollocks.
ill repeat the questions as there are people on here who do have the ability to read and are reading the crap you are writing, are you saying this did not happen? Was the sequence of events here changed because the daily mail intervened? Did the judge get it wrong and change his mind?
Perhaps you can give us the "true" version of this particular report and how you know the full details which make it bollocks?
I don't read any of them regularly. I sometimes gander the Beeb, the Indy or the Grauniad, unless I'm directed elsewhere by the forum.
Going by other media reports, this case first came before Judge Hughes at Carlisle Crown Court, as a prospective joint trial of two defendants. The defence applied for reporting restrictions, so the judge was obliged to preserve the position by imposing temporary reporting restrictions - as he very properly did. Two days later, after hearing submissions, the judge lifted those reporting restrictions on the basis that they were not justified on the reasons cited. Note - two days later. Again, this is absolutely proper and normal; there is not the slightest reason for supposing Judge Hughes got it wrong in any way. The case was transferred from Carlisle to York Crown Court, and the joint trial was severed, meaning the two defendants would be tried in two separate trials. The judge at York, apparently Judge Stephen Ashurst, had a duty to impose reporting restrictions to ensure that the second trial was not unfairly prejudiced by the outcome of the first trial, which he did absolutely properly and normally. At the conclusion of the trials, the remaining reporting restrictions were lifted, which again is perfectly proper and normal. The Mail report confuses together different restrictions imposed by different judges at different courts for different reasons and for very different lengths of time. Whether that confusion is deliberate or derives from stupidity we cannot tell, although we may guess.
