Back in Tony Blair's time, a judge who is a friend of mine was part way through trying a case when Blair made prejudicial comments about the case, adversely to the defendants, at Prime Minister's question time in the Commons. The next day, the defence applied to the judge to scrap the trial, on the grounds that the defendants had been prejudiced. The judge refused to scrap the trial, but in his ruling he did suggest that the PM ought to obtain legal advice before commenting about current trials. He had forgotten that Tony Blair is himself a barrister - telling a barrister to "obtain legal advice" is pretty insulting, so the judge found himself being portrayed in the media as having deliberately insulted the Prime Minister! He got his leg pulled a bit about that one.
Although all bets are off in the commons, they can say what they like cant they without fear of recourse or prosecution? Think super-injuction and the questions about Ryan Giggs..although it was a tupical Cameron statemnet, quite a few words without saying anything and j suspect he wasnt proabably listening properly anyway!
oh dear.. Six Oclock News revelations (with no sign of an 'allegedly') can only spell out 'Can of worms' to me.
Having read the info on bbc.co.uk i reckon they have just done theor credability in. Does anyone expect a jury to belive Nigella actively promosted her unferage children to smoke noth tobacco and weed? Guilty as charged m'lud. Now lock them up and make them pay the £700k back
I dont remember the case but can you let me know the verdict ? I wonder if Blair`s comments made any difference. Perhaps it was a fair comment by the judge ref Blair getting advice bearing in mind as a barrister he should have known better than to comment on an ongoing trial.
BBC NEWS | UK | Soldier 'failed to report abuse' It was the 2005 case known as "Breadbasket", as it happens. There were convictions, but for fairly minor offences - this was not a murder trial. My point was, it is not unknown for Prime Ministers to make inappropriate comments on pending trials.
Correct me obviously but isn't it the responsibility of the jury not to be compromised by any comment which might give a leaning ?
Well yes, the judge will give a legal direction to the jury to ignore all comments and information about the case which may be reported outside, e.g. in the press, and the jury ideally should follow that direction. Sometimes the comments are so egregious, from such an influential source, and so widely reported that the judge has to declare a mistrial. Or the judge carries on, but there is an appeal and the Court of Appeal decides he was wrong and the appellant was denied a fair trial. It's a tightrope.
All the time she can pout like this, she won't have to cook I shall tie her to the bed and feed her exclusively on hotdogs and spaghetti and make her drink everything through a straw...
This has gone off thread again or should I say that its gone back to the lack of threads with this picture..
Watching the report on news now. More and more looks like it was a Saachi driven PR tool, even suggesting the drugs allegations were only brought up after the divorce and intimation Saachi was behind all that
It's probably the only way he can fight back as lets face it, were it a head to head on the popularity stakes she'd win all day long. He's just known for being an ad bloke who's filthy rich. Not exaclty "can I have your autograph and I've got all your books" material. I bet melvyn bragg even thinks he's a cunt, and that bloke on the BBC, arts correspondent - Will Gobjob or whatever his name is. I'm sure thought that she's still media gold, and the public being the bunch they are will probably have seen fit to make sure he didn't come out well if it was trial by celebrity status. so what you saying? You'd still cock her more times than Elmer fudd's Shotgun right?
interesting that they got off, would have thought using your employers cards to buy anything personl could be deemed as fraudulent
Poor Nigella won't be having a very festive xmas this year:frown: Almost certainly be white, though...
sure, but thats the point, their employers were claiming they didn't have permission and yet they admit making expensive personal purchases on company cards but were able to argue that they had an 'unspoken' agreement that allowed them to spend £600k!! ok you might expect that the odd air of shoes or even a holiday or 2 might go unnoticed but £600K! seems a bit odd don't you think, or maybe when your as rich as they are that that amount of money doesn't register? unfort didn't see enough of the actual meat of the arguments in this trial, just lots of gumph about some affluent famous people indulging in a bit of recreational drug use (which hardly un-comman in my experience)
