Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 70703	2006-07-13 04:00:00	More secret trials.	JJJJJ (528)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
470485	2006-07-13 04:00:00	See once again our learned judges have decided that we are not allowed to know the names of two people charged with murders. Not that it matters to me. I doubt if I have ever heard of either of them. But why must there be all this inwarranted secrecy?	JJJJJ (528)
470486	2006-07-13 04:25:00	Can't you read? It's "...out of courtesy to the accused's family, so he could notify them of what had happened." Of course we should consider the feelings of murderers & rapists. Why would you think otherwise? They just need a cuddle. :rolleyes:	Peterj116 (6762)
470487	2006-07-13 04:33:00	But it is warranted, Jack. A judge had to make an order for suppression. To do that he had to be convinced of the validity of the reasons. You will find out the names in due course. How does it harm you that you don't know the names NOW?	Graham L (2)
470488	2006-07-13 10:45:00	At this point they are only accused which if i remember correctly means that they are not yet found guilty :stare: It is therefore not unreasonable to suppress their names under certain circumstances, including to avoid a frenzy of sensationalist publicity that will make a "fair and unbiased" trail (whatever that is) almost impossible. Having had the position of being able to compare case notes with the outright bullocks that the CHCH press court section print, i have decided never to buy one of those papers again, and certainly never to believe what is printed within it. I got to compare several folders of evidence against what got in the court sections about a friend, and it shocked me to realize that even basic details like names, dates and charges are frequently misreported. Unfortunately i am not at liberty to give details, for what may well be obvious reasons. I also find it sad that people read what a person is accused of, and assume that it is what they did, even tho the charges, if the correct charges are what is reported, are as yet nothing more than that. I think there's a good case for banning the media altogether until when/if a suspect is proven guilty, and then after that the only reason for suppression is to protect the family of the victim.	personthingy (1670)
470489	2006-07-13 11:25:00	See once again our learned judges have decided that we are not allowed to know the names of two people charged with murders. Not that it matters to me. I doubt if I have ever heard of either of them. But why must there be all this inwarranted secrecy? Why do you need to know? Judges don't just dream stuff up to frustrate those who want to know everything - they can and are challenged if they don't follow the law. Now they don't actually make the laws, that is politicians.	Twelvevolts (5457)
470490	2006-07-13 11:50:00	If anyone really needs the gos, one can always sit in on the cases. If one chooses to do this it might just be an eye opener.	personthingy (1670)
470491	2006-07-14 01:42:00	Having had the position of being able to compare case notes with the outright bullocks that the CHCH press court section print, i have decided never to buy one of those papers again, and certainly never to believe what is printed within it . That is one reason why my philosophy has always been to never completely believe or trust everything I read, are told or hear . Unless one is actually on the spot at the time of an incident or whatever and personally sees or hears what happened then you can never be 100% positive of the absolute truth . Since most people aren't on the spot at the time you only know what you are told or read and by jolly, so much damage can be done by misinformation being reported . The other thing too, is that even if court "events" have been reported correctly you can't rely 100% on the evidence given by, for example, the police . I know of someone who got dragged through the courts after an accident and lost his licence plus received a big fine all courtesy of the lies told by the police who were hell-bent on a conviction . He eventually won his appeal and got all the charges thrown out but by then the period he was without a licence had ended anyway so he still suffered . :(	FoxyMX (5)
1