SHOOTEMUP Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 (edited) I Have seen on a couple of different forums that the trial of the murderers of soldier Lee Rigby has started but the media have been banned from covering the case to avoid tension!! Can anyone confirm that this is true because if it is this type of control of the media is very concerning to us all, it make one wonder what else has been the subject of such an order just to placate one part of the community As I say I don't know if this is a fact but hope someone on here knows a little more than me. Cheers Edited November 20, 2013 by SHOOTEMUP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 (edited) I thought it started some while ago when one of the defendants refused to be known by his given name and wanted to use a religious pseudonym. That may have just been the initial part of the process, but it has gone very quiet! A search of Google produced this; http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lee-rigby-murder-trial-michael-2805725 Edited November 20, 2013 by TIGHTCHOKE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Makes sense a ban on reporting,that way we don't get some tabloid spouting something off on their front page that may prejudice the final outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castletyne Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 I Have seen on a couple of different forums that the trial of the murderers of soldier Lee Rigby has started but the media have been banned from covering the case to avoid tension!! Can anyone confirm that this is true because if it is this type of control of the media is very concerning to us all, it make one wonder what else has been the subject of such an order just to placate one part of the community As I say I don't know if this is a fact but hope someone on here knows a little more than me. Cheers That will be about right hush hush don't say anything make the public think everything ok Its all a bit one sided in the Uk some are allowed to say what they want Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FalconFN Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Dont be too quick to jump to conclusions, the jury has been sworn in but I don't think the trial propper has started yet. There is no media ban as far as I know but there maybe an injunction to prevent reporting what happens during the trial until after the verdict. There is an argument to say that the less attention we give to the defendadnts the better, and the less publicity the BNP can squeeze out of it too. I'm sure you'll see plenty about it soon enough, even if that means, after the trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 I'm happy that the courts may actually get the chance to do the job of throwing the book at these clowns once and properly. If that means that the tabloids dont get to make a fat wedge of cash from the lad's death, that's fine with me. Ditto that every detail of the proceedings doesnt become tainted by having every interest group leaping aboard it for the sake of having a rant of whatever flavour. This is too big and too serious for our addiction to instant gratification to turn it into a circus performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 This is too big and too serious for our addiction to instant gratification to turn it into a circus performance. Spot on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poorpeet Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsdad Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Nothing in the press would be a good thing so as not to have any affect on the trial and no human rights lawyers trying to claim an unfair trial. Hopefully the first we will hear of it is when these two scum are found dead in prison after Leroy and Bubba have made them their special friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Is this a hate crime ? A trial seems pointless as there were many witnesses - necessary to go 'through the motions' though but I hope its quick and the verdict only, gets reported, principally for the family's sake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 The only thing that matters is that the scum who killed him get their just deserts, unfortunately the punishment that this crime really deserves is no longer available to the courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 (edited) This is too big and too serious for our addiction to instant gratification to turn it into a circus performance. I would like to think that should there be a media embargo on that would be the reason, sadly though I believe it would be for a different reason altogether. anyway you will know after tomorrow as that's when it starts. KW Edited November 20, 2013 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark@mbb Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 If it was put to the vote we could all be going to war and would that be a bad thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 If it was put to the vote we could all be going to war and would that be a bad thing Sorry am i missing something? And war is always a bad thing, people die in a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Active proceedings shouldn't be discussed. There is plenty of time after a verdict for everyone to throw in their tuppence. I've made this point before on here and been shot down in flames by people who appear to believe the have a 'right' to prejudice the workings of justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 (edited) Active proceedings shouldn't be discussed. There is plenty of time after a verdict for everyone to throw in their tuppence. I've made this point before on here and been shot down in flames by people who appear to believe the have a 'right' to prejudice the workings of justice. so whats the difference with Rebecca Brooks or a say Stuart Hall etc they were all on full display before during and in those cases that have finished after the trial then its called "the public interest" would a news embargo of a couple of murderous filth be any less in the public interest then? particularly as they committed the crime willfully under the gaze of camera's to gain publicity? KW Edited November 20, 2013 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Active proceedings shouldn't be discussed. There is plenty of time after a verdict for everyone to throw in their tuppence. I've made this point before on here and been shot down in flames by people who appear to believe the have a 'right' to prejudice the workings of justice. Totally agree with this. There is way too much media bleating over high profile trials - none of which serves any purpose other than to sell tomorrows chip wrappers. On the subject at hand; there may be an injunction in place. I would think it extremely unlikely that one would be granted purely to stop sensational reporting thought. Any injunction would be put in place in the interests of justice and not to control the rags or the tiny number of BNP lunatics out there. It isn't that uncommon. Injunctions are often put in place so as not to prejudice other trials, for instance. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 so whats the difference with Rebecca Brooks or a say Stuart Hall etc they were all on ull display before during and in those cases that have finished after the trial then its called "the public interest" would a news embargo of a couple of murderous filth be any less in the public interest then? particularly as they committed the crime willfully under the gaze of camera's to gain publicity? KW If you look at the reporting there hasn't been any discussion, merely factual statement of proceedings. If there is a complete embargo in this case it will partly be to minimise disruption around the Old Bailey. It was a nightmare down there two days ago when the first hearing happened. Police, press, you name it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 so whats the difference with Rebecca Brooks or a say Stuart Hall etc they were all on ull display before during and in those cases that have finished after the trial then its called "the public interest" would a news embargo of a couple of murderous filth be any less in the public interest then? particularly as they committed the crime willfully under the gaze of camera's to gain publicity? KW If you look at the reporting there hasn't been any discussion, merely factual statement of proceedings. If there is a complete embargo in this case it will partly be to minimise disruption around the Old Bailey. It was a nightmare down there two days ago when the first hearing happened. Police, press, you name it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cottonseed Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 Dont be too quick to jump to conclusions, the jury has been sworn in but I don't think the trial propper has started yet. There is no media ban as far as I know but there maybe an injunction to prevent reporting what happens during the trial until after the verdict. There is an argument to say that the less attention we give to the defendadnts the better, and the less publicity the BNP can squeeze out of it too. I'm sure you'll see plenty about it soon enough, even if that means, after the trial. It's a tenet of English common law that justice must be seen to be done--that's why the media have automatic right to attend and report contemporaneously most court proceedings. It is extremely rare for a criminal case to be closed to the media and there hasn't been a case held completely 'in camera' in donkey's years, when it was done for reasons of national security .I'd suggest a lot of the delay concerns applications to the judge from the solicitors and barristers and possibly something to do with these two ****heads wanting to adopt what appear to be Arabic identities. Long complicated cases involving fraud, for example, can be delayed for weeks before actual evidence is given and the jury are brought in to listen to the witnesses. Secret trials with a public sentencing at their conclusions are a feature only of dictatorships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andypaint Posted November 23, 2013 Report Share Posted November 23, 2013 Imagine if it was the Stephen Lawrence trail. It would be on tv 24 hours a day. And his mother would be made a member of parliament for her troubles! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castletyne Posted November 23, 2013 Report Share Posted November 23, 2013 Imagine if it was the Stephen Lawrence trail. It would be on tv 24 hours a day. And his mother would be made a member of parliament for her troubles! Its because we have a country and press who are terrified at being accused of racism They will not call some crimes what they are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted November 23, 2013 Report Share Posted November 23, 2013 seems the trial has been postponed again,(and not reported in the press) we will see. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chacotawas Posted November 23, 2013 Report Share Posted November 23, 2013 Sorry am i missing something? And war is always a bad thing, people die in a war. The war has begun... but only just....and people are dying. Haven't you noticed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.