andrew Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Did I miss it?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 Court proceedings against O'Conner are live, most papers are not taking the chance of inviting a contempt of court by risking prejudicing the case. The red tops rarely adhere to this these days because they have huge legal teams, which is a complete disgrace tbh. Just out of interest, what's the difference between the EEN and your average red top? They've been posting shite, ill-informed articles for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:shitwine: Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3810681/OConnors-Brum-rap.html The Sun's article is here. I don't know why they bother to blur out his face - it's not like everybody knows what he looks like already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Court proceedings against O'Conner are live, most papers are not taking the chance of inviting a contempt of court by risking prejudicing the case. The red tops rarely adhere to this these days because they have huge legal teams, which is a complete disgrace tbh. I completely agree with you. The judicial system seem to decide whether to take action based on how easy/hard it may be to win a contempt case, rather on whether or not there actually was contempt. A very dangerous road to be going down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 If it's a jury case there's a chance some members of the public selected for the jury will have no interest in football. Therefore printing his picture could lead to (even more) risk of prejudicing the trial through identification. I don't know if a legal precedent was set that identification couldn't be an issue due to cast public exposure or something like that, but I doubt it. More likely too expensive to pursue. I suppose it would depend on what the article was about. If it was in relation to last nights programme and didn't mention GO'C's forthcoming trial then I don't see how that could be construed as contempt. After all, his photo will no doubt be in the sports pages? I suppose what I mean is what would be the context of the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feeno Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 http://www.thescotti...s-Brum-rap.html The Sun's article is here. I don't know why they bother to blur out his face - it's not like everybody knows what he looks like already... Doing everyone a favour imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Anything relating to the use of illegal substances could be construed as contempt, whether the trial is mentioned or not. Sports pages is totally different - that's a total change of context. Surprised they were allowed to air the programme last night then! Crown Office up to speed (pardon the pun) again!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libertonian_II Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 The EEN's reporting of GoC's possesion charge amounted to a small insignificant paragraph at the bottom of a page, whereas Black's charge, I'm sure, was far more prominent. Evening hobo right enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy the Jambo Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Unbelievable some posters on this thread .I thought it was just celtic fans that were paranoid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboceej Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 The Times had his picture and a report on the story last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTH Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 If it's a jury case there's a chance some members of the public selected for the jury will have no interest in football. Therefore printing his picture could lead to (even more) risk of prejudicing the trial through identification. If they're worried about that surely publishing his name does the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Did I miss it?? Silly boy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.