|
Title: Legal Question, Defendant Anonymity Post by: jjandellis on November 26, 2013, 02:10:16 AM Obviously this is a mortifying story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-25093832 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-25093832) Just wondering why would they not be allowed to name the female defendants - yet name the male? What sort of reasons could there possibly be that grant them anonymity? Title: Re: Legal Question, Defendant Anonymity Post by: AdamM on November 26, 2013, 08:29:49 AM I think they would normally not want any of the defendants named, but given his high profile, there's no point keeping his name secret.
Important all get a proper fair trial so any verdicts can stand. Sounds horrific though. Not sure I could be on that jury. Title: Re: Legal Question, Defendant Anonymity Post by: Doobs on November 26, 2013, 08:50:09 AM I'd guess the female defendants are related to the victim. Hence they can not be named to protect the victim's anonymity.
Title: Re: Legal Question, Defendant Anonymity Post by: theprawnidentity on November 26, 2013, 02:54:22 PM http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25108439 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25108439)
Title: Re: Legal Question, Defendant Anonymity Post by: Acidmouse on November 26, 2013, 03:04:53 PM blimey, horrible.
Title: Re: Legal Question, Defendant Anonymity Post by: BangBang on November 26, 2013, 03:32:54 PM As above to your question
If found guilty, this guy is Justifiably gonna get his ass kicked on a regular basis in prison... Just Horrific Title: Re: Legal Question, Defendant Anonymity Post by: tikay on November 29, 2013, 07:10:14 AM No matter how awful this whole thing is, Miss Geldof's actions in taking the law into her own hands was grossly irresponsible. She later removed the Tweets, but having let that cat out of the bag, it can't ever go back, & her subsequent actions were both hollow & useless. Contempt of Court is a very serious matter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25145096 There was a story recently of a disabled man who was kicked to death because two local brutes thought, incorrectly, he was a paedophile. Well done lads. A google image search of "peaches geldof drops baby" suggests Miss G could use some lessons in parental care, too. Title: Re: Legal Question, Defendant Anonymity Post by: Doobs on November 29, 2013, 08:49:14 AM No matter how awful this whole thing is, Miss Geldof's actions in taking the law into her own hands was grossly irresponsible. She later removed the Tweets, but having let that cat out of the bag, it can't ever go back, & her subsequent actions were both hollow & useless. Contempt of Court is a very serious matter. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25145096 There was a story recently of a disabled man who was kicked to death because two local brutes thought, incorrectly, he was a paedophile. Well done lads. A google image search of "peaches geldof drops baby" suggests Miss G could use some lessons in parental care, too. She may have been incredibly stupid to tweet that, and the timing is just terrible. Despite the above, that seems like a sloppy assumption you have made at the end. We all do idiotic things at times, just most of us aren't followed around like she is. I have tipped the pram up, sure my wife has literally dropped the baby, I don't know how many times I have managed to bang them in to things when carrying them. Title: Re: Legal Question, Defendant Anonymity Post by: tikay on November 29, 2013, 08:58:47 AM No matter how awful this whole thing is, Miss Geldof's actions in taking the law into her own hands was grossly irresponsible. She later removed the Tweets, but having let that cat out of the bag, it can't ever go back, & her subsequent actions were both hollow & useless. Contempt of Court is a very serious matter. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25145096 There was a story recently of a disabled man who was kicked to death because two local brutes thought, incorrectly, he was a paedophile. Well done lads. A google image search of "peaches geldof drops baby" suggests Miss G could use some lessons in parental care, too. She may have been incredibly stupid to tweet that, and the timing is just terrible. Despite the above, that seems like a sloppy assumption you have made at the end. We all do idiotic things at times, just most of us aren't followed around like she is. I have tipped the pram up, sure my wife has literally dropped the baby, I don't know how many times I have managed to bang them in to things when carrying them. Yes, you are probably right, I guess I'm just a little sensitive to her gross irresponsibility in Tweeting that staff. I have been known to be overly grumpy & intolerant in the mornings. Title: Re: Legal Question, Defendant Anonymity Post by: Doobs on November 29, 2013, 09:43:43 AM Ha, maybe I'm just over sensitive about people criticising parents.
Title: Re: Legal Question, Defendant Anonymity Post by: tikay on November 29, 2013, 09:48:23 AM Ha, maybe I'm just over sensitive about people criticising parents. ...especially from those who have never been a parent......;) |