TV 1 and the Grace Millane Trial - WAY OVER THE TOP ❗️

Forums › Off topic › TV 1 and the Grace Millane Trial - WAY OVER THE TOP ❗️

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 13

189 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 21

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2358357 21-Nov-2019 07:07

Geektastic: I saw something in Stuff which said that if they report it, they are obliged to report it accurately and verbatim

Hahahahahaha 🤣 that’s hilarious “report accurately”, not sure that rings true for any news media outlet these days?!

floydbloke

3646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4554

ID Verified

#2358361 21-Nov-2019 07:17

surfisup1000:

I believe it is an offence to publicly discuss ongoing criminal trials.

Up to you people though. Do you feel lucky?

[edit] just checked, some discussion is allowed by the courts, freedom of expression etc.... several of the above comments do refer more specifically to the case, probably ok, but INAL.

I do have strong opinions about this particular trial , safer to wait until after to discuss.

Notwithstanding the discussion between yourself and scuwp about what is and isn't allowed, I have just re-read the entire thread and to me there isn't a single post that discusses the actual trial. This thread is about media coverage of the trial and most posts have stayed very much on-topic (remarkably so actually), the one or two that strayed somewhat also don't discuss the trial itself.

I guess I'm failing to see the point of or the motivation behind your post.

IANAL either.

Sometimes I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2358374 21-Nov-2019 07:45

IANAL. Bit hard to expect total radio silence from the nation at large in the age of internet when you have a high profile case that was initially a very public missing persons inquiry. I have further musings but they are not appropriate to discuss until a verdict has been reached.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#2358881 21-Nov-2019 19:38

floydbloke:

Notwithstanding the discussion between yourself and scuwp about what is and isn't allowed, I have just re-read the entire thread and to me there isn't a single post that discusses the actual trial. This thread is about media coverage of the trial and most posts have stayed very much on-topic (remarkably so actually), the one or two that strayed somewhat also don't discuss the trial itself.

I guess I'm failing to see the point of or the motivation behind your post.

IANAL either.

I respectively disagree but go ahead if you like.

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#2359422 22-Nov-2019 19:07

Thankfully the low life $hit has been found guilty.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#2359423 22-Nov-2019 19:12

They didn't take long. But I probably wouldn't have, either.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#2359424 22-Nov-2019 19:14

It seemed a pretty open and shut case to me.

He actually took photos of her dead body. Sometimes I really despise the human race.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#2359520 22-Nov-2019 21:42

The way he behaved after her death was despicable and the guilty verdict was a formality. The defences case was unconvincing -- i feel for Graces family - having a daughter myself i can imagine the nightmare they have endured.

quickymart

14940 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13954

ID Verified

#2359598 23-Nov-2019 07:45

I have a question (which may sound dumb but I've never been involved in a court case) but now the a-hole has been found guilty, why does his name suppression continue? I thought the minute you were found guilty it was lifted? Or does that happen at his sentencing next year - or never?

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7824

Lifetime subscriber

#2359621 23-Nov-2019 08:25

This one will be reviewed at sentencing.

Mahon

473 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 214

#2359650 23-Nov-2019 10:24

quickymart:

I have a question (which may sound dumb but I've never been involved in a court case) but now the a-hole has been found guilty, why does his name suppression continue? I thought the minute you were found guilty it was lifted? Or does that happen at his sentencing next year - or never?

Because our suppression laws are pathetic. I agree with suppression up until the guilty verdict....but after then it is irrelevant.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2359651 23-Nov-2019 10:27

Mahon:

quickymart:

I have a question (which may sound dumb but I've never been involved in a court case) but now the a-hole has been found guilty, why does his name suppression continue? I thought the minute you were found guilty it was lifted? Or does that happen at his sentencing next year - or never?

Because our suppression laws are pathetic. I agree with suppression up until the guilty verdict....but after then it is irrelevant.

There is a case where family innocents can be affected, but I can't see how that applies here at all.

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7824

Lifetime subscriber

#2359683 23-Nov-2019 10:57

This one is unusual because even the general reasons for the suppression are subject to the suppression order.

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7824

Lifetime subscriber

#2359687 23-Nov-2019 11:00

Mahon: Because our suppression laws are pathetic. I agree with suppression up until the guilty verdict....but after then it is irrelevant.

I'm guessing that technically the trial is not complete until sentencing.

gulfa

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 128
Inactive user

#2359692 23-Nov-2019 11:30

Our suppression orders seem to very unusual We have the case of the Doctor on another murder charged being named yet the person involved in this case being given suppression. The poor girl in this case has had many details of her life laid for all to see and she was the victim. Very strange situation I now read that the scumbag has been named in overseas media. Perhaps we need to look at the law around suppression??

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 13