The Liverpool FC Forum > Hillsborough Memorial Board
* Hillsborough Inquests - RAWK User Warning - Contempt of Court *
oldfordie:
--- Quote from: Block G Raptor on February 13, 2014, 03:50:25 pm ---Very good Question BlueLagos. It applies directly to myself as admin of a campaign related FB and Twitter but also from ROI. interesting. still I'm gonna close down the FB and stay off twitter for the duration for although they would be hard pushed to pin contempt of court, it could still do serious damage to the families and survivors cases.
Best to steer clear of all forums and social media
--- End quote ---
Especially late at night when people have had a few drinks.
Am sure all of us who have followed this closely the last few weeks will use a bit of common sense on the Hillsborough forum. not so sure others who rarely visit the Hillsborough forum are even aware of the ruling.
keeping away from this forum for 9 mths seems a bit drastic, personally i will follow everything closely but will not pass any opinions on the evidence or the witnesses.
DrAndrewWatt:
@BlockGRaptor
--- Quote ---Very good Question BlueLagos. It applies directly to myself as admin of a campaign related FB and Twitter but also from ROI. interesting. still I'm gonna close down the FB and stay off twitter for the duration for although they would be hard pushed to pin contempt of court, it could still do serious damage to the families and survivors cases.
Best to steer clear of all forums and social media
--- End quote ---
That seems WAY over the top to me.
Discussion of public affairs is allowed as far as I can see. Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981,
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/section/5
say this:
--- Quote ---Discussion of public affairs.
A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.
--- End quote ---
The only contempt of court prosecutions I'm aware of in recent years relates to release of names of people who, by Law, should remain anonymous.
I posted somewhere else that I'd tweeted the Attorney General's Office to ask if they'd issue guidance for the Hillsborough Inquests.
No guarantee I'll get a reply but I thought it was worth asking.
Bluelagos:
My view (Please tell me if I am wrong) is that highlighting things that are in the public domain - e.g. FIndings of the HIP or the original Taylor report - can't possibly be construed as a contempt of court?
So if someone says some utter nonsense at the enquiries or on social media (The fans were drunk etc) - Why can't any of us not rebut it with solid evidence to the contrary?
(Appreciate the RAWK guys may not wish it on here - but am thinking of Twitter or Social Media)
MichaelA:
--- Quote from: Bluelagos on February 14, 2014, 11:43:39 am ---My view (Please tell me if I am wrong) is that highlighting things that are in the public domain - e.g. FIndings of the HIP or the original Taylor report - can't possibly be construed as a contempt of court?
So if someone says some utter nonsense at the enquiries or on social media (The fans were drunk etc) - Why can't any of us not rebut it with solid evidence to the contrary?
(Appreciate the RAWK guys may not wish it on here - but am thinking of Twitter or Social Media)
--- End quote ---
That's pretty much my view. The site is taking some advice. :wave
MichaelA:
We will update when we have some clarity. In the meantime please refrain from speculative posts on the boards. Thanks.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version